Sequential word repetitions in the VMS

[Ahmet Ardıç]

Hi, Ahmet,

arguing whether the VM has prefixes or not, or whether prefixes can be written separately or together will not give your theory more credibility. Look at the VM text and suggest your explanation for the grammatical pattern that linguists, non-linguists, and even computers, can recognize as prefixes. You can replace  VM glyphs with any letters you want, EVA, ATA or whatever, the pattern is still the same. It is not related to the pictures, but to the grammatical structure of the language.
You cannot claim to solve the VM language if you have no explanation for this grammatical pattern. Explaining this is essential because of the large number of pre-fixed words. If you don't believe this pattern is created by prefixes, you can offer your explanation. 
I have collected some of the VM words and the number of their occurrences that clearly show the pattern of prefixes EVA o-, and qo-. This pattern has been recognized by many VM researchers as a proof of the existence of prefixes. If you think thy are not prefixes, let us know your explanation. By the way, it was your son who claimed in the second video that Turkish language has no prefixes. 
If you are asking for cooperation, I would be more than willing to offer you my explanation and translation of all the words on the list, if you can do the same. It would be interesting to compare.

Sincerely,

Cvetka

Dear Cvetka,

I think you did not examine our work in detail enough to evaluate it.

For the first time in history, we have prepared an ATA transcription key that can read VM texts. We have translated many sentences into today's modern Turkish by showing that they are suitable for the grammatical structure of Turkish with this key.

Likewise, some full pages were read by us. prof. Dr. M. Asgarov says that he read about 10 pages in full, and for some of them he sent articles to international and local symposiums and these articles were published.

Likewise, our articles (except one because our full page read will be published soon) have been published as well. We're just moving forward with linguistic evidence and we know very well what to do and how not to do it.

You proceed by simply referring to personal inferences, without presenting a single key to read the texts and without showing proven sentence readings. I think your work is on the way to create a constructive language from anagrams. 

But things shouldn't be done this way. As I said, prefixes in these texts are just personal or fanciful inferences. Not a single scientific basis has been presented to prove these inferences. We, on the other hand, conduct our study based only on linguistic and real evidence. So following your advice will be going backwards in what we do, which we don't want to do. Why look for other keys when we already have one proven key that works and opens the current VM door? 

I invite you and all linguists who see prefixes in these words to turn to scientific methods, by leaving unfounded claims aside. Of course, you can continue to work with the methods you know. Let's see how far you can go on VM pages. 

Kind regards,

A. Ardıç

Note: Neither of the parts & words you show with this second table are prefix and contain any prefix. These are also ordinary Turkish words. But I won't spend as much time reading them as I did on the first table right now. Because I don't think you have grasped the linguistic value & meaning of the evidence we have presented earlier. In other words, since I did not receive any understandable feedback about our past readings, I do not think to read this secont table now. Probably the problem is me. Knowing something and being able to tell what you know to the other person are two different things. I'm starting to think that readers on this platform mostly don't understand my expressions, especially because of my bad English.
Thanks,