Plé:An Albainis

Ón Vicipéid, an chiclipéid shaor.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Níl an téarma sin "a' Bhéarla Gallda" ceart in aon teanga, agus níl athbhrí ar bith ag baint le "Albainis" as Gaeilge - ní rithfeadh le haon Ghaeilgeoir "Albainis" a úsáid sa chiall "Gaeilge na hAlban". Ní mór an leathanach úd "Bhéarla Gallda" a luathscrios agus an t-idirdhealán a bhaint den leathanach seo.Panu Petteri Höglund 14:55, 16 Márta 2007 (UTC)

So, this page is still here. The fact is, that no fluent Gaeilgeoir would ever use "Albainis" for Scots Gaelic. These pages should be reorganized according to the following scheme:
Gaeilge na hAlban = Scots Gaelic
Albainis or Lallainnis (both neologisms that have been used for Lowland Scots) = Lowland Scots
Béarla na hAlban = an ambiguous term that can mean either Lowland Scots as a particular language distinct from English (for this, Albainis should be reserved), or that can mean the Scots version of standard English (Béarla Caighdeánach na hAlban).
Anyone? Panu Petteri Höglund 09:52, 25 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)
Aontaím. Níl aon ghá leis an leathanach seo. Aontaím freisin leis an t-idirdhealú atá déanta agat idir na téarmaí éagsúla. Nmacu 12:58, 25 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)

"Albainis" ... since when did Irish Gaels refer to Lowland Scots as "Albainis"? In the real Irish of the early modern period Albainis if used for language would be a way to refer to the way Scottish Gaels spoke, but there's no historical distinction in either Scottish or Irish Gaelic between "Scots" and other English dialects. This is just an insulting neologism that's been made up by English speakers writing in Irish, who didn't give two thoughts about the blunder. It's so sad that the language, like so many others, is just a slave to English usage. Albainis ... preposterous.

Terrible - why are you doing this? Gaidhlig as much right to be called the Scottish language as well. Sorry I can't write Irish, but I understand this slap in the face to Scottish Gaeldom easily enough. -- 19:36, 13 Márta 2008 (UTC)

You have no business calling established Irish terms "preposterous". People who don't use Irish fluently and are not in touch with living Irish usage should not tamper with Vicipéid for political reasons which are intelligible only to themselves. I am not terribly happy with the terms Albainis or Lallainnis myself, but they are the terms that have been used in Irish-language press and literature, and your political considerations and perceived "slaps in the face to Scottish Gaeldom" are a problem of your own. We do not make the terminological policy here, we do our best to adhere to real usage and terms officially provided. It is difficult enough without non-Irish-speaking people with huge chips on their shoulders, like you, taking offense where none is meant. Panu Petteri Höglund 18:34, 5 Meitheamh 2008 (UTC)

This is not an established Irish usage. I can read Irish perfectly well. Would you like it if English was called "Eireannais" in Scottish Gaelic? (Probably you wouldn't care, as you're not Irish...) You are rewriting Irish language history!!!

I repeat this is highly offensive. Change it now!

History was rewritten in Scotland in the late Middle Ages (states rewrite history to reflect the culture and necessities of their rulers' interests and this has gone on throughout history, and not just in Scotland!)when "Inglis" became "Scottis" and it has stuck. Should the "Afrikaans" articles be entitles "South African Dutch" in various languages? "Irish" is as much a neologism as "scots" after all, as the situation with Gaelic was very similair to that with Arabic (namely one written language and several spoken ones). Anyway, the etymology of the word "Alba" seems to be "Britain" and the Scots of Alba were "British Scots/Gaels" so any Scottish language could be referred to as "Albainis" (and seeing as the last King resident in Scotland spoke the English national language of the Scots and not the earlier Gaelic national language, it is reasonable to conclude that "Albainis" should be the right name for this article. 14:11, 22 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)

