Jump to content

Talk:Pictish language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.21.244.26 (talk) at 16:55, 8 June 2020 (→Being classed as Brittonic: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

So Few Brittonic Placenames

Hey, any sources on why there are so few P-Celtic roots in the placenames of former Pictish areas? From what I've read the overwhelming majority of placenames in Pictish areas, even in their heartlands, their strongholds and centers like Fortriu, are overwhelmingly Goidelic root. It seems like a sprinkling of P-Celtic placenames has been used as justification that the Picts were dominated by a culture/language similar to if not Brittonic.

Now we actually do have areas where Brittonic placenames do survive in Scotland in abundance, that is of course the land between Hadrian's and the Antonine Wall. Here despite Goidelic conquest/annexation and linguistic replacement under the Kingdom of Scotland, the Brittonic culture and language which dominated there for centuries prior left a clear mark on the landscape, just like the settlement of the Angles in the southeast did while still not overwhelmingly replacing Brittonic roots, just like Norse did all over northern and western Scotland.

The Gaels clearly don't have a habit of totally eradicating placenames in the places they conquered or where their culture washed over (as can be seen from when Gaelic culture and language swept back over lands the Norse had conquered and held for centuries, most Norse placenames still remained). So why is it taken as acceptable to suggest that there was a wholesale linguistic displacement and near entire obliteration of P-Celtic placenames in all Pictish areas by Gaels from Argyll? Without presumably any support from Ireland as they never mention any participation of Irish tribes in this great Gaelic conquest of the Picts that must have took centuries.

This would have been a massive campaign with countless battles, but not a single Irish contemporary source mentions anything about it? Not a single contemporary Welsh or Anglo-Saxon source mentions it?

And in fact all sources from the time seem to suggest the Picts were the ones pushing into and exerting pressure on Dal Riata, not the other way around. It seems from Irish sources that the Picts actually nearly destroyed the kingdom under Oengus I, and they never seem to reemerge as any kind of regional force after this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish annals until Aed Find do point to Pictland eventually dominating Dal Riata under Oengus I of the Picts. However the argument can be made that Dal Riata recovered under Aed Find towards the end of the 8th century, and that the defeat of the Picts and the death of their king Uen, and the Dal Riatan king Aed Boanta in 839 against the Vikings may have weakened Pictland more, making a Gaelic conquest more plausible. Bridei921302 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you've been reading, but the standard text for place names is Watson, W.J. (1926), The History of the Celtic Place-names of Scotland., Birlinn. Also read Forsyth, K. (1997), Language in Pictland : the case against 'non-Indo-European Pictish (PDF), Utrecht: de Keltische Draak, retrieved 4 February 2010. For the history of Scotland in the time you're talking about read Woolf, Alex (2007), "From Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2, Edinburgh University Press. The notion of an armed conquest of Pictland by the Gaels is not one that is taken seriously by any historian. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Classifying the origins of the Picts, possible Vasconic element.

https://tied.verbix.com/archive/article7.html. I found this source, which staits that the Picts's origins either remain unclassified or are descendants of the Iberians, definitely, though, the aboriginals of Scotland, they are a pre-Celtic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.84.236 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the ultimate source of that is but suffice to say it's not correct and is not a reliable source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Vasconic element, linguistically speaking, would have spoken a language related to Proto-Basque, which in turn may have descended from the extinct Aquitanian language. Basque is recognised as the only currently spoken pre-Indo European language in Europe. The classification of the Iberian language is disputed and may or may not be Vasconic, but it might alternatively have been Celtic. --Bridei921302 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section for "Linguistic Evidence" or similar?

In other articles handling extinct and ill-attested languages and dialects, such as that on Cumbric, for instance -- sections are normally dedicated to compiling linguistic remnants, principally toponymic evidence, as well as loan-words, personal names, etc (for the purposes of Pictish, the content of inscriptions would also be suitable). I propose that such a section be included in our to collect selected information of this nature, so as to illustrate and deduce origin of Pictish. I am willing to discuss this at length, but if no objections are raised, I will move forward with the amendments. JoeyofScotia (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would your source be? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim:, In the case of inscriptions, we already have a sourced discussion of a Pictish stone in Orkney that could be moved to such a section. Toponymic evidence, I would intend to source from Taylor and Markus's "Place Names of Fife" (2006), Watson's "Celtic Place Names of Scotland" (1922), and Driscoll, Geddes, and Hall's "Pictish Progress" (2006). For loan-words into Gaelic, MacBain's "Etymological Dictionary of Scottish-Gaelic" (1896) was intended for use. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim: I have began work on the proposed section, and will continue to do so over the following days, using the sources that I detailed in my earlier post --JoeyofScotia (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far... needs to be converted to harvnb format references, but I'd be happy to do that once you're finished. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've only just read your most recent comment. I am unfamiliar with conversions to harvnb, but will let you know when I feel the information on the "Linguistic Evidence" is complete. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why don't the references follow the structure of other Wikipedia articles? I.e. all citations within the article should be found under "References" (not "Notes") and there shouldn't be a huge list of references that aren't clearly linked to the article. --Danielklein (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielklein: They are clearly linked to the article, by way of the "Notes". This sfn-citation style provides a way to cite a source multiple times and further specify the page number where the information is found. IMO, this is more exact than quoting the same source over and over again without specifying the exact location of the cited material in the source. But then, WP doesn't have a house style; there are many options, we should just use them consistently (WP:CITESTYLE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: To what does 'Armit, Ian (1990), Beyond the Brochs: Changing Perspectives on the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press' refer? --Danielklein (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the reference for the citation in note 29 (current version[1]). –Austronesier (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being classed as Brittonic

From what I know Pictish is considered in modern times to be most definitely P Celtic but only possibly Brittonic. The semi-hypothetical language that it derives from, Prittenic is considered separate to common Brythonic. Is the classification on the top right from a certain source?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pictish_language&oldid=961465741"