[georgekidd]

Originally Posted by Marlys of Mull

What could be romantic about getting a date wrong? How would it be more romantic if the language had come later in time then when it actually did?

You'd be surprised how many people give out wrong details so that they can portray a romantic image of Scotland. Some of these people even try to pass themselves off as experts, historians even. They are nothing more than story tellers, but we'll come back to that later!

First, let me apologize if I stated the wrong time period. I said I was an enthusiast, not a scholar, or even a researcher. It is a passtime I enjoy.

I am also not a scholar or even a researcher as such, but before I make a statement I like to know that either the information I put forward is correct or that I at least make it clear I am unsure of its accuracy. The best way to avoid the latter is to look in more than one place and avoid web sites that all quote exactly the same. In my opinion your best place to look first would be wikipedia, but I guess not everyone likes that site!

Second, I stated the language made it to Ireland in the 4th or 5th century. I did not say when it arrived in Scotland, but only that it arrived from Ireland. Who's to say it didn't come right after they settled in Ireland, in the 4th century? If they were disposed to exploring and expanding their holdings, it would make sense they wouldn't rest when they could see land across the water on a clear day. You're really spliting hairs here.

What do you think of the chances that people arrived in Ireland from Spain and in no time at all had not only crossed that island, but also the 12 miles to Argyll? Slim to non-existant, especially after they'd just settled in the south of Ireland they wouldn't be able to see Scotland - not even on a clear day. Also remember there were people already in Ireland and incomers being given free reign to not only waltz through the island, but also replace the existing language with their own sounds highly unlikely. So, these people were in Ireland for a few years (probably a century at least) before heading over the water to Kintyre!

Third, let me state my case. I have a veryslow computer and the two different websites (which I might add, claimed to be of British and international origin, not just American) took me over 20 minutes to get to and read. Forgive me for not doing more research at the time. The two sites differed in when they stated the language arrived which is why I included a range. I later, after getting off the forum checked my large volume on Ancient history and it was much more general as to when the language arrived in Scotland.

What does the country of origin of the web site have to do with accuracy? Even a site that claims to be written by a Gaelic speaking person with Irish ancestors might not be accurate. Also, the speed of your computer is probably a better reason for waiting to do more research rather than relying on a couple of sites you could be bothered waiting to load!

It sounds like it is a subject of debate among several sources, so before you go around accusing people of spreading garbage, I suggest you check some of the sources yourself. And the suggestion of being "just another of those American story tellers?" is delibratley offensive on your part and I will not reply to it except to say that your suggestion reveals more about what kind of person you are, Scot or otherwise, than you are suggesting about me.

Yes it is a subject of debate; even the so-called experts can't always agree. But then even they don't (yet) have all the facts - and maybe never will. As for me checking out sources for myself, believe me I have done and will continue to do that. Its what stops me from spreading garbage (especially as I know some of the sites the garbage is on).

So, now to the American story tellers comment you found so offensive! All I can say to that is, if the cap fits WEAR IT! A friend of mine made that comment on another forum. He was directing it towards a group of historians that no longer studied their subject, but kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter how much research had been done since and other evidence found. Anyway, the historian on that site took the comment to heart - he must have looked in the mirror and seen a story teller staring back at him! Strange how you took to the comment in a similar way isn't it? Maybe you are related to him!

I'm not really sure why, but there seems to be a lot of antagonism toward all non-Scots and particularly Americans on this forum and while I am sure a few individuals may deserve it, the rest of us, who are only here to be closer to the place and culture we love, could do with a little benefit of the doubt.

The antagonism (from me anyway) is not towards anyone because of their nationality or otherwise. Its because of their attitude. Especially those that want to be accepted as Scots when they are clearly (by their own admission) NOT! Fair enough like the culture all you like, just don't try to revise it while you do - doing something like that is just asking for antagonism!

Back off, people.

How about you back off - and think about what you're saying before you upset yourself with my response to you!