The argument that English be called Eireannais is nothing short of ridiculous. The fact is that there are three languages in Scotland - Scots Gaelic, Scots/Lallans, and English. Even in Scotland, Scots Gaelic is not referred to as Scottish. When I asked my relatives in the Ráth Chairn Gaeltacht about how they would call the languages they, without hesitation, referred to Scots Gaelic as Gaeilge na hAlban and Scots as Albainis. Maybe that is as a result of hearing the official terms from another source, but the fact is that's what's used. If you look here you will see that the Ulster-Scots language (a dialect of Scots) is referred to as Albainis Uladh. As you can see the Scots part of the term is translated as Albainis - OFFICIAL USAGE. There are many pecularities in many languages when it comes to naming people and languages - take Manx for example. Until the fairly recent official translation of Dutch as Ollanish, that language was known simply as Germaanish - the same term for German, and we know they are not the same language. I doubt many Dutch people would have been offended by that! Even the English name for that language is a corruption of Deutsch! The fact is that Albainis is the preferred term in Ireland for the language known in English as Scots. It is not a political slap in the face, it's not offensive, and it's not insulting. It's just how it is. We as a language community should not bow to the whims of one person who happens to find something insulting in a language he/she does not speak. Panu may not be Irish, but he has done an awful lot of work for the Irish language, and is probably more fluent than many native Gaeltacht speakers. I would have to agree with him on 99.99% of the things he says with relation to grammar, vocabulary and terminology. I only reserve that final 0.01% for a possible future disagreement.
Simply put:
  • Scots Gaelic = Gaeilge na hAlban
  • Scots/Lallans = Albainis
  • Scots English = Béarla na hAlban
  • English = Béarla

--MacTire02 15:49, 19 Deireadh Fómhair 2008 (UTC)

There are actually at least three people complaining here. No matter, the unsigned comment way above is correct. Albainis is used in early modern or late medieval Irish (i.e. when Irish was still reasonably independent, i.e. had a decent proportion of speakers who weren't more fluent in a more terminologically developed language like English), but not for "Scots", rather for the dialect, accent or language spoken by Scottish people speaking Gaelic or in Irish (as they are understood it's tough knowing how to phrase this); this would obviously be a more useful and natural use of the word anyway. Albainis to refer to Scots is a semi-valid translation of modern English ... Scots is itself the Scots word for Scots rather than an English word (which would be "Scottish"), though Scots speakers only usually call it Scots when contrasting with English English, a fact lost in the translation. Scottish Gaelic does not historically distinguish Scots and English, the reason being is that no-one did until the early modern period. Scottish Gaels, like Irish Gaels, believe themselves to be the indigenous inhabitants of Scotland and English (including Scots) to be foreign and intrusive. Calling Lowland Scots Albainis is the ideological equivalent of calling Irish "Gaelic of Ireland" and Hiberno-English "Irish". If you were to call it that in Scottish Gaelic it'd be a pretty quick way to become greatly disliked, though in the Irish revival world such concerns would be irrelevant and no-one would give a toss. To conclude, MacTire02, the Irish wikipedia users can call it what they like, but they can't truthfully make it out to be historical usage and they should hardly be surprised and complain if some Scots, esp. Scottish Gaelic speakers, come here offended. What exactly could you possibly expect? ( 18:09, 27 Eanáir 2009 (UTC)).
Well we don't actually make it out to be historical usage. The fact is that the name Albainis is the word used by modern speakers to refer to the Scots language. At the end of the day, this wikipedia has a policy of adhering to official and spoken Irish as it is today, not as it was in the past. As I said above, I have spoken to relatives of mine who are native Irish speakers and provided above what they termed as the translations for the various languages/dialects of Scotland. I have also provided a link to the official Irish language terminology website which also shows their position on the term. Personally, I agree that Albainis is not an accurate term. I do prefer Béarla na hAlban as the translation for Scots, but I also have to stick with official and spoken Irish as is. This wikipedia is about the promotion of the Irish language, not avoiding the hurting of people's feelings who don't like official Irish terminology. If you wish to complain about the terms used, perhaps it would be better to contact the agency responsible for creating them. My apologies if that comes across as harsh, but personal feelings should not get in the way of creating a viable and valuable resource to Irish language speakers. --MacTire02 00:00, 28 Eanáir 2009 (UTC)
Féach ar na leathanaigh seo a leanas chun samplaí a fháil:
--MacTire02 00:20, 28 Eanáir 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the term is based on "translating" English and has only shallow usage;, whatever excuses its editors find to use the term, are consolidating its grip, and will ensure that however loose the grip was it won't be so loose in future. This is why all the process logic above is hollow. Your argument apparently is that Albainis is closer to conforming to ga.wikipedia's rules. Well, enjoy the satisfaction knowing that gives you in this big world. So much for the work of Iomairt Cholm Chille. It doesn't bother me as much personally as it seems to bother some above, but can just see what's happening and don't think you should kid yourself. ( 04:22, 30 Eanáir 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry you feel that way about it but as I've said before, this wikipedia is about the living Irish language as spoken today, not as it was in the past. The fact remains that the VAST majority of Irish speakers and Irish organisations/institutions/government departments/media outlets use Albainis as the term for Scots. I have found more evidence of this at the following links:

