Page 7 of 15
reply
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:31 pm
by Guest
Yes, I'm familiar with Dr Forsyth's work; I've read her book The Language of Pictland, and I heard her speak at a seminar on the Celts.
I have no erroneous personal beliefs on the matter for her to agree/disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have still to provide ANY evidence for the erroneous beliefs that you stated as fact several pages ago.
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:32 pm
by Minimalist
reply
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:34 pm
by Guest
steady!

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:34 pm
by Frank Harrist
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:38 pm
by Minimalist
reply
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:43 pm
by Guest
Jeez,
the natives are getting restless!

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:47 pm
by Minimalist
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:50 pm
by marduk
I am a professional archaeologist and member of the Institute for Field Archaeologists. I have been since 1984
where did you study for your degree and what was it in ?

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:50 pm
by Frank Harrist
How come my dang nanners ain't dancin'?
reply
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:58 pm
by Guest
marduk wrote:
where did you study for your degree and what was it in ?

MA (Hons) in Archaeology and Mediaeval History, University of Glasgow
Now...YOU start answering a few questions!

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:03 pm
by Frank Harrist
Nevermind, they're dancin' now. Proceed!
reply
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:07 pm
by Guest
Thank you, m'lud

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:22 pm
by marduk
how did you manage to wade through all 53 pages of The Language of Pictland without realising that its not a book but actually a paper based on one of her lectures which she gave on satruday 25th march 1995 where she actually says herself at the end that "she does not rule out the possibility of a pre celtic substratum influence on pictish"
that means that the picts were around before the celts arrived on the scene don't you think otherwise how could there be a pre celtic anything ?
or didn't you read the penultimate page of
her book
on page 37
and if as you claim that you know of her work you might have realised that shes a historian and not a linguist as she actually states herself on the last line
in 1995 as in 1955 pictish is in a state of flux. It is clear that we are about to enter a new and exciting phase. much more waits to be written on the subject of language in pictland, a complex and important topic of which i have been able to only scratch the surface. I have tried not to misrepresent the difficulties presented by pictish but would echo Koch's sentiment that the "extreme import" of the topic demands that the pitfalls should be braved. my hope is as a historian I have cleared the decks for the linguists- the next steps will be theirs
Now...YOU start answering a few questions!
very demanding woman aren't you
but what would be the point
you pooh pooh references that you haven't read and clearly respond with others that you haven't read without knowing that they refute what you are claiming
you answer posts with personal insults and attacks and seem to regard new agers with contempt when they aren't actually relevant to the discussion and when i haven't mentioned them and personally do not ascribe to their beliefs or their politics (what happen ex boyfriend garnd wizard dump you or something)
so if its possible for you to actually post something not nonsensical this time and politely i will respond in kind
if not as they say in Sumer
šub dugdugurhi naĝah

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:54 pm
by Frank Harrist
šub dugdugurhi naĝah Translation please! My Sumerian is a little rusty.
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:56 pm
by marduk