What are your thoughts on the only existing European alphabet the Ogham alphabet?

What are your thoughts on the only existing European alphabet the Ogham alphabet?

created in the 1st to 3rd century or a bit more in the past.

Was a Celtic creation, Germanic's used runes which came from Latin which came from Phoenicians.

Attached: ogham.jpg (2048x1492, 589.44K)

If you claim that Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are not European scripts because of phylogeny, then to be consistent you must also see all languages besides Basque (and possibly Uralic) to be non-European, using the same phylogenetic logic.

No idea why they created that when latin was around

They aren't, the originate from Phoenician and are foreign imports.

looks very primitive too

>No idea why they created that when latin was around
Maybe to have their own system of writing and not be cuck who imports it from foreigners?

Germanic rules are unlikely to have come from Latin. Most likely derived from some derivative of the Greek alphabet.

It's assumed to originate as a cipher of another script. Ciphers and whatnot were common.

>If you claim that Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are not European scripts because of phylogeny
They are not Latin, Greek or Russian because they do not originate from them.

Ogham is Irish because Irish invented it.

Yes you brainlet, I'm saying that if you consider Latin/Greek to be foreign imports, then most European languages are also foreign imports based on the same phylogenetic logic.

>They are not Latin, Greek or Russian because they do not originate from them.
Did you read beyond that point? I'm saying that if you consider this to be true then for consistency most languages spoken in the continent cannot be classified as European.

how is the irish language foreign to the irish people?

Attached: hurr.jpg (750x1000, 73.37K)

Also I don't know anyone who would say Cyrillic is Russian - if anything it's Bulgarian or Macedonian if you want to associate it with a modern day language

Foreign imports to Europe, using your logic.

>if anything it's Bulgarian or Macedonian
it's mutated greek which is mutated Phoenician not original creations.

That's besides the point, my point is that if you consider phylogenetic descendants to be non-native to their region, then you must apply this logic equally to scripts and languages.

Peoples and tribes have migrated throughout history all over the earth so what's your point?

Foreign means to a culture and society not a geography.

You have now dug yourself into a hole as "European" is inherently a geographical term.

Either you agree with both these statements or neither of them:
1) Celts are European as they speak a language that evolved in Europe, even though it descends from a non-European language (PIE originates from Anatolia).
2) Latin is a European script, as it evolved in Europe, even though it descends from a non-European script (Phoenician).

You are claiming Celtic (which evolved from a non-European ancestor) is a European language family, while also claiming Greek/Latin (which, likewise, evolved from a non-European ancestor) are not European scripts. Do you see the logical discrepancy here?

Phoenicians were foreign to Celts, Latins and Greeks and so adopting their script is adopting foreign influence.

I used European to mean Indo-European realms.

And Celts, Latins and Greeks are tribes who adopted a foreign (IE) language when they spoke ancestral tongues prior. The Irish descend from the same ancestral population as the Basques for example, while Celts elsewhere developed from a then foreign Indo-European language spreading to areas that spoke ancestral languages (e.g. Celtiberian displaced ancient languages in Iberia).

I don't see it to be fair to say that a script adapting and evolving in a new region means it's not native.

blah blah blah ireland is bad and not really irish

Celts come from Celtic tribes who migrated and settled in different lands.

brit daddy teaching us wisdom and logic itt

The Amerimutt is the one indirectly making this argument not me, I'm saying by his logic no one linguistic/orthographic group is really themselves.

>And Celts, Latins and Greeks are tribes who adopted a foreign (IE) language when they spoke ancestral tongues prior. The Irish descend from the same ancestral population as the Basques for example, while Celts elsewhere developed from a then foreign Indo-European language spreading to areas that spoke ancestral languages (e.g. Celtiberian displaced ancient languages in Iberia).
there are dozens of theories how Celts came to Ireland, you can't really know because its so long ago before written sources

also stop being obsessed with us for one day, asf

You're the one saying Irish people aren't really Irish but some type of Non Irish people who don't come from the direct line of Irish and celtic people.

>You're the one saying Irish people aren't really Irish
How did you come to this conclusion? They are Irish as their language and culture developed in Ireland.

I'm saying you're the one whose logic points towards that conclusion lol.

??? Obsessed? Think you're misunderstanding my intention here