• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript
• Thread Closed
• Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 21-04-2022, 09:07 AM

  (20-04-2022, 10:42 PM)DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="Ahmet Ardıç" pid='50012' dateline='1650471638']
  
  
  [None of this helps your case with the Voynich Manuscript.]

  
  -----------------
  
  You're telling me, "None of this is helping your Voynich Manuscript case." Even this sentence of yours tells us that you went to the task of giving memorized answer without reading what was written. We already wrote earlier that these have nothing to do with Voynich. So we have no such claim. But I say that the alphabet that your academies call Runic is actually Turkic alphabets. It is necessary to know the connection between the tamga signs and Latin alphabet to the Sumerian cuneiform and the Alphabet Derivatives called Runic, and how they were born and evolved from early thamgas.
  
  In the Voynich texts, there are various Runic signs as well as some of the Latin alphabet signs. Here, while making some explanations about the evaluation of these Runic signs with phonetic values and structurally Turkish language, I also mentioned Etruscan writings based on the examples given. Otherwise, of course, there is no direct connection between the two issues.
  
  First, take a good look at the ATA transcription we made. Otherwise you'll try to judge the readings made with our ATA transcription by thinking of EVA. Etruscan inscriptions were read in the same way. Your transcriptions are inaccurate and the readings are useless. That's what we're saying. For this reason, you should not talk about the phonetic harmony of Turkish, nor the word suffixes or prefixes, starting with an erroneous transcription.
  
  In other words, the key in our hand allows you and us to open this door. For example in Etruscan readings, you used the pick-key or sledgehammer that thieves use to open each door, rather than the correct key to open the door. For this reason, you don't have a chance to understand what I'm writing here and why I'm writing those before you start to look the page with using different glasses or key. Park the memorized information in your hand and mind aside. Use a new pair of glasses. Otherwise, like as "the revisionist voynich expert" of the Western university to which we were sent our article, you may read the word (wich was wrote with using ATA key) with EVA or another key, because of using your old learned ways, and than after you can start telling us that "there is no such word in Turkish" for sure.
  
  Thanks for reading,

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 21-04-2022, 09:14 AM

  (20-04-2022, 10:42 PM)DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="Ahmet Ardıç" pid='50012' dateline='1650471638']
  
  
  [Before replying, I suggest you read either the books by the Bonfantes and Rex Wallace (the best introductions to the Etruscan language) to learn what is accepted by scholars, rather than fringe theories.   Also, please quote sources written in English.   Not many people here will know Turkish.
  
  None of this helps your case with the Voynich Manuscript.]

  
  -----------------
  
  
  
  We refer to different sources that express completely different views. For this reason, in order to understand the details I have written, you please first examine the structure of Turkish and read the sources I have mentioned.
  
  For example, the alphabet transcriptions made in the sources you read for Etruscan scripts are based on incorrect phonetic mappings.
  
  When this is the case, you do not have any knowledge of what the content in the articles I mentioned means in terms of Turkish and how it should be compared. Do not take this statement as if it were made against you, because most European linguistics working in this kind of transcription works field are in the same situation.
  
  In other words, from the very beginning of this issue, you have been accepted the books and articles written according to the texts that have been read in the form of anagrams with an incorrect (transcription) key as correct. That's why you don't even understand what I'm writing to you.
  
  Etruscan did not have gender in personal names such as Turkish. You can't get these comparisons right by reading the work of the anagram kings of your European academies.
  
  First, read the following authors to start:
  
  Linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman
  Prof. Dr. Firudin A. Celilov
  Prof. Dr. Çhingiz Karaşarlı
  Researcher and author Selahi Diker
  Engineer and Linguist Kazım Mirşan
  Read the books of Research Writer Adile Ayda. (She may have probably written some in Italian.)
  
  In addition, the researcher and writer Fazıl Latipov from Bashkortostan wrote that Etruscans are a Turkic-speaking people by mentioning the overlap in the language structure based on some historical findings and similarities. 
  
  In addition, you can read the articles written by Mehmet Turgay Kürüm describing how the Runic inscriptions were read in Turkish on the historical findings that were attributed to the Greek civilization in the Mediterranean or described as unknown by whom.
  
  History and language researcher Cengiz Özakıncı (He has presentations on youtube where he explains Greek and Etruscan history of Turkic connection with evidences. He also summarized very well why and for what reason the concept of Indo European was produced, by whom and by whose order. Etc.)
  
  In order to explain these 14 items to you, I also need to write a book and go into all the details. I don't have the time or energy for that. But it is clear from your answer that there is quite a lack of information. I cannot complete these shortcomings, but you should read more and alternative claims with comparing them.
  
  Your academies should translate the books and articles into their own language. I or anyone else will not do these translations. Translation works are not our area. We write our books and articles in our own language. Moreover, some concepts do not even have an English equivalent, but of course, this is the job of professional translators who can translate at an academic level.
  
