Are lowland-Scots descendants of Britons?
Also, when Northumbria conquered south-east Scotland, was there a migration of Angles to that area and if so, did they stay after Scotland re-conquered that area.
Lowland Scots are by and large descendents of the Britons, with some Gaelic admixture in the west and English/Norse/Flemish/Dutch admixture in the east.
>when Northumbria conquered south-east Scotland, was there a migration of Angles to that area and if so, did they stay after Scotland re-conquered that area.
I think it was the other way around. Northumbria basically became a little cluster of Germanics and eventually Scotland annexed some of their territory.
The Angle influx to Scotland mostly happened during the reigns of Malcolm Canmore and David I. Malcolm married an Englishwoman and a lot of her retainers came to live in Scotland and their culture became very influential at court. David I wanted to bring Scotland more in line with England and France, and established the Burgh system, which attracted a lot of English settlers.
Both
Lowland Scots are like Turks, at some point in time they were native to their land but then they got stockholm syndrome and started internalising the foreign culture and language being whispered into their ear as they were raped
>>1141679
In the westmoreso than the east, there were Angle settlements on the east coast as well as Bernician Northumbrian incursions.
All ethnic Britishers are descended from Britons
Western Isles = Gaels
Ayshire and Galloway = Britons/Cumbrians
Highlands, Fife and Aberdeen = Picts
Borders and Lothian = Angles
Looking on a macro scheme, the Scottish identity was created by Hadrian's Wall and shit like that. Congrats, Scotland, you are a bastion of Anglo-Saxons, unlike Britain which has been cucked by the French.
No, you are all wrong, lowland Scots are descended from the Gothic tribesmen of Roman times, and Lallans is the successor of their language.
Also no Celts ever set foot in Scotland until the 13th century.
Also "Mac" in Scottish surnames is actually derived from an archaic Gothic word for "long", as in a line of descendants. The Irish stole it from us.
Also we're actually much better fighters than the Irish but they managed to drive us from the Highlands by sheer numbers, this is reflected, somehow, in the population density of the Lowlands being many dozens times higher than the Highlands.
Check out these sweet ancient Anglo-Saxon manuscripts I somehow translated despite not knowing Anglo-Saxon. They're much better than that MacPherson garbage everyone else is reading. They were definitely not written by my neighbour's daughter.
>>1143157
Gaelic is derived from old english and latin
>>1144507
*tips fedora*
>>1142987
Mostly this, though the West Highlands would probably come under Gaels as well.
t. From the western isles
>>1144579
show me the etymology of one gaelic word that isn't traced to an english or latin word
>>1144876
Here's your (You)
>>1144876
Most of them?
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Scottish_Gaelic_Swadesh_list
>>1144507
This retard again
>>1146628
I don't think you've actually heard what reconstructed ancient brythonic sounds like. It doesnt sound anything like welsh, it sounds like spanish or portugese. As with germanic languages, the further you trace it back the more similar it is to latin and romance languages. Actual ancient gaelic looks nothing like modern gaelic, and any thing or concept in modern gaelic, anything thats not grammar is derived from an english or latin word. It was written in monasteries by the only literate people in ireland; roman catholic monks.
Coming back to ancient brythonic being a romance language - spain and portugal was meant to be inhabited by "celts" as well - well the british isles were settled by iberians. So naturally when they start adopting latin and influencing it with their native language to create a new language, the new languages are going to be similar and related because their native languages were related and they both adopted latin.
Illyrians were a part of the central european bronze age civilisations atttibuted to "celts", and their language influenced their non greek counterparts, this is when europeans other then greeks and romans first started speaking so called indo european languages. Now hallstatt, latene etc were not " celtic" at all, such a thing doesnt exist anyway, but the term was used to refer to people in iberia, thats it, not even britons or hibernians. The latter were in fact related to celts, but they still werent and arent celts. And celts were unrelated to hallstatt, latene etc. They were basques who got influenced by illyrians.
Who /borderman/ here?
>>1141679
>that map
Perfect borders.
>>1147741
t. Paddy O'Donohue
>>1147696
Hallstatt, latene, urnfield were basques who got influenced by illyrians I should say.
>>1147696
Tell me how exactly you think ancient Brythonic looks like Spanish and Portguese and how Germanic languages look Latin, particularly, further back.