the Scottish humanist scholar (and nnative Gaelic speaker) George Buchanan is quoted as deriding Gaelic as "backwards" and this attitude was regrettably all too prevalent at the period when "Scots" came to mean the English language of Scotland and not the Gaelic one. Linguisticically dominant groups have a tendency of laying claim to nativeness (hence "Afrikaans/African"). The fact that in Scotland, most people since the days of George Buchanan have referred to the non Gaelic national vernacular as Scots and not the Scottish Gaidhlig language, should be the basis for the title in the modern Irish Wikipedia article 9despite the likeliehood of medieval Gaelic writers only ever using "Albainis" to refer to the Gaelic speakers and their language in Scotland). 14:21, 22 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)

Yes the term may be a neologism, and yes it may be ugly but that's what's used. If we were to get rid of all neologisms and english-based words in our language we would have no language left. The same could be said for the Scots Gaelic language. Besides, surely Albainis is based on a perfectly good Gaelic word in Alba? Anyway, this is the last word I have on this. Unless concensus is reached on changing the name of the language, or unless the official Agency responsible for terminology in Irish changes its view on the translation, then Albainis it shall remain. --MacTire02 10:06, 30 Eanáir 2009 (UTC)

RE:"The argument that English be called Eireannais is nothing short of ridiculous. MacTire02 15:49, 19 Deireadh Fómhair 2008 (UTC)"

Ach tá 'Yernish' ag!Éóg1916 12:49, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Relevance Éamonn? The idea expressed above that Hiberno-English be called Eireannais in Scots Gaelic is hardly analogous to Irish being called Yernish in Manx. To use that analogy would be to suggest that Yernish is the Manx for Hiberno-English, which it obviously is not. --MacTire02 14:04, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Tugtar 'Irish' ar 'Gaeilge na hÉireann' go minic, 'the Gaelic' a bhí ag máthair s'agamsa agus muintir Thír Chonaill ( na daoine a bhí an teanga acu ón chliabhán)! Tugtar 'Yernish' uirthi ar, 'Gàidhlig na h-Èireann' ar, agus 'Gaeilge' ar! Tugtar 'Manx' ar 'Gaeilge Mhanainn' go minic! Cé go bhfuil 'Gaelg' ag, agus 'Gàidhlig Mhanainn' ag, tá 'Manainnis' (ar chúis éigean!) ag! Tugtar 'Scottish Gaelic' ar 'Gaeilge na hAlban' go minic, 'Gaelg Albinagh' ar, 'Gàidhlig' ar I Vicipéid an Bhéarla tá 'Manx', 'Scottish Gaelic' and 'Irish', ( ceapaim go mbeadh 'Manx Gaelic', 'Scottish Gaelic' agus 'Irish Gaelic' níos fearr) agus tá na Gaeil go léir ar aon intinn go bhfuil Gaelg/Gàidhlig/Gaeilge acu féin!Éóg1916 20:46, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Ach tá trí ainm ar an Mhanainnis sa teanga fhéin - Gaelg, Gailck, agus Manninish! Ta tushtey ard ny çhengey shen ayms as ta mee feer hickyr fo shen. Chomh maith as sin, ní bhaineann duine ar bith úsáid as Manx Gaelic i mBéarla. Caithfidh orainn glacfadh leis na caighdeáin atá ann. Níl éinne ag rá go gcaithfidh ar na Manainnigh úsáid a bhaint as Gaelg Nerin nó Gaelg Yernagh. In aon chor, ní thuigim an pointe. Tá an plé seo faoi ainm ny hAlbainise. --MacTire02 21:06, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

