Talk:Achaea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

"Achaea was originally settled by Greeks of Russian stock." This has probably been entered at Wikipedia in all earnestness. Wetman 09:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

anon edit of April 14; originally it read Achaea was originally settled by the Greek descendants of Russian stock. Remove, of course. dab 11:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I think a disambiguation page might be needed? There is a MUD called Achaea, which is definitely not the same as this. Thank you! Tautaula (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

This article should be spelled "Achaia". The spelling "Achaea" is understandable, since Greek ai usually becomes Latin ae, but this is only when ai is a diphthong, which it is not in "Achaia" (hence the Greek being spelled with a dieresis). Furthermore, it was spelled "Achaia", not "Achaea", in Latin and, for example, Bible translators use "Achaia". — the Man in Question (in question) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: not moved. Consensus is that the current title is the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Achaea → Achaia – 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. (P.S. Although it may seem odd, the people were nonetheless called "Achaeans", not "Achaians".) — the Man in Question (in question) 17:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) See also:[reply]

  • Comment this is about a modern region of Greece, so whatever the Bible says has no bearing on the modern region of Greece. The Bible hasn't been revised to take into account modern regions since it was codified (for a widespread version of the Bible, it would be the King James Version, for instance) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I know the Bible hasn't been modernized in most places (though sometimes in some translations it is, for example use of "Negev"). I was just giving an example of an extremely widely circulated use of the "Achaia" spelling in English. The rationale I have is that "Achaea" is not proper Latin and, therefore, not proper English. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the modern Greek area seems to be spelled as "Achaia", but the nom's rationale is faulty. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Achaia should redirect to Achaea (ancient region)? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, perhaps it should be a disambiguation page, like Macedonia. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure what you mean… I am saying that all the "Achaea" forms on Wikipedia should be converted to "Achaia", as "Achaea" is just a hypercorrective fiction invented by people who were not paying close enough to the rules of Greco-Roman transcription. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That the primary usage in English of "Achaea" may be the ancient region (though it might not be the common name for the ancient region), and the modern region may use some other spelling, such as "Akhaia", so that "Achaia" might need to disambiguate between the ancient region and the modern region, such as how Macedonia disambiguates between the ancient kingdom and the modern republic. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. Let me put this as simply as I can: Achaia really, truly, is spelled Achaia in all its manifold uses and incarnations. In making this page move nomination, I was not trying to push any viewpoint about how things should or shouldn't be transliterated: Achaea is, very simply, a spelling error (like spelling America as Amarica), and I wanted to correct the spelling error that was in the name of this article. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't change whether a disambiguation page should be primary, since per Macedonia, the ancient region(s) can be competitive with the modern place(s), just what spelling such a page should use. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. Well, I don't mind too much either way, but since the current page Achaea is concerned with the modern region of Achaia, it makes sense to me that it gets the undisambiguated name. Perhaps that should be another discussion after this one is sorted out. — the Man in Question (in question) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although the reasoning for the transliteration Achaia is correct, it would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (and probably WP:OR) to ignore that Achaea is recorded as the only or most common spelling used in English according to most or all major dictionaries and other reference works. That naming convention specifically says do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one. All major dictionaries and other reference works seem to have only Achaea or list it first. They either don't have Achaia at all or only as an alternative: Oxford, Columbia, Britannica, American Heritage, Random House, Collins, Merriam-Webster. The spelling Achaia seems to be less rare when talking about the region after about 300 AD. Britannica has 35 hits for Achaea and 9 for Achaia, and these hits seem to illustrate this trend to use Achaia for the region after 300 AD. According to MOS we should use Achaea as the article title, but we should point out that the Greek government[4] and the EU[5][6] use the transliteration Achaia and Britannica[7] uses Achaea and in addition Akhaï´a (stress on i) for the modern Greek word. --Espoo (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in the nomination, "Achaeans" is the correct transliteration (Achaia vs. Achaeans is an irregular but correct form, like Canada vs. Canadians), and therefore the dictionary spelling of "Achaean" cannot be taken into account in this discussion. Nonetheless, your