  I know that many people here do not speak Turkish. Nobody needs to know Turkish. Just put pressure on your academies and have them translate the articles and history books I mentioned into English. 
  
  
  Thanks for reading,

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  tavie > 21-04-2022, 01:49 PM

  (21-04-2022, 09:07 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're telling me, "None of this is helping your Voynich Manuscript case." Even this sentence of yours tells us that you went to the task of giving memorized answer without reading what was written. We already wrote earlier that these have nothing to do with Voynich. So we have no such claim.

  
  You are missing the point here.  Read the start of this thread and see how your theory that Voynichese was Turkish was received with interest and unusual good-will...and now see how it has ended up with you pushing all sorts of nationalistic fringe theories about Sumerian being Turkish, Hittite being Turkish, Etruscan being Turkish while simultaneously projecting this kind of behaviour onto us and implying we are actively or passively part of some western academic conspiracy for the sake of Proto-Indo-European.  I am tired of the assumptions you project onto me about what I "want" Sumerian, Hittite, Etruscan or Voynichese to be whenever I reply to you.
  
  This is the problem with nationalism.  You disagreed with me on the other thread that nationalism was a problem.  Well, this thread shows why.  When it is clear your work is motivated by nationalism, you will no longer be seen as objective, nor taken seriously.

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 22-04-2022, 01:22 PM

  (21-04-2022, 01:49 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (21-04-2022, 09:07 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're telling me, "None of this is helping your Voynich Manuscript case." Even this sentence of yours tells us that you went to the task of giving memorized answer without reading what was written. We already wrote earlier that these have nothing to do with Voynich. So we have no such claim.

  
  [You are missing the point here.  Read the start of this thread and see how your theory that Voynichese was Turkish was received with interest and unusual good-will...and now see how it has ended up with you pushing all sorts of nationalistic fringe theories about Sumerian being Turkish, Hittite being Turkish, Etruscan being Turkish while simultaneously projecting this kind of behaviour onto us and implying we are actively or passively part of some western academic conspiracy for the sake of Proto-Indo-European.  I am tired of the assumptions you project onto me about what I "want" Sumerian, Hittite, Etruscan or Voynichese to be whenever I reply to you.
  
  This is the problem with nationalism. You disagreed with me on the other thread that nationalism was a problem.  Well, this thread shows why.  When it is clear your work is motivated by nationalism, you will no longer be seen as objective, nor taken seriously.]

  
  
  
  Dear Tavie,
  
  This is the second time this topic comes up on this page and I have answered it before, but I think it was not understood or read.
  
  Should I thank you for saying "Received ATA team theory with interest and unusual good-will?" Thank you for such a welcome, however it would be better to treat all coherent theories or claims with equal interest.
  
  Here we present information about our own research, which is incomplete yet but has very positive early results. Whether this is met with "unusual-good-will" or not is probably related to your view of our theory.
  
  The most frequently asked question to us on this page and on social media was how Turks could write such a book while using the Arabic alphabet. As we go into the details of the alphabet, it is necessary to give some examples so that the situation can be understood well. For example, we show that Etruscan Runic signs and Gok-Turk Runic inscriptions in Asia are highly similar in visual-drawing types. Moreover, some of them are read in the same phonetic value. There is a time difference of thousands of years between them. Also, the geographies are different.
  
  The Gök Türk inscriptions are mostly on the obelisks, but they are scattered all over Asia in numbers expressed in thousands. Today, most of them are illegible due to natural wear. Since these are written on stones, it is not possible to determine their age in the laboratory environment. Based on the natural erosion of these inscriptions, such as rain and wind, there have been researchers who claimed that some of them may be older than 2000 thousand or 3000 thousand years. However, the ages of some of the inscriptions, which have relatively little natural wear and are therefore characterized as more recent, are known because they are read.
  
  The "Kül Tigin Inscription" was written in 732, and the "Bilge Kagan Inscription" was written in 735. They were read by the Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen in 1893 with the help of the Russian Turcologist Vasili Radlof. If I remember correctly, on 15 December 1893, these readings were explained to the scientific world in an article and a statement at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences.
  
  So far everything is normal. However, in the 129 years that have passed, the possibility of a connection between the Etruscan Runic signs and the Gok Turk Runic inscriptions/signs ignored by European academies., which are in great overlap. But, they have almost never been brought up in the linguistic circles and academies of modern Europe, as far as I know.
  
  Hundreds of our researchers have written about these kind of issues, especially starting in 1930 and after. They read most of the Runic inscriptions in Europe, including the Etruscan inscriptions, in Turkish. What they had in common was that they published alphabet transcriptions that allowed them to read the same signs with the same sound values. Thus, although they limited themselves in the field of reading, they realized these readings. In doing so, they did not read the same sign with different sound values in different words, but in the same phonetic formats that they presented in their transcriptions. However, since 1930, the books and articles written by them have not been published by European universities or translated into European languages.
  
