16-04-2024, 06:35 AM
Dear friends,
Dear pjburkshire,
Dear Rene,
Dear Tentaculus,
Dear Nablator,
Dear R. Sale,
Dear Koen,
Dear Ruby Novacna,
Do you think that the fact that the author wrote the name of a plant 600 years ago as it is written in modern Turkish today (1/1 in the same format) is an important finding in terms of VM studies? Moreover, since we have detected words expressed with hundreds in the same situation, does this have any value in terms of VM-reading studies? I'm curious about your answers to these questions and your answer to the question below. I would be very happy if you could answer these.
To simplify the topic and the question, I'm selecting a single example from the plant drawings and plant names in the VM content. The word "SAZAK," written by the author approximately 600 years ago, is still written as "SAZAK" today. We can see that the author drew the plant on the page where this word is written.
We have read the content, and the author mentions the fruits of the plant in the content. Let's focus solely on the word "SAZAK" in the content for a moment. You can see the meaning of the word "SAZAK" in Turkish dictionaries. Many of them gives the synonym of "SAZAK" as "myrtle tree." See Turkey Turkish Dialects Dictionary for example, or "sozce" online dictionary here > SAZAK > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In the selected photo, you can see the colors and shapes of the fruits of the SAZAK plant. It seems that when the author made this drawing 600 years ago, they tried to use the same colors and draw the fruit contours in the same way. Do you think this could be a drawing/word overlap? If not, what could be the reason?
If you think that there are other plants as similar to the plant drawing on the page where the word "SAZAK" was written in VM. In this case, can you show a single example where the author wrote the names of the plants you mentioned exactly as they are written today in modern times?
Is the fact that the author wrote it as SAZAK in its current form (and the large number of similar examples) a sign that our alphabet transcription is realistic?
I don't know of any plant that grows on land but has no leaves. Yet, the author has depicted this plant without leaves. When we read the text, we understand that the author is referring to the fruit of this plant. However, they do not mention the leaves of this plant themselves. Let's say we are mistaken. Do you think, for someone drawing these leafless images, you would also consider that they are drawing the desired part of the plants? Or do you think that the author does not have such a preference regarding the drawings, and that the 112 instances of drawing/word overlaps and this writing style of SAZAK are coincidences, and that over 1000 read words and some complete page translations are also coincidences or could be imagined as anagrams?
Could I kindly learn your thoughts on these matters?
Let's forget about the 112 drawing word matches for now; Doesn't reading the word SAZAK have even a small value as a linguistic finding in terms of the information it can give to researchers?
Thanks,
Dear pjburkshire,
Dear Rene,
Dear Tentaculus,
Dear Nablator,
Dear R. Sale,
Dear Koen,
Dear Ruby Novacna,
Do you think that the fact that the author wrote the name of a plant 600 years ago as it is written in modern Turkish today (1/1 in the same format) is an important finding in terms of VM studies? Moreover, since we have detected words expressed with hundreds in the same situation, does this have any value in terms of VM-reading studies? I'm curious about your answers to these questions and your answer to the question below. I would be very happy if you could answer these.
To simplify the topic and the question, I'm selecting a single example from the plant drawings and plant names in the VM content. The word "SAZAK," written by the author approximately 600 years ago, is still written as "SAZAK" today. We can see that the author drew the plant on the page where this word is written.
We have read the content, and the author mentions the fruits of the plant in the content. Let's focus solely on the word "SAZAK" in the content for a moment. You can see the meaning of the word "SAZAK" in Turkish dictionaries. Many of them gives the synonym of "SAZAK" as "myrtle tree." See Turkey Turkish Dialects Dictionary for example, or "sozce" online dictionary here > SAZAK > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In the selected photo, you can see the colors and shapes of the fruits of the SAZAK plant. It seems that when the author made this drawing 600 years ago, they tried to use the same colors and draw the fruit contours in the same way. Do you think this could be a drawing/word overlap? If not, what could be the reason?
If you think that there are other plants as similar to the plant drawing on the page where the word "SAZAK" was written in VM. In this case, can you show a single example where the author wrote the names of the plants you mentioned exactly as they are written today in modern times?
Is the fact that the author wrote it as SAZAK in its current form (and the large number of similar examples) a sign that our alphabet transcription is realistic?
I don't know of any plant that grows on land but has no leaves. Yet, the author has depicted this plant without leaves. When we read the text, we understand that the author is referring to the fruit of this plant. However, they do not mention the leaves of this plant themselves. Let's say we are mistaken. Do you think, for someone drawing these leafless images, you would also consider that they are drawing the desired part of the plants? Or do you think that the author does not have such a preference regarding the drawings, and that the 112 instances of drawing/word overlaps and this writing style of SAZAK are coincidences, and that over 1000 read words and some complete page translations are also coincidences or could be imagined as anagrams?
Could I kindly learn your thoughts on these matters?
Let's forget about the 112 drawing word matches for now; Doesn't reading the word SAZAK have even a small value as a linguistic finding in terms of the information it can give to researchers?
Thanks,