We are all Celts

We are all Celts.

Attached: europe_celtic_400bc.gif (436x357, 9.65K)

>tfw u live in celtlet country

I thought you were Asian

Literally nobody cares.

You're the definition of attention whore.

Celtic is a language group not a genetic group.

not meeeeeeeeee

greetings my celtic brother

You are not "celtic" in any way.

>We are all Celts.
t. magyar warchief

Attached: 1787327554829.jpg (1879x660, 384.21K)

they polluted ank*ra with their existance

The brightest stars burn the fastest...

I've seen quite a few ginger Norwegians

budapest started out as a celtic village

>ginger hair means you speak a celtic language

hello, my fellow CELTS

Wrong, Norway is a CELTIC nation.

It isn't.

I'm slav

I'm Etruscan

cope harder bong

Yes it is, do not deny it brother. You and I, we are celts, bound by blood and fate.

Ugh my Celtic brothers

Attached: Celtic mémé.jpg (572x991, 163.61K)

Till the end, brother.

did you miss the part where it says 500BC

I AM KELT

Reminder that gallic “celts“ are closer to romans than to britons. They were in the same gallo-romanic language family and there was a large amount of mutual intelligibility as noted by the romans wich is absent when talking about brytonic languages.

The irish larping as the much more civilized gauls is little more than we wuzing.

thank god im slavic and not a subhuman c*lt

Attached: celts, you say?.png (1360x768, 1M)

Typical divide and conquer speech, gallic chefs often sought refuge on brytonnic islands during war with romans and were well understood

Probably because they were trading with the mainland for a long time and only true for those close to the southern shore.

OK Modernist.

Probably have celtic admixture in any case. Celtic style burials have been excavated all the way up to Kursk - in no way indicative of a majority, certainly not even a plurality - but it is a possibility.

i am not

>Reminder that gallic “celts“ are closer to romans than to britons.
That's outright incorrect. If anything Briton is closer to Gaulish than it is even to Goidelic (the Irish branch), let alone to an Italic language.

And this is trivial to prove because they share mutations, like
>mb / _(r,l)
Gaulish: "broga"
Breton: "bro"
Irish: "mruig" (change didn't happen)
Latin "margo" (change didn't happen)
Gloss: margin, border

>(o,e)a / w_
Gaulish: "uassos"
Breton: "gwaz"
Old Irish: "foss" (note the /o/)
[no Latin cognate]
Gloss: servant

There could be a thousand reasons for the Romans attesting mutual intelligibility between Latin and Gaulish, but not doing the same with Briton. Such as:
>it was already common knowledge
>the timeframe allowed Briton to accumulate a bit more changes
>nobody bothered recording it

So please don't spout nonsense.

BASED