  Meanwhile, numerous claims that many cultures, such as "Etruscan, are PIE cultures", have been repeated many times in Europe and around the world. While these were being done, despite the fact that there were those who showed opposite views and evidence in our country, these evidences and articles were ignored, and in a word, the perception that these were produced only because of Turkish nationalism spread.
  
  We are not writing about Turkish nation or people here. We write on subjects such as Turkish and Turkic languages and inscriptions. We are not the first to say that the Etruscan people were a Turkic-speaking people. We are not the first to say that the language of Sumerian, Hittite, Hatti or some other ancient civilizations was Turkic. We don't just talk, we show evidence.
  
  What does it have to do with the Voynich manuscript?
  
  While I was explaining the example of our ATA transcription, I stated that we benefited from the books of some researchers and linguists, whose writing about some Runic indicators seen in Europe. If we did not take advantage of this papers, making ATA alphabet transcription would not be possible for sure.
  
  
  The Etruscan people were a Turkic-speaking people and use very similar Runic scripts.
  
  There are extensive studies and articles written about civilizations such as Sumer, Eti, Hatti, Etruscan. Such Turkishness nationalism claims are minimum 100 years old issue. But, this is not a problem for us.
  
  We have never written about the nationality of the authors of VM. Because of we do not care about her/his nationality. We are writing about the language she/he uses and the alphabet in the book.
  
  When I opened a membership account as a reader at the British Library in London in 2018, I understood from the questions on the registration form given to me that this library is curious and wants to know about my nationality and color.
  
  In fact, people with nationalist ideas often accuse others of nationalism. People without feelings of nationalism care less whether an approach is nationalistic or not.
  
  I think what I've written and the evidence I've shown shakes up your entrenched misconceptions and old knowledge that you thought was absolutely true. Or we may be holding you an intellectual or mental mirror without realizing it.
  
  Frankly, it doesn't matter if you show us a "unusual good-will" approach or not, and I don't care. I'd appreciate it if you didn't include the distinction in your head, whether negative or positive. There is no nationalist approach. There is a case of expressing realistic ideas based on evidence. This can only disturb those who have ideas that do not coincide with the existing stereotyped thought in their head.
  
  Thanks

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  cvetkakocj@rogers.com > 22-04-2022, 09:28 PM

  (22-04-2022, 01:22 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What does it have to do with the Voynich manuscript?

  
  Ahmet, the VM have nothing to do with the Etruscan language or writing. The experts did not say the last word bout the Etruscans and ancient Venetic languages (which used similar runic letters).  Nor did they sufficiently explain why did they call themselves RASENI (which in Slavic means 'of one race'). I suppose the people of the time were so intermixed that the only way to recognize the race was by a skin colour.
  I am quite sure that the authors of the VM had no way of telling how those ancient inscriptions , which were still burned underground up to the recent times, looked like. They probably didn't know about Tamga symbols, either.
  Instead of wasting time explaining and defending Turkish origin of Etruscans, stick to the time the VM was written. If you want us to take your theory seriously, you  would do much better explaining inconsistencies in your theory. 
  Here are some of my questions, which you should be prepared to answer to defend your theory.
  1. What do tamga symbols have to do with the VM, which is written in Latin letters, in the humanistic style of writting? According to the information available to me, the tamga symbols were used to mark the ownership, authorship, territorial presence, talismans, amulet, but not for letters. I noticed that you used them to expand your alphabet at will, so that in this way, your ATA alphabet will always be 100% correct. Even Etruscan alphabet did not require over 100 letters.
  2. You said EVA alphabet is useless to you, yet you use some of its letters, and reject others, even if they were widely and indisputably used in the 15th century manuscripts. Why did you change EVA d (the 8-shaped letter) to S, when Latin d was accepted even in Turkish alphabet for the letter and sound d? Was it before or after you found out that Old Turkic words did not start with D? Or because you had no other explanation for the high frequency of the VM words that start with 'd' and end with 'dy'? Do you have any other reason for the transliteration of this particular letter?
  3. How do you explain the prefixes in the VM. We were told that you initially recognized the Turkic language by the way of prefixes and suffixes?
  4. I wonder how much research into the VM the Turkish linguists made before they so generously supported your theory. Did any one of them try to replicate your theory by searching for Turkic words in the VM with the help of your ATA alphabet, without resorting to your transcription and transliteration? The fact that you found those Turkic words in their work on Etruscans, and offered them as the VM-words, is not a reliable proof. I bet they didn't even look carefully at your translation, because I cannot imagine that they could miss so many inconsistencies and irrationalities in your translation. To mention only the 7 different Turkish words for abortion (on page 66r) and your translated sentence about the artificial insemination. There is nothing on that page to suggest the text about abortion or artificial insemination. There is no doctor with his tool. 
  