RE: "..ní bhaineann duine ar bith úsáid as Manx Gaelic i mBéarla", ní gá duit ach amharc ar seo ar "Manx (native name Gaelg or Gailck, pronounced [ɡilk] or [ɡilɡ][5]), also known as Manx Gaelic, is a Goidelic language spoken on the Isle of Man.",! RE: "Caithfidh orainn [sic] glacfadh leis na caighdeáin atá ann." Cén 'caighdeán'? Tá caighdeán lucht an Bhéarla ann, agus is minic neamhaird a bheith déanta acu ar tábhacht na Gaeilge sna cúrsaí seo. Bíonn béim acu ar an tír ní ar na daoine. Tá 'caighdeán' ag na Gaeil, bhí/tá béim ar lucht labhartha na teangaidh ní ar an áit ina bhfuil cónaí orthú. Ní 'Manx/Scottish Gaelic/Irish' ( 'Manninish/Gàidhlig na h-Alba/Gaeilge na hÉireann') ach 'Gaelic/Gaelg/Gàidhlig/Gaeilge' a bhíonn acu. ( Féach ar"Gaelic As a noun, it may refer to the group of languages spoken by the Gaels, or to any one of the individual languages.") Is i gcomhthéacsanna teoranta, faoi leith, a bhíonn gá nó go mbíonn sé inmholta idirdhealú a thabhairt agus ansin bíonn sé nádúrtha agus inghlactha an 'cineál Gaeilge' a shonrú.Éóg1916 23:23, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia as a source is not reliable. In that same quotation you mentioned there is no reference to who uses Manx Gaelic as a description. In the Isle of Man it is simply known as Manx. In Britain it is simply known as Manx. In Ireland it is known as Manx. I have never heard it named Manx Gaelic. Likewise, I have only heard the term Irish Gaelic used sparingly, and at that only when compared to Scots Gaelic, generally it is just Irish. At the end of the day the wikipedia is based on common usage - not what is politically correct. Anyway, I still don't see the relevance of talking about the names of the Gaelic languages. The talk page is about Albainis. And you still haven't shown relevance to the Yernish-Éireannais comment you left above. The commentor above said that it would be like calling the English spoken in Ireland as Éireannais. The Manx do use Yernish (analogous with Éireannais), but NOT to refer to the English as spoken in Ireland, but to the Irish Gaelic language itself. They NEVER use Gaelg Yernagh or any other version thereof. Is it so hard for people to accept that languages change. Usage changes. Terminology changes. If in all languages we used historical usage, then Manx should get rid of Ollanish for Dutch and reinstate Germaanish (which is also the Manx for German). Maybe in English we should call Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic Erse again? I'm sure then that we on :gv will have plenty of irate Dutch people giving out about the usage. And do we risk calling Scots Béarla Gallda and risk angering the Scots community? How would we differentiate between Scots English and Scots (two separate but related languages albeit with the former as a dialect of a larger language)? Why not ask CnaG about the terminology, or Fiontar in DCU? What are they basing their terminology on? All I am doing is adhering to official language terminology. If you don't like the terms then go to the source if you feel so strongly about it. --MacTire02 23:47, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)
Also, as you mentioned stress on country and not people then that only backs up Albainis. Scots is spoken by Scottish people of Gaelic descent, Norse descent, and Anglo-Saxon descent. It is a language of Scotland. Scots Gaelic is a language primarily of Scottish people of Gaelic descent, thereby making Albainis as the term for the Scots language more valid. --MacTire02 23:53, 9 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)
Before you said this, it looked like you were arguing based on the necessity of modern usage, bona fide. But now you are justifying it with bad history. There is no such thing as "Gaelic descent", it's just a Celtic language which has developed from the Common Celtic introduced to Britain and from there to Ireland 2-3 millenia ago. For the record though, the area where Gaelic survives today is quite possibly the least Celtic part of Scotland apart from the Northern Isles, being Norse speaking very late. By your own argument, Irish English should be called Irish, since English speakers in Ireland are of English, French, Norse, Welsh and Gaelic descent, whereas Gaelic speakers are, presumably, only "Gaelic in origin". Let's face reality. Irish nationalists want to identity Gaelic primarily with Ireland, and thus calling Lowland Scots "Albainis", against common sense and traditional Irish language usage, promotes this. It's the same reason Irish nationalists prefer the term "Irish" to the term Gaelic, even though Gaelic is the cognate term in the actual language. -- Thomas
I don't see how using my argument suggests the variety of English spoken in Ireland should be called Irish. That would imply I was suggesting that the variety of English spoken in Scotland should be called Scots. I have NEVER suggested that. What I have suggested is that the Scots LANGUAGE as distinct from the Scottish regional variety of English should be called Scots. Also, you argue that the area where Scots Gaelic survives is the least Celtic part of Scotland (Northern Isles excepted). What then are the criteria for making an area Celtic. I would have assumed the presence of a Celtic language, together with Celtic customs, tartans, Celtic music etc. should qualify an area as being Celtic. Surely you're not suggesting that Perth/Kinross is more Celtic having no Celtic language? Or Borders which probably only had a Celtic language during the era of Rheged - and at that not even a Gaelic one? Yes the Hebrides were a part of the Norse Kingdoms, but, like many areas dominated by a minority elite, most of those were incorporated into the local populace after their hegemony had ended. Also, perhaps you may want to check out the word "cognate". The word "Gaelic" is NOT cognate with "Gaeilge", "Gaidhlig", or "Gaelg". It is a transliteration or translation depending on the viewpoint. Cognate suggests that "Gaelic" is an English word having its origins deep in history - the same root as the modern Gaelic languages. This is not the case. The English word "Gaelic" is actually just a borrowing. --MacTire02 13:13, 19 Mí na Nollag 2009 (UTC)
