Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

I hope some people's mental health who already checked our specific VM findings but still ignore every detail of the multiple evidence we have presented.

Hi, Ahmet, I feel offended by your statement questioning mental health of those who dare to explore the possibility that the Voynich Manuscript is not written in Turkish. This is not the way to prove your theory. If you are so sure you are right, you should not be afraid of competition, unless are afraid that somebody would dig in too deep to discredit your theory.

Even if we assume that you have identified 5 or 6 {8am} on a page that you can show in manuscripts in European languages or Hebrew, you will first have to show that the same word appears in the same language in the same meaning such as using with the same meaning in the VM texts. 

 I suppose this remark was meant for me and my posting the document with five 8am words. You have challenged me to show more documents to prove the word 8am is spelled the same and has the same meaning in different language. There is plenty of proof for that, as there is plenty of proof in the 15th century European manuscript that the letter 8 stands for D, not S.

The only proof you offered is the meaning of the word SAM/SEM. We only have your word that the medieval Turkish spelling of the Latin letter D was S, or that the Latin letter D was pronounced as S.  I am not disputing that the word SAM/SEM in Turkic is related to 'I am', since that is its meaning also in Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and many other Slavic languages.
In many Indo-European languages, the root DA/DAD is the foundation of many words related to giving. DA + suffix M (DAM) means I give in most Slavic languages. 
Just because you have determined that DAM is Turkish word SAM does not make it so, no matter how many times you copy the explanation how SAM/SEM is used in Turkish. 

[quote='Ahmet Ardıç' pid='60544' dateline='1721231461']
2- Old forms of European languages have 24 to 28 letters. Let's say there are 33 letters. And let's say there are 33 capital letters. In this case, the total will be 66 letters (340 - 66 = 274). Won't the remaining 274 writing signs have a phonetic value? Are all of them just decorating the pages?

Your claim that there are 340 different letters, which were so brilliantly written by the author that only you, and nobody else, could recognize and interpret them, is ridiculous and unscientific. Handwriting is not like typing or printing,  so many unexpected mistakes, scratches, overflown ink, unintended lines, faded ink, etc.,  happen that can slightly change the shape of the letterform. It is also true that the author might have tried to form a ligature, but did not use it. Those extra 340 glyphs you isolated occur in the Voynich Manuscript only once. If they were part of the author's language or code, they would also be used in other words. There are about 35.000 words in the entire text, so the words with those 350 glyphs you claim to decode, are practically insignificant to understanding the rest of the text. 
I suppose you never checked out any of the 15th century manuscript to see how various initials are embellished.
It is praiseworthy that you invited researchers to examine your theory, however your expectation that everybody must agree with you is unreasonable.  Even more unreasonable is your expectation that with your theory the research into Voynich Manuscript must stop.

Dear Cvetka,

You have once again taken what I wrote, distorted it, and interpreted it as if I wrote things I did not say. Don't do that. The sentences I wrote and the ones you presented as if I wrote are different and have different meanings. You either do not understand what you read or are trying to show things that were never written as if they were.

I am saying, "Despite the linguistic evidence we have presented, I hope that those who examine these yet ignore them and still search for the same evidence are in sound mind."

This is a criticism, and I did not say, as you wrote; "health of those who dare to explore the possibility that the Voynich Manuscript is not written in Turkish." These two sentences are different both in structure and meaning.

Finding the phonetic structure of the syllable or word {8am} in European manuscripts means nothing outside of anagram reading in the case of the VM. For it to mean something other than an anagram, you must first prove that the VM is a European manuscript. Then you must prove that the findings you discovered in whichever language's manuscript apply to the VM manuscript in that language. Then to do this, you need to show that the alphabet transcription you have works correctly by freely reading numerous sentences and words from randomly chosen pages. You also need to show drawing-word overlaps, and that you can read entire pages. But to prove you're not doing this as an anagram, you need to show that each word in every sentence you read corresponds phonetically and semantically with the words you claim in the relevant language by finding and showing these words in that language’s dictionaries.

