The Picts spoke Gaelic
Prove this wrong
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
The Picts spoke Gaelic. Prove this wrong
The Picts spoke Gaelic
Prove this wrong
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
They were matrilineal.
Like Basque
Only the kings.
It is funny because there was a king called Talorgan MacEnfret
bump
It doesn't change the fact that this is stupid and feminine
And yet they defeated Rome
Ll
It was genius
>be king
>worry about a powerful nobleman who wants to take over
>marry his daughter
>your son is the next king but takes his mothers name
>civil war averted
>get some hot pussy while you're at it
Feminine and stupid*
They were not matrilineal, you fool
we literally have historical records about this
the same with the Basques.
In the case of the Basques, women actually had a certain power in society.
>we literally have historical records about this
Let's see them
The Pictish king lists? They clearly show sons did not inherit their crown from their fathers.
They were not matriarchal
>They clearly show sons did not inherit their crown from their fathers and foreigners who married Pictish princesses had their sons take Gaelic names not from their own people
Yean they were.
No father ever succeeded his son as king Scotland, apart from a few rebels, until Malcolm III
Was there ever doubt they didn't speak a celtic language?
The dominant academic view in the 60s-80s was that they spoke Basque.
It's ridiculous but they seriously argued that.
It just shows everyone should be careful of trusting these people in any matter of society.
First you have to prove it
Picts had Gaelic names
Picts wrote in Gaelic to confirm who owned land
There's no language which can be attested in pre-Norse Scotland but Gaelic
>Picts had Gaelic names
>Picts wrote in Gaelic to confirm who owned land
How do you know it's Gaelic and not Brittonic?
>There's no language which can be attested in pre-Norse Scotland but Gaelic
Blatantly false, atleast as far as the lowlands are concerned.
>How do you know it's Gaelic and not Brittonic?
Because it is the Gaelic language? I don't understand the question.
>atleast as far as the lowlands are concerned.
Many of the earliest Gaelic inscriptions come from the "lowlands"
If they spoke Gaelic, then they would've been called Gaels, not Picts. Why would they have been called Picts at all if they just spoke the same language and looked exactly like another group of people? Languages do not simply cease to exist because they are never written down, as they can be passed on for many generations orally without ever having a single literate speaker.
Finding inscriptions in Gaelic in the Scottish Lowlands is no more proof that Gaelic to the Lowlands than finding inscriptions and coins with Old Norse writing in that same area could constitute evidence that Old Norse is native to Scotland.
One can find inscriptions in Latin, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Gaelic in Scotland dating back to the Early Middle Ages, but it would be impossible for all of them to be native languages spoken by the Picts.
>they spoke Gaelic, then they would've been called Gaels, not Picts
If they were Saxons they would have spoken Saxonish not English
>Why would they have been called Picts at all if they just spoke the same language and looked exactly like another group of people
Again like Saxons and Angles. And they weren't identical nobody said that
>Languages do not simply cease to exist because they are never written down, as they can be passed on for many generations orally without ever having a single literate speaker.
Okay. Now you have to explain why no Pict wrote a single word of this strange language despite the fact inscription exist across the land
>Finding inscriptions in Gaelic in the Scottish Lowlands is no more proof that Gaelic to the Lowlands than finding inscriptions and coins with Old Norse writing in that same area could constitute evidence that Old Norse is native to Scotland
Yes because a portable object like a coin is comparable to men raising monuments to express who owns a parcel of land.
And of course these men would not do this in a language they would speak but one of a separate race somehow according to you.
>One can find inscriptions in Latin, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Gaelic in Scotland dating back to the Early Middle Ages
The Angle invasion of the Borders is well documented
Norse again only appears whence the Norse conquered
But Gaelic inscriptions existed across Scotland with some going as far as the 6th century some archaeologist say
You first have to prove
Why did the Picts not leave a single inscription in Pictish
Why did they write continously in Gaelic despite you believing this was not their language and many of these inscriptions dating before the so called conquest
Further why contemporary writers completely failed to mention a conquest and many of them clearly show Dalriata was utterly crushed by the Pictish kingdom
Or we can assume they spoke Gaelic and the descendants of those who claimed they spoke Basque are wrong
>But Gaelic inscriptions existed across Scotland with some going as far as the 6th century
That still leaves thousands of years of human inhabitation of Scotland left unrecorded. Was Gaelic spoken in Scotland 12,000 years ago? We know from palaeontological evidence that at some point in time there were no humans in Scotland at all, so they must've come from somewhere. It's odd to see that Gaelic is spoken in Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, but that the oldest inscriptions in Ogham script date back to the 4th century CE and were found not in Scotland as you claim, but in Ireland. Clearly Scotland and Ireland not connected, and I don't believe teleportation existed in ancient times, so obviously they must've first settled in one country and moved onto the other.
Suppose that it was originally spoken in Scotland. Why then were the first Gaelic language inscriptions found on Irish soil instead of on Scottish soil? Were they left there by Scottish travellers?
