Now what is fascinating to me is this pre-occupation with language as indicator of anything.
This is all so unnecessary. I don't have to report anything, I'm not putting forth a claim.
I'm demonstrating a good-faith willingness to examine your claim. The burden is on you to make your case.
What is more reasonable, for me to investigate from scratch every claim that anyone might make, or for those making the claims (and presumedly having a head start on the evidence trail) to present their evidence? Clearly, the latter, and that is the understood etiquette of the burden of proof: it falls on the claimant.
Toward that end, I have questions concerning language. This is not a "pre-occupation," it is just the first question on which I happened to focus. The reason for the repetitive posts on the question of language is because of the repetitive non-responses to it.
Let's stipulate that language is not the only determining factor in sorting through this, it's but one potentially useful tool. Often it fits nicely into the context of the other evidence on a question, but not necessarily always. Fine.
If your claim that the Lost Tribes gave rise to the Celts is true, then the question of language has one of two possible consequences: either it supports your claim, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then there needs to be a more compelling line of evidence which leads us to discount the linguistic evidence as not compelling. I freely concede the possiblity that, given competing bodies of evidence, the linguistic argument might be discounted in favor of another. I think that's reasonable.
So, does the linguistice data support the Lost Tribes theory on the origin of the Celts, or not?
If so, then post it and lets move on.
If not, then post that, and explain why we should ignore it.
I'm trying to give you a fair hearing. Why is that so problematic?
