The Picts spoke Gaelic. Prove this wrong

The Picts spoke Gaelic

Prove this wrong

CRIME Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were matrilineal.
    Like Basque

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only the kings.
      It is funny because there was a king called Talorgan MacEnfret

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bump

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't change the fact that this is stupid and feminine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And yet they defeated Rome

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ll

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Feminine and stupid*

            And yet they defeated Rome

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They were not matrilineal, you fool

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we literally have historical records about this
            Let's see them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Pictish king lists? They clearly show sons did not inherit their crown from their fathers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They were not matriarchal

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yean they were.
            No father ever succeeded his son as king Scotland, apart from a few rebels, until Malcolm III

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was there ever doubt they didn't speak a celtic language?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First you have to prove it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry I only read papers published within the last calendar week you amateur

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

            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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          medieval english had hebrew names and wrote in latin to confirm land ownership

  4. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        >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?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Picts were Semites
    Proof:
    https://www.visitabdn.com/listing/the-rhynie-man

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >MAQQÓTALLUORRH | NXHHTFROBBACCXNNEFF
    >MAQQOTALLUORRH
    >MAQQ
    So the Picts didn't speak Gaelic but they wrote in Gaelic more archaic than the Irish? Yeah sure bro.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry I only read papers published within the last calendar week you amateur

      You'll never win we've won

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They don't look like Gaelic words

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Of course MacNun is obviously a Welsh name along with Finnguine and Moren and somehow Fergus too is also Welsh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also
            >Welsh words somehow survived in Shetland
            >But every inscription there is in Gaelic or Norse
            Time for your medical injections methinks

            >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?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

            >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.

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>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).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>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 😉

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >these things happened with each Pictish king who had a foreign father
            Proof?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Also
          >Welsh words somehow survived in Shetland
          >But every inscription there is in Gaelic or Norse
          Time for your medical injections methinks

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is one of the last threads with an IP count ever
    So sad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's gone now

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *