Insular Celtic languages: Difference between revisions

The proponents assert that a strong partition between the Brittonic languages with [[Gaulish]] ([[P-Celtic]]) on one side and the Goidelic languages with [[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]] ([[Celtic languages#Classification|Q-Celtic]]) on the other, may be superficial, owing to a [[language contact]] phenomenon. They add the identical sound shift ({{IPA|/kʷ/}} to {{IPA|/p/}}) could have occurred independently in the predecessors of Gaulish and Brittonic, or have spread through language contact between those two groups. Further, the [[Italic languages]] had a similar divergence between [[Latino-Faliscan]], which kept {{IPA|/kʷ/}}, and [[Osco-Umbrian]], which changed it to {{IPA|/p/}}. Some historians, such as [[George Buchanan]] in the 16th century, had suggested the Brythonic or P-Celtic language was a descendant of the [[Pictish language|Picts']] language. Indeed the tribe of the Pritani has [[Cruthin|Qritani]] (and, orthographically orthodox in modern form but counterintuitively written Cruthin) (Q-Celtic) cognate forms.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/picts/language.htm |title=The language of the Picts |website=ORKNEYJAR: the heritage of the Orkney islands}}</ref>{{efn|All other research into Pictish has been described as a postscript to Buchanan's work. This view may be something of an oversimplification: {{harvnb|Forsyth|1997}} offers a short account of the debate; {{harvnb|Cowan|McDonald|2000}} may be helpful for a broader view.}}