Re: [tied] Pictish

The general belief nowdays is that Gaulish and Brittonic were not seperate languages. Tacitus does mention that there was little difference. It even seems that in some respects Gaulish may have been developing on similar lines to Brittonic during the Roman period. Belgic infiltration into southern Britain is likely to have brought with it a continental version of Celtic.

What specific linguistic evidence is there that places Pictish in the position which you claim?

As far as I am aware there is not sufficient evidence to place Pictish accurately. Toponomy (Aber, Pit) would suggest a closer relationship with Brittonic. I believe the king lists to be unreliable evidence as they are preserved in documents written in other languages. Contamination seems very possible.

Michael J Smith <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...> wrote:

I believe also that Pictish may have been a seperate Celtic branch midway between Brittonic and Gaulish, but closer to Gaulish. It would then make sense that Bede mentioned Pictish as one of the 5 languages of Britian, seperate from Goidelic or Brittonic. If there's a connection with the continental Pictones, who were originally Aquitanian-speaking, then I wonder if this Pictish language could be the result of the Pictones later Aquiring Gaulish due to their geographic position, but retaining an Aquitanian substrate. -Michael ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software