27-02-2024, 11:11 PM
[quote="cvetkakocj@rogers.com" pid='57847' dateline='1709057676']
[According to Ahmet's logic, only Turkish linguists can judge the VM and claim or disclaim whether the language is actually Old Turkic. The Voynich solution is not depended on confirmation only, but also on disproving other possible theories. As long as any other theory is floating around, the Turkish team and the experts defending Turkic theory would have to convince non-Turkish Voynich experts why Turkish theory is better and why it can exclude all possible future proposals.]
Dear Cvetka,
Are you trying to read my thoughts? I didn't quite understand that. However, those who read your comment may mistakenly believe that I have the kind of logic you described. Please read my papers to understand what I think and what I don't, instead of trying to speak on behalf of others.
A theory, in a sense, is a kind of assumption. What we call a theory is actually a hypothesis or a system of ideas based on general principles, presented within a certain logic. The verification of a theory does not depend on whether another theory is refuted or not. If a previously confirmed matter is to be overturned or renewed by another theory, the claimant can show that the previous data considered true is actually incorrect. These are two different things. One presents beliefs, the other presents evidence. One theory can be invalidated by another piece of evidence. A belief can be invalidated by evidence. But one belief cannot be invalidated by another belief. It is not necessary to disprove one theory with another theory. Multiple different theories on the same subject can exist in the scientific environment simultaneously. What is needed is to reach findings that will validate the theories. Additionally, it is not our task to refute other VM-natural-language theories. However, I certainly read other VM theories (if they have been published in a reputable journal, symposium, or academic institution, or if the theorist is a linguist). It's quite enjoyable for me to read alternative theories on the VM topic. If you know how to distinguish between a consistent theory and an inconsistent one, you shouldn't put all theories into the same box. Not every researcher can do this.
Normally, I don't respond to comments like yours, but first, you should try to understand what's what. In doing so, I recommend examining what is happening in scientific practice and not confusing concepts.
There are many theories about the VM. If you have your own theory, you cannot validate it yourself. In other words, if you claim that these texts are in X language, the validation of this claim will ultimately be made by experts who work with the X language at a professional level. So, my advice to you is to submit your articles to experts/academics who claim to know the X language.
Slavic languages are Indo-European languages and have no connection other than borrowing words from Turkish (each other).
The Codex Cumanicus is written in the Kipchak-Cuman dialect of the Turkish language in 14th century, and its sentence structure is based on that. However, there are thousands of other manuscripts written in the Turkish language. For example, we have manuscripts dating back to the year 1000 and even earlier. Such as Dîvânu Lugâti't-Türk (Great Turkish Dictionary Compilation) is a Turkish dictionary written by Kâşgarlı Mahmud between 1072 and 1074 during the Middle Turkish period. We also reference this dictionary and many other old dictionaries and manuscripts when appropriate.
If we are going to talk about information that falls within the scope of linguistics, many things you wrote in your comment are incorrect. However, my goal here is not to improve your linguistic knowledge, of course, but I can recommend you to read more scientific articles to make stating facts instead of opinions a habit on these matters.
Knowledge is everything. But the ability to understand whether any piece of knowledge is true or not is itself a separate kind of knowledge.
Thank you for reading. I hope it was helpful.
A. Ardıç
[According to Ahmet's logic, only Turkish linguists can judge the VM and claim or disclaim whether the language is actually Old Turkic. The Voynich solution is not depended on confirmation only, but also on disproving other possible theories. As long as any other theory is floating around, the Turkish team and the experts defending Turkic theory would have to convince non-Turkish Voynich experts why Turkish theory is better and why it can exclude all possible future proposals.]
Dear Cvetka,
Are you trying to read my thoughts? I didn't quite understand that. However, those who read your comment may mistakenly believe that I have the kind of logic you described. Please read my papers to understand what I think and what I don't, instead of trying to speak on behalf of others.
A theory, in a sense, is a kind of assumption. What we call a theory is actually a hypothesis or a system of ideas based on general principles, presented within a certain logic. The verification of a theory does not depend on whether another theory is refuted or not. If a previously confirmed matter is to be overturned or renewed by another theory, the claimant can show that the previous data considered true is actually incorrect. These are two different things. One presents beliefs, the other presents evidence. One theory can be invalidated by another piece of evidence. A belief can be invalidated by evidence. But one belief cannot be invalidated by another belief. It is not necessary to disprove one theory with another theory. Multiple different theories on the same subject can exist in the scientific environment simultaneously. What is needed is to reach findings that will validate the theories. Additionally, it is not our task to refute other VM-natural-language theories. However, I certainly read other VM theories (if they have been published in a reputable journal, symposium, or academic institution, or if the theorist is a linguist). It's quite enjoyable for me to read alternative theories on the VM topic. If you know how to distinguish between a consistent theory and an inconsistent one, you shouldn't put all theories into the same box. Not every researcher can do this.
Normally, I don't respond to comments like yours, but first, you should try to understand what's what. In doing so, I recommend examining what is happening in scientific practice and not confusing concepts.
There are many theories about the VM. If you have your own theory, you cannot validate it yourself. In other words, if you claim that these texts are in X language, the validation of this claim will ultimately be made by experts who work with the X language at a professional level. So, my advice to you is to submit your articles to experts/academics who claim to know the X language.
Slavic languages are Indo-European languages and have no connection other than borrowing words from Turkish (each other).
The Codex Cumanicus is written in the Kipchak-Cuman dialect of the Turkish language in 14th century, and its sentence structure is based on that. However, there are thousands of other manuscripts written in the Turkish language. For example, we have manuscripts dating back to the year 1000 and even earlier. Such as Dîvânu Lugâti't-Türk (Great Turkish Dictionary Compilation) is a Turkish dictionary written by Kâşgarlı Mahmud between 1072 and 1074 during the Middle Turkish period. We also reference this dictionary and many other old dictionaries and manuscripts when appropriate.
If we are going to talk about information that falls within the scope of linguistics, many things you wrote in your comment are incorrect. However, my goal here is not to improve your linguistic knowledge, of course, but I can recommend you to read more scientific articles to make stating facts instead of opinions a habit on these matters.
Knowledge is everything. But the ability to understand whether any piece of knowledge is true or not is itself a separate kind of knowledge.
Thank you for reading. I hope it was helpful.
A. Ardıç