This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ewan Campbell. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I find myself quite supportive of the theory, personally, having studied the matter quite a deal and also am quite convinced the Goidelic languages most likely survived in rural pockets of Pictish areas as well, if not as pure Goidelic tongues then at least as hybrids between Goidelic and Brythonic, perhaps with pure Brythonic languages also in place in much of the Pictish areas, this would certainly explain why so Goidelic languages spread so completely through Pictish areas, because there was perhaps simply less divergence between Pictish languages and Goidelic in comparison to Goidelic languages and Brythonic.
But anyway, I was just wondering about academic criticism of Ewan Campbell's theories. Obviously his paper has been around for a while, it has some support in academic and archaeological circles but the orthodox view still seems to be that Goidelic languages were brought to western Scotland through invasion or colonisation.
So surely academics and historians have come out in their droves to shut down Campbell's theories and tear them to shreds, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 ( talk) 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ewan Campbell. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I find myself quite supportive of the theory, personally, having studied the matter quite a deal and also am quite convinced the Goidelic languages most likely survived in rural pockets of Pictish areas as well, if not as pure Goidelic tongues then at least as hybrids between Goidelic and Brythonic, perhaps with pure Brythonic languages also in place in much of the Pictish areas, this would certainly explain why so Goidelic languages spread so completely through Pictish areas, because there was perhaps simply less divergence between Pictish languages and Goidelic in comparison to Goidelic languages and Brythonic.
But anyway, I was just wondering about academic criticism of Ewan Campbell's theories. Obviously his paper has been around for a while, it has some support in academic and archaeological circles but the orthodox view still seems to be that Goidelic languages were brought to western Scotland through invasion or colonisation.
So surely academics and historians have come out in their droves to shut down Campbell's theories and tear them to shreds, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 ( talk) 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)