27-02-2024, 09:08 PM
Dear Rene,
If a researcher has introduced a new scientific method to the methods applied by linguists and if this method is considered explanatory, then the method, which is thought to be explanatory, cannot be outside the scientific field. But in any case it is not possible to reach a solution with approaches outside scientific & linguistic methods.
Linguists cannot use the statistical approach as a verification tool in unknown dialects. However, we also partially use statistical methods as an additional evidence.
The text is meaningful with using ATA transcription in Turkish shown.
- It is certainly that the text is meaningful.
In our articles that have garnered praise from linguists, we precisely demonstrated meaningful sentences and full-page readings in VM texts. In doing so, we relied on evidence and ancient dictionaries to illustrate them.
There is no such thing as encrypted texts spanning 240 pages. It's entirely written in a natural language. The Voynich Manuscript texts are written in Old Turkish (in a dialect that we haven't fully explained yet). Determining the dialect precisely will take some more time. However, current results indicate that this dialect is more likely from the Black Sea region, Istanbul, and Balkan accents. The Voynich Manuscript texts are partly written in word spelling style, dividing words into syllables, and sometimes combining a few words and often written in abbreviated form. (Moreover, our author may be one of the minorities whose native language is not Turkish, but he/she wrote in Turkish.)
However, it's shown that there are also numerous sentences that are read very clearly. In fact, it can be said that there has been no manipulation in any writing style in these sections.
As you know, linguistic methods certainly involve statistical approaches, but they are not limited to that alone.
The language of the texts has been understood. Turkish words have been seen on every line throughout the 240 pages. When the unidentified words are identified, the entire 240 pages can be translated into modern languages.
Our work papers never reject by linguists who works in Turkish. This may be relevant for those who do not speak Turkish and have not yet thoroughly examined our work.
We as ATA team never presents the beginning of a solution only, but more than this. Firstly, we created an alphabet transcription that allows us to determine the language in the content, and this key has enabled us to read the entire 240 pages. As I mentioned, we see Turkish sentences and words clearly in every line of this book (approximately throughout 240 pages). Some sentences are read without difficulty, while others, due to a few words, cannot yet be translated into today's language, but eventually, all will be read. As I said, our study not only helped us understand which language is in the texts but also facilitated the understanding of the texts.
Turkish is an agglutinative language. For example, when writing scientific texts and using the present tense, it's common to see the same suffixes (phonetic elements) in words. However, this doesn't mean that every Turkish text should follow the same pattern. This is precisely where you have fallen into the fundamental misconception. In order to use statistical approach in comparative linguistics, you first need to find two texts to compare.
If one of these texts is the Voynich Manuscript (VM) and the other is selected when we clearly identify the dialect, Turkish's different dialects can be match another with statistical way. In fact, if you compare 2 different dialects in Turkish, those dialects may not show statistical matches with each other. Sentence structures may even differ. While in one dialect the subject pronoun may be at the beginning and the predicate at the end, in another dialect this structure may not be followed. Moreover, word suffixes may also vary. Furthermore, in some Turkish dialects, there may not be enough written or ancient texts to compare statistically. Many texts are in this situation and they are read as Turkish without resorting to statistical data. Thus, a solution can be reached without using statistical methods. If this were not the case, Sumerian inscriptions would have remained unread. Linguists write that the Sumerian language is not related to any known language. So, what statistical comparison method could linguists who first managed to read this language have used? Therefore, statistical methods you mention will not be verification tools. If so, the fact that the Sumerian language has been read would have to be explained as unverified information. However, linguists say they can read the Sumerian language and translate meaningful sentences into modern languages, which is true. Moreover, tens of thousands of Sumerian inscriptions remain unread. Nevertheless, linguists claim that this language has been deciphered, and they are correct. Linguists cannot use the statistical approach as a verification tool in unknown dialects. However, we also partially use statistical methods. For example, we have shown with this method that the writing patterns of word triples, quadruples, and quintuples overlap between the Voynich Manuscript and Turkish.
We already be able to translate the most frequent words as I proposed in another thread. But never think that these all of the words would also be frequent words in old Turkish. Because this detail is clearly a dialect oriented point.
With our study in Turkish, linguistic knowledge of the proposed source language already matched. With our study, knowledge of the special features of the text in the Voynich-MS/Turkish are already matched too. We have clearly demonstrated these with specific examples in our previous posts here and in our own articles.
Do not be very doubtful that the linguistic experts. Your sentence about related linguistic experts that like "it will be impossible for them to properly estimate the likelihood that your solution is correct." you uttered seems to convey a rather haughty tone. Please try to understand our articles in a consistent and detailed manner, recognizing that you may not have any knowledge of Turkish and Old Turkish, rather than assuming that experts in the field lack the linguistic competence to evaluate our work.
