Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[tavie]

I was going to use quotes but it just became too messy.

1. A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic.  It does not provide proof of a genetic relationship.  Languages can change to become more or less agglutinative.
   
   
2. No, we do not have enough information about Etruscan to establish relationships with today's languages.  We have enough information to determine with a high degree of certainty which languages it is not closely related to.  But we cannot connect it with any existing language families.  We certainly cannot connect it with Turkic languages because written records of Turkic languages are far too modern.
   
   
3. I don't think you understand how much effort and evidence is required to connect far-flung languages into one macro-family.  It's not as simple as saying they are agglutinative, and that you've found similar words.  There has to be regular systemic correspondences, showing consistent phonological changes from the ancestor language to the daughter languages.  Extensive work was done on this to classify the Indo-European family, including the status of Hittite.  Way more extensive effort and evidence would be required to connect Turkic with Etruscan or Sumerian because any common ancestor would be much older than Proto-Indo-European.  And again - you don't have any ancient Turkic texts to help you with that problem. 
   
   In this thread and that other thread, you rubbished the work done to establish the Indo-European family and Hittite's place within it, yet asserted with far less evidence that Hittite was Turkic.  That is pseudolinguistics.
   
   
4. Let's say somehow someone was able to establish a relationship between Etruscan, Sumerian, and Turkic languages that was taken seriously by a majority of linguists.  That would not necessarily make Etruscan and Sumerian Turkic any more than the classification of Indo European makes Russian a Germanic language.  They would be cousins in the same macrolanguage family that would be given some name like Eurasiatic. 
   
   Your posts display some odd concept about "claiming" languages.  I'll repeat.  Etruscan (barring links with Rhaetic and Lemnian) and Sumerian are not classed as language isolates because linguists thought "if our Indo European mother family can't have them, then no one can!" (Did they have an off day when it came to Ancient Egyptian?).  They are classed as language isolates because there is no even remotely convincing evidence of their relation to current language families.  Unlike Ancient Egyptian.
   
   
5. No, it is not "linguistically highly probable" that the "Paleolithic continuity theory" is true.  It is classed as a fringe theory.  That means the exact opposite to what you claim.  If it were linguistically highly probable, it would be part of academic consensus.  But it isn't.  It doesn't even have the status of a respectable but unproven hypothesis that divides academics. 
   
   
6. Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what we know about the invention of writing systems.  What you are describing - carving marks on rocks - is not what linguists call writing.  It is more like proto-writing, and I cannot see the relevance of this at all here. 
   
   
7. Nothing in this thread should be described as being "in the name of science".  In the name of Isaac Newton, I beg you to stop saying your approach is scientific.  You haven't expressed the slightest doubt about your Voynichese solution being correct nor shown any self-scrutiny around your methodology.  This is pseudoscience.