You were the one talking about "Gaelic descent" and its importance. You have gotten yourself all tangled and are arguing with yourself now. I was just showing how ridiculous one of your arguments was ("Scots is spoken by Scottish people of Gaelic descent, Norse descent, and Anglo-Saxon descent. It is a language of Scotland. Scots Gaelic is a language primarily of Scottish people of Gaelic descent, thereby making Albainis as the term for the Scots language more valid."). Your contention for instance was that Scots had a stronger population base of Norse descent, which is rubbish, and that Gaelic speakers today have less diverse origin than "Scots" speakers (and presumably Irish speakers), also nonsense, besides being utterly irrelevant (as you are now acknolwedging). And no, my use of cognate was fine. You seem pretty fluent in the English language, so you should not need to be told that words have different shades of meaning. You might want to check the language history of Dublin by the way. Dumfriesshire in the Borders was Gaelic speaking in the 13th century. That's more than one could say for Dublin, your capital, where a Germanic language has been predominant since the 9th century. In fact, parts of England have more recent Gaelic history than Dublin! - Thomas
OK. Here are my final words on the matter for several reasons. 1) You didn't look up the definition of "cognate" in a dictionary did you? If you had you would have noticed how, in a linguistic context, the word does not have shades of meaning - it has ONE meaning. That's linguistics 101. A "cognate" is a pair, or more, of words in different languages that SHARE a common etymological root. A word that has been adopted directly from another language for common usage is known as a "loanword" or "borrowing". 2) Perhaps you should check your geography - I never stated that Dumfriesshire was Gaelic-speaking, Norse-speaking, or even Klingon-speaking. In fact I never mentioned it at all. Why may you ask? Well that's because, as you said, it was Gaelic-speaking in the 13th century. However, I did mention Borders. Dumfriesshire is not part of Borders. It is part of Dumfries and Galloway. Yes, I know it was part of Borders in the past, but I adhere to current terminology. (Otherwise we could include Manchester in Wales, Luxembourg as part of Germany, Finland as part of Russia etc.) I don't like living in the past. 3) I will not have further arguments with someone who's main points of argument is based on incorrect presumptions of someone else's arguments. This is supposed to be a debate about the terminology used in the naming of the Scots language. Yet, without knowing me, and by incorrectly reading what I have written, you presume to know my opinions on matters unrelated to the topic at hand. 4) Why are you mentioning Dublin? I didn't! I don't care about Dublin. Especially when we are talking about the Scots language. 5) I do not, and will not, argue any further with someone who refuses to read accurately what I have written. I will also refuse to argue with someone who's main line of defence is to throw someone else's argument back at them, especially seeing as how you don't seem to know what my arguments were in the first place. I will also not have a linguistics argument with someone who does not know the meaning of the word "cognate" in a linguistic sense. And I will not have an argument with someone who fails to open an atlas. For future reference, please make sure you have read, re-read, and understood the other person's argument before retaliating. Also, if you are going to focus on a particular area of study, make sure you are familiar with its terminology.
I think your obsession with debating the word "cognate" at the expense of the other issues here just flags what little your real arguments have going for them. You prefer to use one meaning of the word cognate. Great. Have a party. I was clearly using another (the primary one, OED #1). Get over it. Debating the "real" meaning of a word is in any case a sign of intellectual immaturity. This is like you point about Borders: Dumfriesshire in on the Anglo-Scottish border. It's not in the council area, but who said that's what we were talking about? And you're substantial point? You actually wrote all that, and had no valid save for your ludicrous points above. Congratulations on wasting your own time! - Thomas
Irrelevant side-issue it is, but reading Thomas's claims about Dublin's language history and suppposed complete lack of Irish since the 9th century they seem to reveal an ignorance of the history of the Norse-Gaels, of the Normans, and of the Gaelic Resurgence exemplified in the English Lord Chancellor Gerrard's 1578 lament: "All Englishe, and the most part with delight, even in Dublin, speak Irishe." The Pale did not remain some unsullied bastion of non-Irish language and as the anti-Irish colonist Richard Stanihurst lamented "When their posteritie became not altogither so warie in keeping, as their ancestors were valiant in conquering, the Irish language was free dennized in the English Pale: this canker tooke such deep root, as the bodie that before was whole and sound, was by little and little festered, and in manner wholly putrified."

