Talk:Achaia (Roman province)

Archaea=Achaea?

I'm doing some research for a class. Is Archaea the same as Achaea? 69.59.202.87 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Based on the info presented below, "Achaia" seems to be how it is spelled. There was contention that this is not the common name, but this was not supported. Aervanath (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Not moved: when I first evaluated this discussion, I was not aware of the closure at WP:Achaea#Requested move. In light of that decision not to move, it makes little sense to move this.--Aervanath (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Achaea (Roman province) → Achaia (Roman province) – The correct spelling of this article is "Achaia". It is true that Greek ai usually becomes Latin ae, and as the Latin form of words is almost invariably used in English, it is understandable to think that Greek Akhaia would become Latin (and therefore English) *Achaea. However, only Greek diphthong ai becomes Latin ae; in Achaia, the Greek ai represents two separate syllables—that is why it is written with a dieresis (¨) over the iota in Greek: αΐ. This means that in Latin (and therefore English) it is spelled Achaia—which it was: [1][2][3]. Furthermore, the spelling "Achaia" is used in all major translations of the Bible: NIVKJVESVASVNASB. The only reason I haven't moved it myself is because of Talk:Achaea. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment it doesn't matter how you translate the Greek, this was a Roman province, therefore we have the Latin name for the province, which doesn't need to be translated from the Greek, since the Roman Empire used Latin. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to have missed the whole point of what I was saying. In Latin, it was spelled "Achaia", not "Achaea". — the Man in Question (in question) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Your nomination rationale makes no mention of what the Romans called the province, only how to translate Greek to Latin. Since the Romans named provinces in Latin, and did not always do so in any relation to local naming, the translation of the Greek has no bearing on the Roman name. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  My nomination absolutely does talk about the Roman name of the province—that's what the three links to Latin dictionaries are: To quote my nomination above, "This means that in Latin (and therefore English) it is spelled Achaia—which it was: [4][5][6]." I'm sorry if that wasn't plain enough—let me quote the three Latin dictionaries cited: (1) "Achāia (poet. Achāïa, quadrisyl.), ae, f. […] The Roman province of Achaia, formed B.C. 146, included all Greece except Thessaly." (2) "Achāĭa -ae, f. […] or Achāja -ae, f. […] after 156 B.C., the Roman province of Achaia (including the whole of Greece except Thessaly)." (3) "Achāia. A region in the Peloponnesus, later appled to Greece as a Roman province." Hope that clears things up. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Since your nomination links to book description pages, and not snippets or page excerpts, I could not determine what the point of those links were, other than to perhaps show translation rules exist in dictionaries, since all three are dictionaries, and not all dictionaries would have proper names or place names in them. However, your quotes provided are much more useful. Yes, this clears it up nicely. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  That's peculiar. When I click on the links it takes me right to the relevant pages. I'm sorry it didn't work for everyone! — the Man in Question (in question) 07:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment it seems like it should be Achaiae (Achaiae provinciae) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  "Achaiae" is genitive of "Achaia"; it means "of Achaia". So the Latin form is "Achaia", not "Achaiae", in the nominative, which is what is invariably used in English. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per new information provided at 08:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support for "Achaia", historical provinces tend to use the "native" forms of the name (after all, we have Thracia and Sicilia (Roman province)). A move makes also sense especially since the Roman province was wider than the namesake region in the Peloponnese. Constantine ✍ 10:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak opposition There is no need to move the article because major reference works including Britannica and Columbia use "Achaea" for the Roman province too, but some scholarly texts do use "Achaia" for the Roman province. We can leave the article where it is because my new footnote is enough of an explanation:

The Cambridge University Press's publication "Pausanias' Greece" claims (on p.1): "Following modern standard usage, 'Achaia' refers to the Roman province, 'Achaea' to an area of the northern Peloponnese." The reference for this claim is a 1993 publication by Susan Alcott. At least in 1993, however, this distinction was not yet established, and a 1993 review of the same Alcott publication pointed out that this was not "an actual distinction" but rather a convenience devised by Alcott." The current (2012) online version of Encyclopedia Britannica does not follow this spelling distinction apparently used at least in some scholarly texts. --Espoo (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

sourcing - who is "Rothaus"?

I've tagged this source in the article. These edits were improperly formatted with no source given besides a name. I will remove this material in a couple of weeks unless full author, work, publisher and copyright is added. The opinion of this author is highly contentious ... 50.111.6.31 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)