This is exactly what we have done. So, stop presenting things I didn't write as if I had written them. Instead, keep demonstrating that your finding, which you show as evidence that the VM could be written in a European language, is not an anagram and that the VM texts are indeed in that language.

The best way to avoid confusion in scientific research is by planning and sticking to the plan. You probably all know this already. But for some reason, you're unable to stick to your plan. Now, those 5 instances of the word {8am} you mentioned, is it in Slovenian? Croatian? Serbian? Or which Slavic language or which European manuscript is it read from? In your work plan, you must specifically show that the VM texts are written in that specific language you mentioned. You cannot prove that these texts are in a European language by taking one word from Italian, another from Greek, another from German, and another from Serbian. To proceed this way, you must first assert that there is a common European language and prove that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root language existed in the past. Linguists, for example, couldn't manage this. The existence of the PIE root language in the past is just an assumption. It is a convenient notion for linguists, proposing that around 200 or 300 words (varying among the compared European languages, we can't even talk about 100 common words in all 400 languages) are common across approximately 400 languages. Yes, these words might be from a common root in Indo-European languages, but even that past common root being Indo-European is debatable.

In the meantime, be careful not to explain the results of your scientific studies in a double-standard manner like your linguists do.

For example; While science, through its comparative studies between languages using the same method, can claim that about 400 "Indo-European languages" could have a common root based on 100 words common across all these languages, it declared that the Sumerian language has no living relatives despite approximately 1700 common words between Sumerian and Turkish. Moreover, there are common words between Sumerian and Turkish in body part names, numerals, star names, god names, animal and plant names, action words, and many other areas. Linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman has identified about 1300 of these words and presented them in his books and articles, showing that they overlap both semantically and phonetically.

Unfortunately, European linguistics and historiography are somewhat double-standard. So is your IE history.

You called the period, that caused the death of millions of Indigenous people in America to be exploited for gold, land, and economic resources, "the discovery of America." And you celebrate this day every year. Your way of writing history strokes European pride but forgets that the greatest conflicts in history started with injustices.

So, don’t get me wrong; I didn’t write these for you. I wrote these so that you, as "Europeans", learn or remember that your way of writing history and linguistics is somewhat distant from the truth and full of distorted definitions or naming. There’s no need to think so Eurocentrically regarding the VM.

Linguists, according to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language hypothesis, propose that approximately 400 different languages descended from a common ancestral language in the past. The number of words claimed to be common across all of these 400 languages (within the intersection set) ranges from approximately 60 to 100.

However, ancient peoples who didn’t know the numerals or, even if they knew, were influenced by the languages of neighboring peoples who taught them mathematics, could very well have borrowed these name words from the languages of neighboring peoples. Or, in naming body parts, the phonetic structure in the neighboring people's language could be adopted and, after some time, replace their naming in their language. Claiming that certain groups of words cannot transfer from one language to another and attributing special importance to them completely contradicts logic. Such deductions, although they seem reasonable, fundamentally contradict reason and science. So, your linguistics, no matter how fanciful it appears, is built upon false assumptions.

Why is this so? When the British, who wanted to exploit the resources of India, were working to economically colonize India in the 1700s, the resistance and willingness to fight from the Indians became an issue. To eliminate this desire, a PIE theory was proposed, ordered by politicians to academics, to say "Our ancestors and our language are common." This distorted political construct is what you’ve built an entire field of linguistics upon. However, your theories that lull and numb your people aren’t even respected in some parts of the world.

Don’t be surprised at what I wrote. Try to be open to alternative thoughts. If you prove that PIE is a common root language, try to match a few words from each European language across the 240 pages of the VM. Maybe this way, you won’t just solve the texts of the VM but also support the PIE theories written by your ancestors for political purposes, with the existence of a 600-year-old book.

Anyway, let's not prolong the subject. Stop declaring things I didn't write as if I did, and focus on your research. Perhaps with some effort, you and the other group members might have the chance to prove the existence of the PIE root language so that following this difficult task, you can gather material to finally explain which European language the VM texts are in.

Thanks,