Ní thuigim an fhadhb, as has been pointed out, Albanais directly translates Scots/Scottish, what is the problem? How is that insulting? Any suggestions for a more appropriate alternative?

Dar le MacTire02 "Use of wikipedia as a source is not reliable." Tá dúshlán romhainn uilig mar sin!

  • I '', tá 'Albainis Uladh' = 'Ulster-Scots', ach níl 'Albainis' = 'Scots' ann!
  • Tá 'Ulster-Scots s (Ling.) Albainis f2 Uladh' ag
  • Níl 'Albainis Uladh' nó 'Albainis' ar fáil i 'O'Reilly's Irish-English Dictionary' ( Sanas-Gaiodhilge-Sagsbhearla), 1823.
  • Níl 'Albainis Uladh' nó 'Albainis' ar fáil i 'Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla', Uí Dhuinnín, 1927.
  • Tá 'Béarla na hAlban= Scots' ag Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary,1997..níl trácht ar Albainis nó Albainis Uladh ann.
  • Níl Albainis nó Albainis Uladh ar fáil i Lane's Larger English-Irish Dictionary , 1922.
  • Tá " To talk Scots" = " Béarla na hAlban a labhairt" ag 'English-Irish Dictionary', De Bhaldraithe, 1992.
  • I Vicipéid Ghaeilge na hAlban tá "A' Bheurla Ghallda, 'S e a Bheurla Ghallda (anns a chainnt fhèin Scots san latha an diugh agus Inglis gu h-eachdraidheal) cànan Tiùtonach a tha air a bhruidhinn anns a Ghalldachd, Arcaibh agus Sealtainn ann an Alba agus Ulaidh an Eirinn ( far an e 'Ullans' a bhios iad ag èigheachd air ann an còmhlan oifigeach ach 'se 'Scots' a chanas an sluagh fhein ris )."

Nach mór dúinn nós na nGael in Albain a leanúint? Éóg1916 17:46, 14 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Éamonn, I think you're missing the point. Béarla na hAlban has been used for Scots (Scots Leid) and the Scottish variety of English (basically English in a Scottish accent). The two are separate though, and it has only been recent that a differentiation between the two has been acknowledged. I really don't see how using an 1823 dictionary is going to help matters. I sincerely doubt that dictionary has any words in it for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. Are you going to argue about how they now have Irish names as well? Despite the fact that in the Gaeltacht people would actually say bhí mé i gKazakhstan' and not bhí mé sa Chasacstáin, it is An Chasacstáin that is used for articles etc. I've already shown you several links documenting current common usage. Pointing out to me archaic references in a time when the Scots language was not acknowledged and regarded as bad English (therefore allowing the usage of Béarla na hAlban) is hardly providing me with any reason to abandon the use of Albainis. As far as I'm concerned, I live in 2009, not 1823 or 1927, and I happen to believe we need new terminology for new concepts and ideas - the idea of a separate Scots Leid being on of them. Unless you can provide an example as to how you would differentiate between the two, then I don't see how this will be resolved. --MacTire02 18:50, 15 Feabhra 2009 (UTC)

Ní ceart "Albainis" a thabhairt ar theangain ar bith seachas Gaeilge na hAlbain. Do b'aistriú leisciúil, neamhléannta, bómánta é, bunaithe go hiomlán ar Shacsbhéarla - cósúil le mórchuid na hoibre a dhéantar leis an gCoiste Téarmaíochta (nó cibé ar bith a cheap é).Murchadh 02:11, 31 Deireadh Fómhair 2009 (UTC)

Hegemony[athraigh foinse]

Talk about reinforcing the hegemony of Anglo-Saxon culture in Scotland...

Baineann Gearóid Ua Nualláin feidhm as "Albanais" ag tagairt do Ghaeilge na hAlban dó i leabhar d'á chuid "Trí Seoda ó Albain". Murċaḋ (talk) 01:44, 25 Bealtaine 2015 (UTC)