  I am not saying that the variations of spelling were uncommon, and that some adjustments are not normal, however I am curious to know how you manage to find and translate the most obscure words, and miss to translate the ones that occur over 100 times, some even 500 times.
  
  Your translation of the 'sunflower' might fool somebody who does not now that there were no sunflowers in Europe before the discovery of America, and even if they were, they were not 'most profitable' agricultural product, since the sunflower oil was not produced until 18th century. 
  5. When did you discover that the VM was written by five authors, since you originally claimed it was written by a traveler? Was it before or after L.F.Davis claim that the VM was written by five different hands?
  
  I suppose there would be a lot more questions before your theory is accepted, however, until then I would suggest you do not call the Voynich Manuscript 'ATA manuscript', as you are doing on your web page. You are not the owner of it and you are not yet the one who solved its mystery. If you don't like its name, you can refer to it by its number.
  
  Sincerely,
  Cvetka

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  tavie > 22-04-2022, 11:27 PM

  Ahmet,
  
  You don't need to be grateful for having received so much good will at the start, and if you think that's what I'm saying, you are missing the point.  The point is that all that good will is completely at odds with your contention that people here don't want Voynichese to be Turkish.  
  
  When I first saw this thread a couple of years ago, I was not a registered user of this forum and did not know then that I could find out which threads were updated as a registered user simply by checking the 'new posts page'.  So I used to visit this thread repeatedly.  Because I was so keen to see an update.  Because I hoped you were in the process of finding the solution.  And yet as this thread developed, I became cynical about this theory and all others.
  
  You started off with good-will.  I am going to repeat that as much as I can in this reply.  It doesn't happen to many theories when they are launched, because everyone is weary and tired of seeing the same mistakes being needlessly repeated.  I can't think of any other theory that people were looking forward to hearing more from.  People were intrigued because - despite your claims now to the contrary - they saw Turkish as a good candidate language, and they were happy that a native speaker was leading the research, again a rarity with Voynich theories.  You can see similar statements of people being open to Turkish in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.thread.  You even had an endorsement from Lisa Fagin Davies!   All this got your theory a foot in the door.  But now years down the line, when you are pushed to provide more than just individual word identifications, when your theory is challenged, instead you talk about how people don't want Voynichese to be Turkish, either because we're part of a western academic conspiracy or we're "ostriches" with our heads in the sand, presumably brainwashed by said academic conspiracy. 
  
  We've seen similar stuff from other theorists, but in this thread's case, it is worse because of nationalism in the mixture.  I can see you don't like that word but I can't think of a better one for the moment for explaining what you have said on this thread and the others: 
  

  • It is is why you assume people on these threads don't want Voynichese to be Turkic, and why you seem to be implying we all want it to be a European language.   You want it to be Turkish; you project that feeling onto me and assume because I'm European, I want it to be European.  Guess what:  I'd quite like if it turned out to be Turkic.  If it ever turns out to be a European language, I'll be happy to see the mystery solved, but it will be disappointing.
     
    
  • Nationalism is why you assume that I and other on the threads and linguists beyond here don't want Etruscan to be Turkic.  Again, you desperately want it to be Turkic, and you presume other people want to claim Etruscan for their own cultures.  Guess what again: I think it would be really cool and fascinating if it was Turkic.  Fringe language family theories are often appealing.   But the evidence is not there, nor is it there for any other theory about Etruscan belonging to a big family.  There simply isn't enough data to reliably reconstruct large language families dating that far back, and there almost certainly never will be unless there is some miracle find of source material.  Same for Sumerian.
     
    
  • Nationalism is why you accusing "western linguists" of "claiming" languages for Indo-European, and then you declare that Sumerian, Hittite, and Etruscan are all Turkish.  You are projecting your own feelings onto modern linguists.  You're basically fighting a culture war for languages that are 3000-5000 years old...against no one.  In reality some theories about Turkic or Altaic have come from western linguists.  
     
    
  • It is why, despite Sumerian's identification as a language isolate being evidence against this Indo-European conspiracy, you explained this away by declaring in the other thread that linguists were adopting a spiteful "if Indo-European can't have it, no one can!" attitude.   And then you ignored more counter examples such as Ancient Egyptian, which linguistic consensus has firmly as Afro-Asiatic, and... not Indo-European! 
     
