Sequential word repetitions in the VMS

[Ahmet Ardıç]

On topic:  Anton, those are some really creative ideas to explain the reduplication, especially the one about ordered preferencing. You're right that it would struggle to hold up against both the number and the range of reduplications, and if it were part of a "solution", it would seem special pleading.  But it is an intriguing way of providing a potential explanation for some of the pairs, and also the way some of the manuscript appears to show list-like behaviour.  I'm trying to imagine what it could be in the (possible) context of the manuscript:  ordered lists of medicines or habits to do each day?  Lists of what should be done or should not be done according to astrology? 

Another explanation - but I think less likely and covering only a couple of pairs - could be down to how we parse the pair.  e.g. when we see daiin daiin, are those truly identical, or could the "minim" glyphs represent different plain text letters?

 Maybe there is no material to write on this subject, what do you think?

Off topic: I think this thread will need to be split off into a Turkish thread, the way it is going.

Ahmed, you often talk rather scathingly or at best dismissively here and in your own thread about how those who don't accept your theory, like us or the linguist reviews who refused to accept your journal article, aren't thinking scientifically or are mathematically illiterate, etc, etc.  You keep hammering home the word "science".  But on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., you said the English word "September" comes from the Turkish SERPMEK / SEPELEMEK and connected it with raining.  This is not linguistics.  This is pseudo-linguistics.  It is not a scientific approach.  It is a pseudo-scientific approach. 

If you want your theory accepted, if you want reviewers to approve your articles, you need to fix this huge problem that is at the core of your methodology.  When the methodology is rotten, the results will always been seen as tainted.  Saying you've found 100 Turkish words, 250 Turkish words, now apparently 1000 Turkish words and repeating over and over that such a coincidence is mathematically impossible is not going to bring your theory acceptance.  Especially when i) others including people on this thread have spotted lots of words in a different language (why is theirs a mathetically possible coincidence and yours a mathematically impossible coincidence?); ii) you often have to make adjustments or accommodations or make instances of special pleading to match it to Turkish, and you do not seem to analyse these; and iii) for all we know, all 1000 identifications could be like September.

Dear Tavie,

Mathematical coincidences proceed based on formulas. So my opinion or anyone else's opinion is nothing to prove them. This issue is about the number of words read clearly and whether the number of words in sentences read completely will happen by chance.

Our full-page reading article in VM texts was accepted in an international symposium in an organization where 36 linguists were in the refereeing committee (as far as I know, it is read by at least 4 expert Turcologist-linguist). This article will be published soon, but we have previously published an article in an international symposium organized by another university. I also have an article published by the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences.

As for the word September; Western linguistics explains this word as "ninth month of the Roman year." But in fact, there is no context to explain which part of this word is "month" and which part is "ninth" or "the Roman Year".
According to the explanations; It is so called because it was the original seventh month of the old Roman calendar, which began the year in March (Julian calendar reform (46 B.C.E.) shifted the new year back two months. For -ber suffix, as like Decem-ber.) The point is "how and the original seventh month of the old Roman calendar gets its name? in which meaning? & when?

It is said by European linguists that the word is associated with the word "seven". The only connection with the word "seven" meaning "seven", which is said to be related here, is the ascription of linguists. Perhaps the word "seven" is not related to number pronouns, but to the naming of the seventh month of the ancient calendar "rainy month" (sepen-/seper-). And perhaps the number name "seven" got its name because of the calendar name.

In other words, there is a situation like whether the chicken came out of the egg or the egg came from the chicken.

The word seven is said to come from the Proto-Germanic *sebun (PIE *septm). Here, both the *sebun phonetic form and the PIE *septm phonetic form are an unproven fictitious sound form. It is not determined how the name of the number "seven", which is tied to the word Hittite shipta, was born. Linguists still debate whether the Hittite language was an Indo-European language or an agglutinative language. But that discussion is similar to our discussion of whether there was many prefix or not in VM. One side has repeated the misinformation so many times that it defends the wrong, detached from the evidence.

In other words, it is nothing more than a cleverly thought-out (but unproven whether the number name was born earlier or the calendar name was born earlier) by one or more linguists.

Etymology should refer to the oldest written sources.

Linguists have already debated for many years how consistent etymological dictionaries are. I have been involved in this discussion in various ways, and the explanation methods I use are purely those used by linguistics. I do not expect my etymo-claims to be accepted immediately. Even if they are not accepted at all, someone should constantly remind the nonsense produced in the name of linguistics to those who produce them. That's what I'm doing. It is nonsense, not science, to refer to fictitious data when there is a real oldest written data. I'm just one of those pointing out this nonsense, and there are others, I'm not alone.

I and those who think like me read the explanations made in the articles that are said to be scientific, just like you do. We see that many words are connected to those roots by creating imaginary roots there. It may seem scientific to produce such etymological explanations. But I do not accept what is said without a mental filter just because someone said it by heart. For this reason, we decoded the VM texts. Otherwise, if we had believed in advance the imaginary fabrications that were repeated many times, we would not need to research this VM related work in detail. Saying that there are many prefixes here in VM and this is probably a European language manuscript just an baseless claim. We do not have the habit of believing everything that is said by researchers, and we evaluate what is said through a mental filter, luckily even if it is a scientist claim.

Thanks