Now, suppose we were to claim instead that Gaelic originated in Ireland and was brought over to Scotland by Irish immigrants. The fact that the earliest-known Gaelic-language inscriptions are found in Ireland would be reasonable. It might even make sense to claim that Gaelic-language inscriptions in Scotland were made not by native inhabitants of the land, but by travellers from Ireland.
The Pictish language is not attested, but that by itself does not mean that it did not exist. We don't know whether it was a Celtic language, or whether it was even an Indo-European language. Although there is a possibility that it may have been closely related, or even identical to an ancient form of Gaelic, there is absolutely no linguistic evidence that would allow us to draw that inference. Therefore, Pictish may have been any language. For all we know, which is to say, nothing at all, it could've been a Finno-Ugric or a Nilo-Saharan language.
>Was Gaelic spoken in Scotland 12,000 years ago? We
Considering its an IE language that's impossible
but that the oldest inscriptions in Ogham script date back to the 4th century CE and were found not in Scotland as you claim
I never claimed the oldest Gaelic inscriptions were from Scotland
>Scotland and Ireland not connected, and I don't believe teleportation existed in ancient times, so obviously they must've first settled in one country and moved onto the other.
Or they both descend from one initial colonial race which is attested in placenames
>Why then were the first Gaelic language inscriptions found on Irish soil instead of on Scottish soil?
Presumably because of Christianity ending the taboo behind writing
The fact that the earliest-known Gaelic-language inscriptions are found in Ireland would be reasonable
Except from there being a total of zero Ogham monuments in argyll
>The Pictish language is not attested, but that by itself does not mean that it did not exist.
Again you've ignored my post because you know yourself you don't know how to disprove it
The simple facts
The Scotic conquest is not tenable due to not a single contemporary source saying it
Gaelic inscriptions exist in places no Scotic invasion touched
Gaelic inscriptions exist well before a Scotic invasion
You cannot win at this because you don't actually know anything about this subject please read literature on it
I now await you providing some real evidence since you started your post essentially attempting to claim I was stupid while you yourself can't even fathom a single colonising race conquered both Britain, other than the parts which later retained Welshmen, and Ireland despite the fact of testemony by the medieval authors and ancient ones
The simple fact is no language but Gaelic can be attested in Pictland before the Norwegian invasion and before the Scottish mythical conquest
>please read literature on it
Ok, send me a link to a paper published within the last 10 years in a peer-reviewed journal that defends your hypothesis.
Sorry I only read papers published within the last calendar week you amateur
>If they spoke Gaelic, then they would've been called Gaels, not Picts.
They were referred to as Gaels, yes.
>Why would they have been called Picts at all if they just spoke the same language and looked exactly like another group of people?
Because Roman writers didn't have a clue what these people's internal hierarchies and demarcations were like and frankly didn't care because it was irrelevant to running their protection racket. Tacitus acts like Germanic boys out doing Koryos shit are some separate ethnic group of their own for this.
Did you know? Almonds are high in antioxidants, vitamin E, protein, and fiber. Almonds may have health benefits, including supporting heart health and reducing blood pressure, among others.
medieval english had hebrew names and wrote in latin to confirm land ownership
Gaelic came with the Scots at about the 5th century
What we do know of Pictish words (mostly names and placenames) syncs up with Brittonic
They probably spoke Gaelic at the time of Dal Riata, so technically yes the Pictish did speak Gaelic, but it wasn't the primary language until the 800s or so
>What we do know of Pictish words (mostly names and placenames) syncs up with Brittonic
Which is why the Picts regularly and exclusively wrote in Gaelic outside the Church
>but it wasn't the primary language until the 800s or so
Again Gaelic inscriptions exist across Scotland and go back to the late 6th century
LESMEQQNANAMMOVVEST
Modern
Leas MicNan am Mobhaist
It is an undeniably Gaelic inscriptions from Shetland in the 7th century
This utterly destroys the current narrative and this like other Gaelic inscriptions simply gets ignored by the supposed academics who regularly mutilate other matters but this is where your draw the line
>Again Gaelic inscriptions exist across Scotland and go back to the late 6th century
like, at the time the Scots came into Scotland ie exactly what I was saying?
>Scots came into Scotland ie exactly what I was saying
And they only lived in argyll until the mythical conquest of the 9th century
And again I'll reiterate that Ogham monuments do not exist in argyll so it cannot be said Ogham came from them
Again nobody argues at all the these men even had influence on Shetland
The Picts were Semites
Proof:
https://www.visitabdn.com/listing/the-rhynie-man
>MAQQÓTALLUORRH | NXHHTFROBBACCXNNEFF
>MAQQOTALLUORRH
>MAQQ
So the Picts didn't speak Gaelic but they wrote in Gaelic more archaic than the Irish? Yeah sure bro.
You'll never win we've won
>Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire. Meaning "mouth of the River Don" (cf. Welsh aber, "estuary, confluence").
>Cupar, Fife. Meaning "confluence" (cf. Welsh cymer).
>Keith, Banffshire. Meaning "forest" (cf. Welsh coed).
