Login

pfeaster · 02-03-2023, 04:54 PM

(01-03-2023, 09:06 PM)Ahmet Ardıç wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the author of the book (and for author of any books written in any language) writes prefix by concatenating to a word next to it, that author should write the same prefix in same way in every time. That is, if the prefixes are written separately from the word in that author's language, they should always be written separately. However, if the word is written by concatenating to a prefix, it should always be expected to be written adjacent.

However the author of the VM-texts have been write some parts that you interpret as prefixes, both separately and adjacently throughout the texts. Linguists who seeing prefixes in VM papers must explain this issue.

I'm not at all convinced that the structure of Voynichese words reflects a linguistic structure with prefixes and suffixes.

However, inconsistency in spacing -- in itself -- isn't evidence against the existence of prefixes. During the fifteenth century, spacing tended to be quite inconsistent even in writings in "ordinary" Latin script. It's easy to find documents in which the same expression appears both spaced and unspaced with the same meaning, e.g., "le dict" and "ledict" (in French) or "mit namen" and "mitnamen" (in German). Indeed, I'd argue that the observation that Voynichese sequences with inconsistent spacing (e.g., there are numerous clear tokens of both "or.aiin" and "oraiin") tend also to be found with ambiguous spacing ("or,aiin") supports the idea that something comparable might be happening there.

Out of curiosity, how does your Turkish hypothesis account for pairs such as "ar.al" and "aral," "or.chey" and "orchey," etc.?