point is an interesting one. A quick search on Google Books shows how much more common "Achaia" is than "Achaea": Achaia Achaea. (Though this of course does not distinguish between modern and ancient Achaia.) A search of Google News shows that "Achaia" is substantially preferred over "Achaea" for the modern region by news sources: Achaia Achaea. Presumably the dictionary preference of Achaea over Achaia is a back-formation of Achaeans. Dictionaries do not choose their headwords based on the "most common spelling used in English", they choose it based on previous editions, prescriptive judgments, and comparison to competitors. Therefore, it cannot be said that a dictionary records anything as the most or least common spelling unless the dictionary actually has a not to that effect. I would think that since "Achaia" is the preferred English spelling used by the European Union (as you cited above) and the United Nations ([8][9]), that would outweigh dictionary glosses (as far as placenames are concerned). Since it is a common English spelling (I would strongly argue the more common English spelling), it is not "a clear violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)" in any way. For the sake of clarity for anyone else reading this, dictionaries that list Achaia as the second spelling after Achaea: Collins, American Heritage, Webster's New World. Dictionaries that do not list the spelling Achaia: Oxford Abridged, Random House, and Columbia. Dictionaries that only list the Achaia spelling: New American Cyclopedia (the last sentence discusses the area in modern Greece) and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Needless to say, all Bible reference works give it as Achaia and only Achaia: Easton's, Smith's, Strong's, Nave's, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. And Dorling Kindersley's Eyewitness Travel (Greece: Athens & the Mainland, 2011) uses the spelling Achaia…not that that matters too much. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dictionaries do not choose their headwords based on the "most common spelling used in English", they choose it based on previous editions, prescriptive judgments, and comparison to competitors. That is clearly wrong. Modern English dictionaries most definitely base their decisions on extensive databases of actual use and do not normally resort to prescription. Let's leave out Achaian/Achaean because that would unnecessarily complicate the issue. In any case, the following is not only pure speculation but also plain wrong: Presumably the dictionary preference of Achaea over Achaia is a back-formation of Achaeans. You left out Britannica in your confusing summary and forgot to point out that your additions are outdated reference works. My summary was much clearer as already stated: All major (up-to-date) dictionaries and other reference works have only Achaea or list it first. They either don't have Achaia at all or only as an alternative spelling. Let's please leave Bible spellings out because that's a completely different world and in any case fairly irrelevant for deciding what is the most common modern English spelling. Greek official usage determines EU and UN usage, so the latter two are not independent decisions, and in any case, neither they nor Greek official usage have precedence over well-established English usage as shown in reputable sources such as Britannica etc. See Burma for an example of not following local official and UN usage. --Espoo (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't feel like arguing anymore, but what I said about dictionaries is true, unfortunately; and I left out Britannica because it did not fall under any of the categories I mentioned, seeing as it used the "Akhaia" spelling as its secondary form. And yes, the Achaean to Achaea thing was certainly pure speculation, although your claim that it's "plain wrong" is founded in nothing, whereas my suggestion was at least based on logic. All in all, I am sorry you took so much offense at my response; my summary of the dictionary sources was meant to clarify which sources actually did include "Achaia" and to remove "Achaean" from the discussion since it is spelled and subsequently transliterated differently in Greek. I leave this discussion to everyone else now. Nothing like a great debate to find the truth. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Espoo, WP:COMMONNAME and simple recognizability. The modern province has been named after the historical geographical region, and is largely coterminous with it. Perhaps Elis will be moved to Ilis or Ilidha, Boeotia to Voiotia, and Alexandria to Iskandariyya? These terms, regardless of their phonetic accuracy or modern usage, are familiar to any English-speaking person with a knowledge of Classical literature and civilization in their present form, and are likely to remain so in the future. Constantine ✍ 10:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hatnote[edit]

I have removed the hatnote for Achaea (ancient region). The disambiguation page list multiple articles, all of which could be considered an "ancient region", including: Achaea (ancient region), Achaea Phthiotis, Achaea (Roman province) and (tendentiously) Principality of Achaea. Attempting to further direct readers to these or the dab page from Achaea (ancient region) would clutter that page unnecessarily. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uninformative map[edit]

The map of Achaean municipalities shows only the numbers 1–5, which is worthless without the key buried in the article below. This map should surely be replaced by one with the names given explicitly, or the key should be given as a caption. 82.44.215.181 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achaea&oldid=1204483404"