    
  • It is why you are not taking into account how much standard of proof is required in modern linguistics for mapping language families, and how hard this is to attain when you are talking about splits thousands of years ago.  This standard of proof is why hypotheses like Nostratic have failed to gain consensus.  It's not because "no one wants it to be true."  A lot of people would like it to be true out of a basic human desire to solve a mystery and to simplify matters by grouping families together.   I would love it if a "Proto-World" could be found.  It's never going to happen.  (Ironically, there was once a theory Proto-World was...You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)  
     
    
  • Nationalism is why you insist on a much higher standard of proof for what already has linguistic consensus than for your own nationalistic fringe theories.  The evidence that supports Hittite being Indo-European is far more extensive and rigorous than any of your claims.  It's fair enough to question something that has consensus.  That is how it has become consensus: by rigorously surviving challenge.  But you are not doing that.  You state your theories as facts, and attack those who disagree as either being motivated by nationalism themselves or being ostriches, or at best mathematically illiterate.    It is why you state categorically that Hittite is Turkic on the most paltry of evidence against years of solid scholarship.  Nationalism is what gives you the confidence to do that against linguistic consensus despite your own comments about language death in the other thread seeming to show you don't understand it.  This is the opposite of a scientific approach. 
    

  
  There is a pattern here.  You state - as facts rather than as theories - that Sumerian is Turkic, Hittite is Turkic, Etruscan is Turkic, and Voynichese is Turkic, and you say your challengers don't want Sumerian, Hittite, Etruscan, and Voynichese to be Turkic.  
  
  The reason why your theory has failed to gain consensus here is not because people here don't want Voynichese to be Turkic.  Let me repeat:  people were hopeful about your theory when it was first reported!  The reason is that neither your methodology nor your results have been solid enough, at least as you have presented them so far in this thread. 
  
  It is not enough to keep saying you are acting like a scientist.  A scientific approach is centred on doubt, and you have presented yourself on this thread as operating from a position of certainty.  A scientific methodology would mean rigorously charting and interrogating every accommodation you have made to your system to keep it working, doing the same for every assumption you make, and for every time you create more degrees of freedom for yourself, such as when you stated the author deliberately mixed dialects to confuse matters (which gives your system a wider pool of words to choose from).  Scientific methodology would include playing devil's advocate and coming up with reasons why your conclusions may be wrong.
  
  It is not enough to keep saying your theory is a matter of mathematical proof.  You say it is mathematically improbable that you would find a Turkish word by chance.  e.g. you declared "the probability of writing the first 5 letters of 'safsu' correctly is 1 in 188,956,800,800".   But plenty of others have found individual words like their chosen language. Cvetka, who I see is also posting in this thread, has identified at least 100 Slovenian ones, I believe.  Perhaps you would say we should believe you over Cvetka because you have identified 150 Turkish words?  But then what if Cvetka announces tomorrow they have identified 160 Slovenian words?  
  
  I have lost track of exactly how many you and your competitors like Cvetka have found.  My point here is that you are vastly, vastly underestimating the probability of finding a word that looks like Turkish.  And this is why your theory is not getting consensus.  It is not because we don't want it to be Turkish, either consciously or subconsciously.  It is because you keep providing us on this thread with only individual word identifications, and this is not enough to distinguish you from your competitors.  The exact numbers don't matter.  You could say you have at least 550 words and that this makes your theory correct, and that your competitors are incorrect because they only have 200.  But that's not enough - how do we know that one day your competitors won't turn up with 600 words? 
  
  This is why a theory is not proved by word counts.   Where is the proof that your system reliably results in coherent sentences?  Where are the translated paragraphs, even pages?
  
  You have obviously spent a lot of years, effort, and energy on your work.  I recognize that.  But you are banging your own head against a wall if you keep only providing the thread with individual word identifications; keep insisting that this is mathematical proof; and when challenged, keep insisting that your challengers or detractors don't want it to be Voynichese, along with these fringe nationalistic theories.   There is no ill-will against here against Turkish being Voynichese.   You simply haven't proved it enough.  But the way you are pushing your theory is incredibly self-destructive and is showing that your approach is not in the least bit scientific. 
  
  I think I've now said all I can on this.

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 23-04-2022, 12:15 PM

  Below I show how to read a line from the 82v sheet. Actually, there is no need to explain anything at length. The best way to answer the questions in minds is to read the whole the pages, and we will try do that for sure. We just have a little free time problem and if we can get over it, it's possible to move forward fast.
  
  So let's continue to show evidence.
  
  Even when one day all 240 pages have been read and translated into today's language, some people may still think that I read this 240-page anagram work in Turkish simply because I am a nationalist Turk. After that, you may have realized that "nationalism" can help to read about 40,000 words and more than a thousand sentences in anagrammatic form. Thus, one more benefit of "nationalism" will emerge.   
  
  In fact, I am really curious at what point or border some people (which of the people who studied mathematics during their university education) will begin to perceive that the overlaps in the given examples are actually a declaration of results in terms of mathematical probabilities. Anyway, the issue that is more important than what you see and see in our posts or whether I am a nationalist is whether the texts are actually read or not. First, we will show the academic world that the VM manuscript contains the Turkish language. Then I will edit and publish the Etruscan and Sumerian transcriptions of them. And I will also show hundreds of proofs why the PIE bubble is a bubble. Please don't get caught up in the details and don't take what I wrote personally. The aim is to read the VM-texts and the rest is just details. Here in this page and in other social platforms, we're just looking for people to help us speed up readings and translations into contemporary language so that we can quickly translate the entire book into today's language.
  
