Talk:Pritennic language

Merge proposal[edit]

This is just a discussion of "pre-Pictish". Seeing that the Picts are only attested from about the 7th to 9th centuries, the Priteni are just the "Picts" before they were given this exonym, during the 1st to 6th centuries. Whatever the merit of the Pictish vs. Pritennic distinction, it should be discussed in context under Pictish language. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging this article with Pictish language. Pritennic is just a virtually unattested stage in the development of Pictish, and it makes sense to discuss it and Pictish in the same article. There is not sufficient primary or secondary material on Pritennic to merit a separate article. BabelStone (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a substrate, only visible, if at all, in toponymy. Toponymy is extremely interesting, but the proper place for this is Pictish_language#Place_and_tribal_names. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, the proper place for this is Pictish language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge too. Even Pictish isn't exactly widely attested, and "Pritennic" even less so. +An gr 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps we should consider making a brief "history" section on the Pictish language article to which this could be added (perhaps under the heading of "Pritennic" / "pre-Pictish" / "proto-Pictish" / "early Pictish"). ~Asarlaí 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]