Yes, there are more than half a dozen proposed solutions that are based on individual words or short fragments, and may be you cannot see any reason to prefer one above the other because your linguistic knowledge.
Your lack of knowledge of Turkish in making such a distinction is quite understandable. However, to be able to compare the evidence we present with similar claims, you need to be able to examine the evidence presented in comparative linguistics. Our claim that "VM contains Turkish" has now been proven. It is not for me to determine at what stage you will understand or whether you will understand at all. Even if no one on this page is convinced, the conviction of experts in Old Turkish is sufficient. The content of VM is Turkish. Whether you believe it or not, this has been proven beyond doubt and in a very clear manner.
In fact, if person A says it's language X or I say it's Turkish, you can still see whether the results and evidence are scientific or realistic without knowing those languages in detail. If you can't do this or think you won't be able to see it, then of course, in this case, you can put all the claims in the same bag.
We understand that those who will approve the outcome are professionals in the field of that language. In other words, if Person A claims that it is Language X, then those who will approve or reject the outcome should be experts in Language X. By the way, whether you have understood or not whether Language X is a real result or not for you or myself or any other person opinion has no value for a linguist in X language area. However, if experts in Language X begin to congratulate the claimant, carefully re-reading what the claimant has written may perhaps show you the true result as well.
The statistical approach is valuable and is also used by us. Many ancient texts that were previously unreadable have been deciphered without the statistical approach. Because what matters is to use the methods within linguistics. We have used both and demonstrated the overlaps.
Your thoughts on the confirmatory value of statistical methods are not consistent with scientific practices. In other words, I can say that you make many incorrect inferences in many details, and you try to proceed assuming that your incorrect inferences are correct. However, as I mentioned, statistical comparisons are not always made. Evidently, ancient texts have been deciphered without statistical comparisons. Statistical methods are useful for providing additional evidence, but they are not indispensable. Linguistics has read almost all ancient inscriptions without them, and you should be aware of this or take it into account. What adds value to a study is not the opinions of critics but the information and evidence in the content, and whether it is scientific or not.
I believe you have the maturity to accept my criticisms with understanding. My intention is not to offend you, but I wanted to point out that it would be erroneous to view an incorrect inference as a means of verification.
Thank you for reading.
Kind regards
A. Ardıç
If a researcher has introduced a new scientific method to the methods applied by linguists and if this method is considered explanatory, then the method, which is thought to be explanatory, cannot be outside the scientific field. But in any case it is not possible to reach a solution with approaches outside scientific & linguistic methods.
Linguists cannot use the statistical approach as a verification tool in unknown dialects. However, we also partially use statistical methods as an additional evidence.
The text is meaningful with using ATA transcription in Turkish shown.
- It is certainly that the text is meaningful.
In our articles that have garnered praise from linguists, we precisely demonstrated meaningful sentences and full-page readings in VM texts. In doing so, we relied on evidence and ancient dictionaries to illustrate them.
There is no such thing as encrypted texts spanning 240 pages. It's entirely written in a natural language. The Voynich Manuscript texts are written in Old Turkish (in a dialect that we haven't fully explained yet). Determining the dialect precisely will take some more time. However, current results indicate that this dialect is more likely from the Black Sea region, Istanbul, and Balkan accents. The Voynich Manuscript texts are partly written in word spelling style, dividing words into syllables, and sometimes combining a few words and often written in abbreviated form. (Moreover, our author may be one of the minorities whose native language is not Turkish, but he/she wrote in Turkish.)
However, it's shown that there are also numerous sentences that are read very clearly. In fact, it can be said that there has been no manipulation in any writing style in these sections.
As you know, linguistic methods certainly involve statistical approaches, but they are not limited to that alone.
The language of the texts has been understood. Turkish words have been seen on every line throughout the 240 pages. When the unidentified words are identified, the entire 240 pages can be translated into modern languages.
Our work papers never reject by linguists who works in Turkish. This may be relevant for those who do not speak Turkish and have not yet thoroughly examined our work.
We as ATA team never presents the beginning of a solution only, but more than this. Firstly, we created an alphabet transcription that allows us to determine the language in the content, and this key has enabled us to read the entire 240 pages. As I mentioned, we see Turkish sentences and words clearly in every line of this book (approximately throughout 240 pages). Some sentences are read without difficulty, while others, due to a few words, cannot yet be translated into today's language, but eventually, all will be read. As I said, our study not only helped us understand which language is in the texts but also facilitated the understanding of the texts.