  We show reading examples. We show the dictionary pages. We show the correct alphabet transcription. We show the signs from which linguist's book we read. We give references to the articles of European geneticists when we give examples of Etruscan language and script signs and say that they have been read in Turkish for a long time, as it is necessary. I am presenting evidence and findings. It is unfair to show or think that these are related with nationalism.
  
  Since when has it become nationalism to show the evidences?
  
  Thanks.
  
  
         
  .... the uterus that carries two husbands, the child is tangled/spin ....
  
  In this table, the original text written by the author in BLACK color. The RED color is expressed words that need to be written like as adjacent and/or separate words (as corrected). The GREEN line is expressed by its form and meaning in today's Turkish language. In addition, just as the word OPAR can be read in the ÖPER (to kiss) format, and the word AM can also be read in the EM (to suck) format. Etc. However, all these alternative readings are not taken into account here. The words in this line in folio 82v are not a complete sentence, and it must be re-examined by looking at the previous row (line) and the next line.
  
  Please See Those pages: 
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  ER = You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  APARAN = You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  (You can see this word in dictionaries mostly in verb form with the suffix -mak / -mek. The word is still using in Azerbaijani Turkish in the sense of "to take". A large number of written examples in Old Turkish are seen with various word suffixes. In Turkey Turkish, it is used with the meanings of "to take", "to take it secretly / unannounced" etc in certain regions.)
  
  ÇOCUĞU = [i]çocû= You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/i]
                               You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
  
  DOLAIN = DOLAŞIK / DOLANI etc. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (The Synonym word of "dolanı" is "Dönü" (spin) = You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
  The word DOLAIN is used in the meaning of DOLAŞIK and DOLANIK (entangled) in some dialects (today, mostly in the Azerbaijan region and some regions in Anatolia). In dictionaries, you can see this word in the form of DOLANI, DOLAMAK (wrap, wind, twist, whirl, rotate, coil up. -etc-) or DOLAŞIK, DOLANMAK.
  DOLA-MAK/dolamak = You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  DOLAŞIK = You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  O = "O" is a demonstrative pronoun and adjective and-also a 3rd person singular pronoun.  See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  RAHİM / RAHM = (UTERUS / WOMB) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.    RAHM = (uterus/[font=Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]womb[/font])  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ruby Novacna > 23-04-2022, 12:57 PM

  (23-04-2022, 12:15 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."dolanı" is "Dönü" (spin)

  The real problem is that the short words in the manuscript can be adapted to several languages, as has been said for years.
  I find, for example, that the word qokain can also transcribe the Greek conjugated verbs didwmi and donew. This is really perplexing.

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 24-04-2022, 05:04 PM

  (22-04-2022, 09:28 PM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (22-04-2022, 01:22 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What does it have to do with the Voynich manuscript?

  
  
  
  Dear Cvetka,
  
  
  Only people of Etruscan times were not genetically mixed. Today, people all carry different genes. In this sense, I think that it is not possible to clearly say that someone is of a certain race or nationality by making a racial approach. It doesn't matter what nationality both the VM-author and you or I adopt for it. I approach the issue from a linguistic point of view. People from all over the world live in Canada these days. Their common language is English and/or French. Same situation here. Our author can be Chinese, German, Italian, Arab or Turkish or of any other nationality. But she/he probably be able to speak the language of the dominant culture adopted in that society.
  
  I brought up the Etruscan issue. Because we touched on Turkish Runic signs and writing. Genetically, a dominant gene trait can still be seen in a group of people. Naturally, in which groups that feature is seen today, this information should be taken into account when looking at the past language and writing of that group of people. So, considering that the Etruscan language may have a Turkish language connection, there is little point in trying to match Etruscan writings with the language of the indigenous people of an island in the Pacific.
  
  There is no inconsistency in our theory. Everything is just where it should be. We explain the points where you say there are inconsistencies. In doing so, we present the evidence. If there are places that are still seen as inconsistent, we recommend that you ask about the places that are seen as inconsistent in specific details and not to bring up the topics in general titles so that we can proceed more clearly. Now I have given an example of reading a line on this page. Can you see any inconsistent about this reading example?
  
  As for the Etruscan RASENI issue. Did any linguists ever occur that the word read as RASENI might be a compound word that should be read as "ARAS+ENİ"? There are other reading suggestions as well. However, not all of them will be understood without knowing Turkish.
  
  ARAS (name of a geographic region): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  ENİ (sister): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  ARASENI can mean a name given to itself by a group of people. For example, "ENI (younger sister) from ARAS region". Of course, if there are linguists who read the sign R that should be read in the form "AR" or "ER", they would of course draw a completely different conclusion. 
  