>Kirkcaldy, Fife. Meaning "place of the hard fort" from caer, "fort" and caled, "hard".
>Perth, Perthshire. Meaning "wood, grove" (cf. Welsh perth).
>Yell, Shetland. Meaning "unfruitful land" (cf. Welsh iâl).
The Picts were Britons
>these words sort of look like Welsh words so they are welsh
>no those words which are Gaelic words don't matter
Okay your contribution of a Wikipedia quote is greatly disregarded
They don't look like Gaelic words
Of course MacNun is obviously a Welsh name along with Finnguine and Moren and somehow Fergus too is also Welsh
>britons lived in scotland, but didn't write
>gaels and vikings move in later, but keep the brittonic placenames
Why is this so hard to understand?
lived in scotland, but didn't write
An idea bordering on ridiculousness
and vikings move in later, but keep the brittonic placenames
1.
They never kept them in Shetland or Orkney
2.
Gaelic inscriptions exist in Shetland
3. Shetland was never conquered by the Argyllian Scots and was annexed into Norway almost immediately after the mythical conquest from Argyll
4. Hence these Gaelic inscriptions of Shetland were written in the local language which was Gaelic
You are the one that is denying evidence written by these people themselves
>An idea bordering on ridiculousness
Why?
>3. Shetland was never conquered by the Argyllian Scots and was annexed into Norway almost immediately after the mythical conquest from Argyll
Why can't Gaelic have spread slowly over time instead of overnight in this "mythical conquest from Argyll"?
>Why?
It's extremely ridiculous no writing would survive at all
>Why can't Gaelic have spread slowly over time instead of overnight
Because the documents written by people who lived then show that the Scottish kingdom spent its entire existence being dominated by the Pictish one to the point the Scottish kingdom ended up as a fief of the Pictish one and occasionally being ruled directly by the Pictish king himself
It's bordering on lunacy to suggest these men could have dominated Pictland
And again you've ignored the inscriptions in Shetland from the SEVENTH century
It is utterly ridiculous to even suggest the Argyllians had any influence in Shetland to the level they replaced their language
>It's extremely ridiculous no writing would survive at all
No writing of Cumbric survived, and that language went extinct in the 12th century.
You're not arguing that the Cumbrians were also Gaels, are you?
>the Scottish kingdom spent its entire existence being dominated by the Pictish one to the point the Scottish kingdom ended up as a fief of the Pictish one and occasionally being ruled directly by the Pictish king himself
Didn't Scots/Northumbrian start spreading while Gaels still ruled Scotland?
>the inscriptions in Shetland from the SEVENTH century
So they were there in the 7th century, that doesn't mean that they had always been there.
>You're not arguing that the Cumbrians were also Gaels, are you?
>Didn't Scots/Northumbrian start spreading while Gaels still ruled Scotland
It started under David I who was raised in England
>So they were there in the 7th century, that doesn't mean that they had always been there
So now you need to support the evidence that somehow Shetland was linguistically replaced by the 7th century
>They were referred to as Gaels, yes
I believe this is true.
It's late but in the 14th century Welsh literature describes the Picts as Gaels
But again most of the evidence to describe them as not being Gaelic is equally late.
One Pictish early king in the Pictish king list was even named Guidal which is eerily similar to Goidel
>>You're not arguing that the Cumbrians were also Gaels, are you?
You forgot to answer this one?
>It started under David I who was raised in England
And Pictish kings could have been raised by Gaels.
>>Yell, Shetland. Meaning "unfruitful land" (cf. Welsh iâl).
>>You're not arguing that the Cumbrians were also Gaels, are you?
No
>Pictish kings could have been raised by Gaels.
The Pictish monarchy required all Picts to be raised by Pictish mothers and adopt Pictish names and language. This is well established.
>So now you need to support the evidence that somehow Shetland was linguistically replaced by the 7th century
You forgot to answer this and everything I've said 😉
>The Pictish monarchy required all Picts to be raised by Pictish mothers and adopt Pictish names and language
I call bullshit.
>You forgot to answer this
"Yell, Shetland. Meaning "unfruitful land" (cf. Welsh iâl)."
Placenames of a different origin is evidence of linguistic replacement.
>I call bullshit
Okay then this is over since these things happened with each Pictish king who had a foreign father
>"Yell, Shetland. Meaning "unfruitful land" (cf. Welsh iâl)."
Placenames of a different origin is evidence of linguistic replacement
Again that's nothing about the syllable of Yell which guarantees what language it is
There's nothing to refute because you haven't made a argument
Further you've completely ignored everything I've said so you aren't even interested in discussing this and along with your lack of knowledge on the subject just makes you look like an arrogant idiot.
>these things happened with each Pictish king who had a foreign father
Proof?
Further you've completely ignored everything I've said so you aren't even interested in discussing this and along with your lack of knowledge on the subject just makes you look like an arrogant idiot.
Also
>Welsh words somehow survived in Shetland
>But every inscription there is in Gaelic or Norse
Time for your medical injections methinks
This is one of the last threads with an IP count ever
So sad
It's gone now