Turkish is an agglutinative language. For example, when writing scientific texts and using the present tense, it's common to see the same suffixes (phonetic elements) in words. However, this doesn't mean that every Turkish text should follow the same pattern. This is precisely where you have fallen into the fundamental misconception. In order to use statistical approach in comparative linguistics, you first need to find two texts to compare.
If one of these texts is the Voynich Manuscript (VM) and the other is selected when we clearly identify the dialect, Turkish's different dialects can be match another with statistical way. In fact, if you compare 2 different dialects in Turkish, those dialects may not show statistical matches with each other. Sentence structures may even differ. While in one dialect the subject pronoun may be at the beginning and the predicate at the end, in another dialect this structure may not be followed. Moreover, word suffixes may also vary. Furthermore, in some Turkish dialects, there may not be enough written or ancient texts to compare statistically. Many texts are in this situation and they are read as Turkish without resorting to statistical data. Thus, a solution can be reached without using statistical methods. If this were not the case, Sumerian inscriptions would have remained unread. Linguists write that the Sumerian language is not related to any known language. So, what statistical comparison method could linguists who first managed to read this language have used? Therefore, statistical methods you mention will not be verification tools. If so, the fact that the Sumerian language has been read would have to be explained as unverified information. However, linguists say they can read the Sumerian language and translate meaningful sentences into modern languages, which is true. Moreover, tens of thousands of Sumerian inscriptions remain unread. Nevertheless, linguists claim that this language has been deciphered, and they are correct. Linguists cannot use the statistical approach as a verification tool in unknown dialects. However, we also partially use statistical methods. For example, we have shown with this method that the writing patterns of word triples, quadruples, and quintuples overlap between the Voynich Manuscript and Turkish.
We already be able to translate the most frequent words as I proposed in another thread. But never think that these all of the words would also be frequent words in old Turkish. Because this detail is clearly a dialect oriented point.
With our study in Turkish, linguistic knowledge of the proposed source language already matched. With our study, knowledge of the special features of the text in the Voynich-MS/Turkish are already matched too. We have clearly demonstrated these with specific examples in our previous posts here and in our own articles.
Do not be very doubtful that the linguistic experts. Your sentence about related linguistic experts that like "it will be impossible for them to properly estimate the likelihood that your solution is correct." you uttered seems to convey a rather haughty tone. Please try to understand our articles in a consistent and detailed manner, recognizing that you may not have any knowledge of Turkish and Old Turkish, rather than assuming that experts in the field lack the linguistic competence to evaluate our work.
Yes, there are more than half a dozen proposed solutions that are based on individual words or short fragments, and may be you cannot see any reason to prefer one above the other because your linguistic knowledge.
Your lack of knowledge of Turkish in making such a distinction is quite understandable. However, to be able to compare the evidence we present with similar claims, you need to be able to examine the evidence presented in comparative linguistics. Our claim that "VM contains Turkish" has now been proven. It is not for me to determine at what stage you will understand or whether you will understand at all. Even if no one on this page is convinced, the conviction of experts in Old Turkish is sufficient. The content of VM is Turkish. Whether you believe it or not, this has been proven beyond doubt and in a very clear manner.
In fact, if person A says it's language X or I say it's Turkish, you can still see whether the results and evidence are scientific or realistic without knowing those languages in detail. If you can't do this or think you won't be able to see it, then of course, in this case, you can put all the claims in the same bag.
We understand that those who will approve the outcome are professionals in the field of that language. In other words, if Person A claims that it is Language X, then those who will approve or reject the outcome should be experts in Language X. By the way, whether you have understood or not whether Language X is a real result or not for you or myself or any other person opinion has no value for a linguist in X language area. However, if experts in Language X begin to congratulate the claimant, carefully re-reading what the claimant has written may perhaps show you the true result as well.
The statistical approach is valuable and is also used by us. Many ancient texts that were previously unreadable have been deciphered without the statistical approach. Because what matters is to use the methods within linguistics. We have used both and demonstrated the overlaps.
Your thoughts on the confirmatory value of statistical methods are not consistent with scientific practices. In other words, I can say that you make many incorrect inferences in many details, and you try to proceed assuming that your incorrect inferences are correct. However, as I mentioned, statistical comparisons are not always made. Evidently, ancient texts have been deciphered without statistical comparisons. Statistical methods are useful for providing additional evidence, but they are not indispensable. Linguistics has read almost all ancient inscriptions without them, and you should be aware of this or take it into account. What adds value to a study is not the opinions of critics but the information and evidence in the content, and whether it is scientific or not.
I believe you have the maturity to accept my criticisms with understanding. My intention is not to offend you, but I wanted to point out that it would be erroneous to view an incorrect inference as a means of verification.
Thank you for reading.
Kind regards
A. Ardıç