Germanic does look closer to Latin further back, but also to Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Old Church Slavonic, simply because of the time these languages have been diverging hasn't been as long.
Lowland Scots are Anglo-Germanic by culture, there is no defined gene for the Britons.
>>1144737
>t. From the western isles
Which one? Ileach here desu.
Who else /islander/ here?
>>1147696
>Actual ancient gaelic looks nothing like modern gaelic, and any thing or concept in modern gaelic
Yes it does, t. Irish speaker
the rest of your shit is Maedonia tier, so I'll leave it be.
Who /Lothian/ here?
Feels good being rich and relevant.
>>1148740
P.S. fuck the gaels and their fenian successors
>>1148740
Who /rural Ayrshire/ here?
Feels good being rich and tranquil.
Who /Ireland/ here?
Feels good being rich and a real country
>>1148828
>rich
*tips bailouts*
>>1148833
*tips gdp per capita*
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/european-countries-by-gdp-per-capita.php
>>1148697
>the rest of your shit is Maedonia tier, so I'll leave it be.
>The orthodox view of the origins of the Celts turns out to be an archaeological myth left over from the 19th century. Over the past 200 years, a myth has grown up of the Celts as a vast, culturally sophisticated but warlike people from central Europe, north of the Alps and the Danube, who invaded most of Europe, including the British Isles, during the iron age, around 300 BC.
>Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump after Roman times. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the “Keltoi,” he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia.
>The late 19th-century French historian Marie Henri d’Arbois de Jubainville decided that Herodotus had meant to place the Celtic homeland in southern Germany. His idea has remained in the books ever since, despite a mountain of other evidence that Celts derived from southwestern Europe.
>For the idea of the south German “Empire of the Celts” to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others. And the well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from the west in the 1st millennium BC have been systematically reinterpreted as coming from Germany, across the Austrian Alps.
>De Jubainville’s Celtic myth has been deconstructed in two recent sceptical publications: The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention by Simon James (1999), and The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions by John Collis (2003).
>>1150129
>>1148697
>Further evidence for the Mediterranean origins of Celtic invaders is preserved in medieval Gaelic literature.
> Irish legend tells us that all six of the cycles of invasion came from the Mediterranean via Spain, during the late Neolithic to bronze age, and were completed 3,700 years ago.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry
>>1148697
> It is commonly associated with Proto-Celtic and Celtic populations in the Western Hallstatt zone and with (pre-)Illyrians in the eastern Hallstatt zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
>The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, occasionally /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) were people in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had cultural similarities,[1] although the relationship between ethnic, linguistic and cultural factors in the Celtic world remains uncertain and controversial.[2] The exact geographic spread of the ancient Celts is also disputed; in particular, the ways in which the Iron Age inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy.[1][2][3][4]
>>1150200
>The first recorded use of the name of Celts – as Κελτοί – to refer to an ethnic group was by Hecataeus of Miletus, the Greek geographer, in 517 BC,[12] when writing about a people living near Massilia (modern Marseille).[13] In the 5th century BC Herodotus referred to Keltoi living around the head of the Danube and also in the far west of Europe.[14]
>The etymology of the term Keltoi is unclear. Possible roots include Indo-European *kʲel-‘to hide’ (also in Old Irish celid), IE *kʲel- ‘to heat’ or *kel- ‘to impel’.[15]
>Several authors have supposed it to be Celtic in origin, while others view it as a name coined by Greeks. Linguist Patrizia De Bernardo Stempel falls in the latter group, and suggests the meaning "the tall ones".[16]
>In the first century BC Julius Caesar reported that the people known to the Romans as Gauls (Galli) called themselves Celts,[17] which suggests that even if the name Keltoi was bestowed by the Greeks, it had been adopted to some extent as a collective name by the tribes of Gaul.
>The geographer Strabo, writing about Gaul towards the end of the first century BC, refers to the "race which is now called both Gallic and Galatic," though he also uses the term Celtica as a synonym for Gaul, which is separated from Iberia by the Pyrenees.