  (Another possibility here is that the word ENİ may have been used in the sense of İNME/İNİ (LANDING), that is, to come. In this case, the word is understood as COMING / LANDING FROM THE ARAS REGION.)
  
  Actually, it's not about this RASENI or other reading recommendation anyway. You are repeating the information you have been taught and you have no idea what is written and what evidence is presented on the same topics in our geography. We, on the other hand, think that we can make clearer inferences by reading all the different explanations. Pretty much the same is true in the case of the Voynich manuscript. To this day EVA etc. you did multiple transcriptions and often saw almost everything in the content related to European culture. We show you the different possibilities. There's no point in being bothered by it.
  
  Now I will try to answer your questions.
  
  1. The information you have obtained from the internet about Tamga symbols is incomplete. You can learn about tamgas and how they evolved into syllabic writings and how alphabet characters were born from syllable writing signs by reading the resources I shared in my previous comments. I also write my own conclusions on these issues.
  
  Tamga signs are clearly present in ATA transcription. The author also used them between texts with their phonetic values. However, these signs appear in several places throughout the entire manuscript, and the presence or absence of a few words read with them does not affect the result. I don't make up Tamga signs myself to make my reading job easier. If doing so will make it easier to read, here you go, give the phonetic values you want to the sign you want creatively in the language you want and read it. As I said, these signs are in the VM content.
  
  Also, we did not use all of the phonetic variations we showed against certain signs in both syllabic and Tamga transcription. Probably most of these will be eliminated as the reading work progresses. As I have stated many times, we are talking about an unfinished and ongoing work. We proceeded by trial and error in transcription by reducing all sound possibilities back from the Whole. So we do the hard thing and keep doing it. Please look again at the transcription table in our video we published on Youtube in 2018. We showed more sound values against the same sign there. But if you look at the table on our website today, you'll see that the phonetic equivalents of the signs have been drastically reduced. This is related to the method we follow in our work. However, although we reduced the sound equivalents in the tables we published in 2018 by at least half in 2022, we read twice as many sentences and words.
  
  2. Eight (8) is written as "SEKİZ" in Turkish. The first sound of this is the S sound. 4 is written as "DÖRT" in Turkish. The first sound of this is the D sound. The same is true for all numbers from 1 to 9. The author has used all of these to write with sound value.
  
  3. We have not yet read any prefixes in the Voynich manuscript. The claim that there are prefixes in the texts is based entirely on anagram similes with useless transcriptions. Scientifically, no consistent and repetitive evidence of this claim has been demonstrated. What you and others think of as a prefix consists of parts of words and root words that the author wrote by dividing. In fact, these can be written largely without adjoining any word. That is, the prefixes are not written separately because there is no point in writing the prefixes separately. Voynich author, on the other hand, was able to write what you call prefixes as a stand-alone word. Moreover, even on a single page, it can be seen photographically that very different suffixes are brought to the same root word and new words are produced in these forms. We wrote about this in detail in our book.
  
  Let's show examples from a page and please think about it from that perspective. The word OY is the word AY in today's Turkey Turkish. Now here is a table. There word root is this word. This word can be written on its own. It can also be written on the same page with the root AY- and its additional variations. Now please show us a text in any Indo-European language in Europe where this happens with the same frequency. I could not find a similar example in old or new texts. For example, look at the words that start with the sound AY- or the word, how many different words will you find in the dictionary? In Turkish, they exist in the same frequency and form on the page read.
  
     
  
  The word OY (month & moon) can also be written in root case. Because it is a root word. If it were a prefix, it would also not be written alone without any word-suffix or component.
  
  This is a good example to show the variety of word components that begin with the same root and are quoted from a single page.
  
  At the same time, the number of examples of adding the same suffixes to different roots is many throughout the writing.
  
  Examples that are similar to these examples and the abundance of examples where the same root and same word-affixes can be observed, as here, will not be seen in the same number and frequency in an Indo-European language, for example.
  
  The variety of word-suffix affixes, which is already seen in less number in Indo-European languages, can be clearly observed.
  
  In the image, the word in the upper left corner is OY and OIY. This word is mostly pronounced as AY in Anatolia today, but still lives in the form of OY in different Turkic dialects.
  
  Different derivative words seen adjacent to this root-word and quoted from the same page are the other words starting with the same root on this calendar page.
  
  4. All of the Turcologists we worked with clearly saw and understood that many Turkish words and complete sentences were read on all pages and all lines in the book. When I give the transcript, they read it themselves, and we don't direct it. Here, it will be necessary to work on the words written by abbreviation and division, but when these are understood, a translation of the entire work into today's language can be obtained with the words that can already be read in every sentence. Getting to this stage is a teamwork job. That's why we can get faster results if we get support.
  
