I would have to agree with the more negative reviewers here. While I enjoyed parts of this book, there is a lot of nonsense in it too. His observations about a Gaelic poem are completely off the wall, because he suggests that the Celtic languages are in some way inherently onomatopaeic and close to nature in some mystical way. The opposite side of this belief in the poetic mistiness of the Celtic tongues is the argument (which he also makes) that they don't handle modern vocabulary well. He seems to be suggesting that this is again a natural and intrinsic quality, not just the result of the way they have been marginalised by more powerful languages. This kind of argument can be used to damage these languages because people who have a general lack of interest in their survival can sigh and say "Well, they are really beautiful ... great for poetry, but you couldn't run an office through Irish/Gaelic/Welsh." Which of course is absolutely untrue. There is also a claim here that the word moccasin comes from the Scottish Gaelic "mo chosan", which means my feet or legs. This is clearly rubbish. Why wouldn't they call them movrogans? (Mo bhrogan, my shoes) Why would you name them after your feet, rather than your shoes? And in any case, there's already a perfectly good Amerindian etymology for this word.