(03-04-2022, 10:14 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mr. Rene said that; "Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics."
Ahmet,
I understand your assumption that the computer analysis cannot solve all the problems and clearly identify the language, such as vowel/consonant ratio, the number and the length of words, because of the way the words are written (some words have additional diphtongs, some have missing vowels, or even missing consonants), missing or unwarranted spaces. Without knowing the language, there is also a problem with interpreting some Voynich glyphs like EVA-iin and iiin, as Dr. Bax and others pointed out. However, there are things that had been already determined with the computer analysis, such as the prefixes and suffixes.
You claim that EVA-daiin is Turkish suffix -SAM, meaning 'I am'. A suffix is always attached to the end of the word, and in the VM, there are at least 600 free-standing DAM words, half of them in the first 25 pages. You cannot just attach them to the previous words to work with your theory.
I understand your reasoning, because Slovenian language has many similar properties as Turkish. It is highly inflective, expresses tense, gender, number with grammatical endings, so that the personal pronouns, such as English 'I' are not necessary. The vocabulary also include many similar words, after all, Slovenian language still contains over 600 Sanskrit words, many of which I believe are also still preserved in Turkish language.
You read EVA word 'daiin' as SAM, I read it as DAM (I give). It works just as well for Slovenian language, as it works as 'I m' for your translation. Furthermore, I do not need to eliminate the space in front of this word, and I can explain the suffixes attached to it as different conjugation. I can explain the prefixes, EVA qo and o, and what they add to the word DAM.
Because I read EVA q as P and you read it as D, I read your word DAM as SAM, which also works for Slovenian language, because we use the same word SAM/SEM for 'I am'. In the present tense, this word can only be used with adjective, but in the past tense, it serves as a helping verb.
The word DAM as a verb has the suffix -am (with the root bein DA, one A is dropped), however due to vowel harmony, in other verbs, the suffix can change to -im, -om, -um. So, you see, Turkish is not so unique. At the same time, when DAM is a free-standing word, it means 'I give', while the free-standing word DOM means 'home'. In this case, the sound value could not be changed at will. There are certain grammatical patterns that need to be explained.
Now to the Rene's proposal:
I understand your frustration, because I am encountering similar problems. Not that I cannot find the Slovenian text from that period with many words, even exactly the same, or sounding the same, but the spoken language has changed quite a bit due to the political situation. The spoken Slovenian has separated from Old Church Slavonic, used in Glagolitic liturgy, so that by the time first Slovenian books were printed by the Protestant writers, there was heavy German influence, including the insertion of vowels for unwritten semi-vowels, replacing Glagolitic 'i' (and) for 'inu'. Also, different Latin letters were used for some sound, depending of the linguistic background of the priests who wrote the text. On top of that, the VM has totally different content and different religious terminology.
I checked a lot of medieval books and documents, and I could not find a single sentence that could look exactly the same as a sentence taken from the VM. This does not mean that the language could not be verified.
Your explanation that since computer experts were not able to determine the language in past 100 years, you must be right and computer experts are wrong. A lot has been done without even knowing the language - like recognizing the prefixes and suffixes.
What computer analysts have determined so far is the frequent use of certain words, letters, syllables. These need explanation and can be compared to the use in Turkish or Slovenian, or any other language. If the translation alphabet is correct, some idea of the language could be determined from the frequency of certain prepositions.
The prefixes could be found in dictionaries, but the suffixes are often not shown, although some dictionaries show the grammatical ending for 1. and 3. person singular, and for passives. This has to be further adjusted for the pronunciation, but in general, it works.
There is a pattern in the VM regarding spaces that needs explanation, and perhaps example in some other writing. You cannot just group the words together, or put them apart at your own will. If the author was smart enough to expand Latin alphabet to over 100 characters, as you claim, he would also use spaces wisely and correctly.
Your example of the word OKUMAK explains the possible transformation of the word in different text, and even different pronunciation, but there is no such word as OK U MAK in the VM, although you claim the word is divided that way.
It would also be highly unlikely that a travelling family that according to your theory authored the VM, would be trained in humanistic writing and humanistic alchemical art, and even more unlikely that they would draw the plants by memory with root that looks eagle or two headless lions.
It is easy to take an exotic plant and claim that the name is written somewhere among the text, and then write a story about it, like you did about the sunflower. There is no agreement as to the identification of that plant.
While it looks impressive that you are able to find the names of the some exotic plants, it is at the same strange that you cannot find the names of those plants that could be identified. You will not prove the language is Turkish, if you cannot translate the words that appear at least 100 of times in the VM.
Therefore, do not lecture me that my method is wrong, just because you believe yours is right to the exclusion to all others. Understanding Slovenian language and its dialects, as well as its historical connection to the ancient Anatolian languages gives me advantage other VM researchers do not have. And I am the first to admit that they accomplished a lot based on illustrations alone, by pinpointing the location of the origin of the VM in the region, where Slovenian language was and still is spoken.
Maybe with some humility, we can compare the theories, and help each other, and Turkish linguists, to determine the 'dialect'. After all, there was a strong Slavic community in Turkey, as I read recently in an article.
Cvetka