  Already for a hundred years, inconsistent comments were made because the texts could not be read. Most of these comments did not go beyond personal views and interpreting the illustrations in the content. Wait for the explanations of linguists who are experts in the Turkish language. Among the linguists who tried to read the Voynich manuscript with our ATA transcription, no one could say that the content was not Turkish. It won't. If it does, it may result in that person being ridiculed in the academic environment in the future, and I don't think anyone will take such a risk. Linguists have not been able to pinpoint the author's dialect. There are sharp differences of opinion on this issue. I don't think they'll make a statement until they clear this up. They are currently trying to understand the unknown. That's why they're still silent. But this will not always be the case.
  
  We did not name the plant drawn on page 33v as a sunflower. However, we offered one of our multiple reading suggestions for the article in the content. The characteristics written there indicate that it may be a sunflower or a plant similar to a sunflower. However, the last word on this issue should be given by botanists who will work with linguists. The issue of when the sunflower came to Europe and in which way is not yet certain.
  
  5. I have been saying and writing for a long time that the texts are written by more than one person. I don't remember when I wrote it for the first time, but in 2018 I officially registered the first version of our book in "Azerbaijan State body (the state body that protects the property rights of authors)". I already say there and in our various articles and emails and speeches/presentations that there has been more than one person's writing in the content since 2018. At first, I thought there were 3 hands on this subject and I wrote. I said that as the work progressed, there could be 4 or 5 hands. If you want to know the latest situation, I definitely think that there are 6 to 8 different people's writings right now.
  
  Ms. Lisa Davis offered advice on how to write our article and devoted some of her time to helping us. I respect her.
  
  I understood what you were implying and if I understood correctly, it is very disturbing and I did not like it.
  
  We think that at least one person in the time of the book-seller Voynich (probably between 1909 and 1912) interfered with writing using a different alphabet and with a different pen. As we mentioned before, this person could probably be Voynich himself.
  
  But in addition to this, there is another hand in writing. This could be someone like the librarian who received the manuscript during the period of the author's life in the Ottoman palace, or a high-level manager or commander. This person may be someone waiting to read the coded sections in the writing or another officer of the palace. Probably, this person's handwriting (folio 116v) is also the notes on the back page, and we can say that these notes added to the writing by just making notes on the back page, right after the author, around 1453.
  
  Ms. Lisa Fagin Davis is probably someone who worked on these issues even before we were aware of the Voynich manuscript. Since she examined this subject in this detail at an academic level, not an amateur way like us, she probably determine how many different hands were in VM, and those numbers should be more accurate.
  
  
  If we ignore the additions that we think were made by Voynich to this work and the additions made with different alphabets on the last page. As another possibility, we estimate in 2022 that there may be at least 6, at most 8 different hands on other pages of the book and throughout this work. Of course, these estimations are based on our amateurish reviews only. 
  
  Despite all this, we assume that there is only one main author who designs how the main texts will be written. A single author must have decided what to write in the main texts, if we exclude the appendices on the front and back pages and the touches made by Voynich.
  
  The texts written by this main author, probably have been copying by other hands.
  
  Moreover, the people who rewrote the second copy by looking at the first one , may be have been chosen from those who could not read the first texts they justified. All this is possible.
  
  Please see this:      
  
  For example, the number 3 appears throughout the writing in different forms. The 3 numbers that we have quoted here in the picture, are 6 from the left, probably a syllable character, and the 7th from the left should probably have been added as a tamga sign. If we remove these two, we are left with six different 3 number formats. Considering the additions that we think were made by Voynich and the additions on the last page (in folio 116v), it can be said that 8 different hands touched to this VM writing. But, as I said, we may actually be wrong in the possibilities we put forward here. Presumably, experts like Lisa Fagin Davis explained them more accurately and scientifically, and they must have identified the issue before we did.
  
  I have already explained why we use the ATA manuscript name. I will continue to use it this way. You can find the reason in my previous explanations.
  
  Kind regards
  
  A. Ardıç

• RE: Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

  Ahmet Ardıç > 24-04-2022, 06:18 PM

  
  
  Dear Tavie,
  
  
  I am not accusing people of this group or any other group with anything. It is quite unnecessary to think that I am being a nationalist or not. European linguistics and history are written in a biased way. The concept called PIE was introduced in the 18th century, which was produced by some universities in order to break the resistance of the Indian people for occupation of India easily.
  
  Our scientists and researchers, whose names I have given before, have clearly written the evidence for those. And those who want to learn about these can be translated real sources and read. It's not you or anyone else I blame. I don't hate you, and I don't think I'm smarter or superior to you.
  
  But you may question yourself whether you are the type of person who continues to believe the unscientific fanciful theories and anagram works are true and doesn't want to change glasses.
  
  Thanks
• Next Oldest Next Newest