>Yet he reports Celtic peoples in Iberia, and also uses the ethnic names Celtiberi and Celtici for peoples there, as distinct from Lusitani and Iberi.[18] Pliny the Elder cited the use of Celtici in Lusitania as a tribal surname,[19] which epigraphic findings have confirmed.[20][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Greeks and Romans never referred to British Islanders as celts and did not recognise them as celts
>>1147696
I had no idea John Pinkerton was still alive
>>1147714
>tfw from Selkirk
>moved to Inverness when I was 5
>last year of school
>friends were talking about wearing kilts to the formal
>didn't really feel it was appropriate for me to wear a kilt
>wore tartan trews instead
>was literally the only person there not wearing a kilt
jist die in ma dremand awreadie
>>1150213
https://youtu.be/ar_dU_OKF3w
There's your (You)
Anyone who listens to that language and thinks it isn't a derivative of latin and greek is in denial
>>1150271
búwa slānos ac swos
"Health be with you"
K, so what Latin or Greek words do these come from?
Lowland Scots are true angles
Their dialect is closer in vocabulary to the North Germanic languages due to bot being conquered by the Normans when the English Angles were.
>>1150251
>not wearing a fucking kilt
I'll bet you voted to stay in on the referendum as well
wouldn't the angle contribution to the scottish genepool be null due to the fact that 25% of scots are descended from irish immigrants from the 19th century
>>1150299
according to the standard indo-european language theory, they would all be related to latin or greek words anyway.
Even someone who doesn't know anything about greek or latin can clearly tell just by listening to that language that its closely related. And the mainstream thought about indo-european languages wouldn't disagree. It just has an elaborate, made up speculative hypothesis about why, without any good reason
>>1150380
It's funny how you have no knowledge at all of linguistics or any of these languages and think you can throw 200 years of painstaking philology out the window.
>>1150380
>related
So you are your cousin? You're descended from your nephew? Afterall you're related to them, that must mean you're based on them amirite?
>>1150425
I'm related to my parents as well. Celtic, germanic and slavic languages aren't latin or greek, but they are derived from them
>>1150404
>It's funny how you have no knowledge at all of linguistics or any of these languages
Why do you assume that?
>and think you can throw 200 years of painstaking philology out the window.
We don't have any record of germanic, celtic or slavic languages until long after these people had extensive contact with the romans. There's a perfectly good explanation for why these languages are all related to latin, and no reason to create elaborate speculative hypothesis to explain something that doesn't need explaining. We have a solid record of latin and ancient greek, we know these languages existed and we know when they existed because they were spoken by literate people. We know these people have close and extensive contact with and influence on celtic and germanic people. There's no reason to posit that people with the same cultural heritage spread to places as far flung apart as india and scandinavia to explain why germans, britons, gauls and iberians spoke languages closely related to latin and greek.
PIE and the standard indo-european hypothesis, is just a hypothesis, a historic, linguistic and philological hypothesis - none of which are sciences. It's a hypothesis that deals in speculation, PIE is a constructed, postulated language. So it's hilarious that you guys get so outraged over such a hypothesis being challenged, as if its irrefutable fact or a scientific theory or something. It's an unnecessary hypothesis and there simply isn't enough hard evidence for it to be anything other then speculation.
Moreover it was politically motivated and influenced by romanticism - the idea that northern europeans could have roots or distant relations to an ancient civilisation in the orient.
>>1150271
>Anyone who listens to that language and thinks it isn't a derivative of latin and greek is in denial
My my, you're retarded.
>>1152668
not an argument
>>1152703
go to bed stefan
>>1152610
>Why do you assume that?
It is obvious from what you're posting.
>We don't have any record of germanic, celtic or slavic languages until long after these people had extensive contact with the romans
That doesn't mean anything, and Gaulish is attested only 200 years after Latin and already distinct anyway.
But most importantly, Germanic and Celtic cannot be demonstrated to be descended from Latin, while they can be demonstrated to be descended from Proto-Indo-European
For example PIE initial *bʰ and *dʰ merge into [f] in Latin.
Compare English 'brother', 'bear' vs Latin 'frater', 'fero'
English 'door', 'do' vs Latin 'foris', 'facio'
An initial [f] splitting into [b] and [d] with no other conditions is completely improbable and goes against all observed language change. The only conclusion that can be made is that English is not descended from Latin, the same goes for Celtic, which also keeps these consonants distinct.
>>1150334
I'm fae the Mairches, it's no done for me tae wear a kilt.
I votit Aye, in ane case.
Lowland Scots are Anglo-Saxon folk http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml
>>1143028
No way the north west would vote Tory to that extent, and Labour should have representation in Glasgow as well as Edinburgh. I call bs.
