Your long and eloquent pieces are full of wisdom, and I find myself agreeing with you over and over again. The one problem is that despite being told over and over and over again you keep on insisting that I think the original population of Britan spoke a Celtc language.
Give that premise, everything you say in criticism of myself (and of Ishamel) is absolutely true. BUT I DON'T SAY IT.
What I say (and you are perfecty free to disagree with THIS version) is
1. The original population of Britain spoke English.
2. There were small pockets of Celtic-speakers in Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria and the Highlands of Scotland.
3. In other words, the language situation in Britain then was basically what it is now.
4. Various invaders speaking quite different languages came, ruled and went (or disappeared into the native population).
5. One of these invading groups, the Anglo-Saxons, spoke a language that has a certan family resemblance to English.
6. English-speaking historans, not wishing their language's origins to be, as it were, lost in the mists of time, constructed a theory that English is derived from Anglo-Saxon.
7. This in turn required that the pre-Anglo-Saxon population be given another language to speak.
8. Since Celtic languages are also spoken on the island of Britain (see paragraph 2) it was decided that that language was Celtic.
9. Since it is difficult to construct a scenario whereby the language of a very small group of invaders could entirely replace the language of a very large native population, a lively (but in my view, spurious) debate is ongoing between the "exterminationist" school and the "integrationist" school.
I would very much welcome your comments on THIS version of my thesis rather than the one you have hitherto been analysing so ably.