partially
:)
Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also adopts Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.
FROM the article and SAID by the VERY guy who is talking about the genetic similarity! even HE acknowledge's english language roots!
nglish, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.
The Belgae perhaps introduced some socially transforming technique, such as iron-working, which led to their language's replacing that of the indigenous inhabitants, but Forster said he had not yet identified any specific innovation from the archaeological record.
Oppenheimer said genes "have no bearing on cultural history." There is no significant genetic difference between the people of Northern Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400 years, he said.
which is waht we've all said .
Genetically the similarity, makes sense BUT you not factoring in socio-political factors. and im tired of this to the point i had to use YOUR only source of 'evidence'
