Disputatio:Sinae (regio)

message: Why are there two different translations of China: (res publica [popularis]) Sinarum & Sinae?
It sounds to me as if Sinarum ment the people and Sinae the country, is that so?
In chinese both countries use the same word Zhonghua meaning "middle+chinese". Teutonius 10:18, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked, but Vicipaedia will want to distinguish between two important political entities: the People's Republic of China (often in English called Mainland China) and the Republic of China (often in English called Taiwan). IacobusAmor 11:38, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think he is wondering why we don't write "Res publica popularis Sinae" rather than "Res publica popularis Sinarum" since we also have "Res Publica Sinae"--Rafaelgarcia 13:05, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Then Teutonius should read the disputatio over there, where it's pointed out that the plural is common in Latin (see Thebae, Delphi, Gades), and (IIRC) the singular Sina is unattested. In any case, if Sina were acceptable, a name of the pattern Republic of China would be Respublica Sina, not Respublica Sinae because the latter would be bad Latin (appositives must agree in case). IacobusAmor 13:15, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I fixed this page to be consistent with China = Sinae rather than Sina. I also moved the page "Res Publica Sinae" to "Res publica Sinarum". The various pages need further work.--Rafaelgarcia 13:56, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ah, OK. So in this Respublica Sinae, the Sinae is nominative plural—and that must be good Latin, though English-speakers may want to translate it as 'Republic of China' instead of 'Republic of the Chinas' (the 'of' being idiomatic English, with no relation here to the Latin genitive). IacobusAmor 14:10, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Sinae non est nomen regionis Asiae! Sina (f) est nomen regni & Sina (m) est nomen incolae. Regnum in quo vivit et regnum Sinarum (scilicet Sinesium) vocatur. 
videte hic: -> &ct. ...
Nullo loco inveni "Sinae" pro regno Sinarum ad istam regionem vocandam...
replies: text: ::::::Confer autem quod Hofmann in encyclopaedia latine scripta scripsit et apud alios in interreti--173.70.154.122 18:28, 24 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Quisnam praeter Hofmann scripsit de quadam regione "Sinae" dicta? Ptolemaeum ipsum? Graece?
replies: text: ::::::::Nescio cur dubitas illem Hofmannum, cum tanti homines regionem Sinas per saecula appellant, praeter eum in singulo loco a te allato.

text: ::::::::Potes autem legere historiam huius vocabuli in articulis ab Hofmanno scriptis quorum nexus interretialis inveni potest in notis huius paginae commentationis Vicipaedianae. De auctoribus qui de Sinis antea scripserunt locos Hofmannus ipse dat in pagina 189. Legere etiam potes plures alias historias editas (quae inter alia distinguunt cathay=Serica ab China=Sinae): eg. .

text: ::::::::De causa cur vocabulo plurali utuntur solum nos speculare possumus, sed fortasse fuit quia regio Sinarum olim (et hodie!) habuit plura regna et culturas. Regio Sinarum enim est quae ad meridiem Sericae iacet ubi plurae nationes linguasque habentur. In Sinis hodiernis quidem hodie et Sericam iacere habent. Verumtamen confer quia multi loci urbesque sicut Athenae plures fieri habentur apud veteres.

text: ::::::::Videre debes et quia Hofmannus ipse scripsit quod regio a VULGO Cina tantum etiam dicitur. --173.70.154.122 20:02, 24 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Ptolemaeus in opere suo scripsit de "metropolis" idest de urbe "Sinai sive Thinai". 
Alia nomina pluralia nullam regionem designant, sed urbes, omnia ex lingua Graeca sumpta. An non?
replies: text: ::::::::::Ibi scribitur "Sinarum regio" nescio ubi "Sinae regio" scripserunt?
replies: text: :::::::::::Evidenter non, secundum fontes allatos, quamquam ita sic incepit. Numquam vidisti tabulas geographicas a Ptolomaeo derivatas? Non legisti litteras Hofmanni?

text: :::::::::::Cur eum dubitas? Nonne debes tuas rationes dare?--173.70.154.122 21:22, 24 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::Ille Hofmann estne fons unicus secundum quem omnes alii (qui eo uti sunt) derivaverunt illud nomen "Sinae", sed Sinae (vel Thinai) secundum Ptolemaeum est urbs (metropolis) et non est regio. Recte scripsisti nomen "Sinae" derivatum tantum esse! Derivatum ab quemdam J.J.Hofmann dictum, qui Siam et Sinam distinguere non potest... Ea quae Hofmann scripsit non curo, sed Ptolemaeum credere malo.
replies: text: :::::::::::::Quas evidentias habes quod Hofmannus est unicus fons? Tumet legisti fontes Latinos ab Hofmanno allatos? Cur te credere debemus et non Hofmannus? Ptolomeus scripsit Graece non Latine, sed Hofmannus dat fontes Latinos et Lexicon suum ipsum est fons Latinus.--173.70.154.122 21:58, 24 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::::Videte sane quod scripsit Hofmann hoc loco: "Post diluvium saeculô non totô Sina restaurata creditur," , ignoro quare scripsit "totô Sina restaurata" neque "tota", sed evidenter illic legitur Sina. Cum quis scribit "Sinae" regnum/regio idest regnum (vel regio) illius urbis, quam "Sinas" (Sinai, Thinai) dixerunt.
replies: text: ::::::::::::::::Evidenter Hofmannus credit fabulam biblicam de diluvio quae mundum ruit. Secundum quod legi ibi, regionem ubi Sinas hodie habeant tunc post dilivium Sinam tantum appellabat Noe aut filii sui. Si autem Hofmannus est fons disputatus, aliis locis ibi dixit Sinae et Sinas pro regione hodierna. Et fontes ab Hofmanno allati, quid dixerunt? Num legisti caput ubi scripsit:" "Sinae, Regio, quam hodie Cinam Vulgus appellat, ultima terra Asiae....": evidenter Sinae est nomen regionis. Cur dubitas?--173.70.154.122 19:04, 25 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::::::::Evidentius erravi, ecce , secundum Hofmannum, "Sina = urbs imperii Sinarum in Xansia...", verba "sina restaurata" tunc de urbe hac (hodie Mandarinice Xī'ān agnita quae in provincia Shǎnxī Latine Xansia appellata iacet) tractant, non de regione, sed et fortasse de urbi Sinis a Ptolomaeo illata.--173.70.154.122 19:17, 25 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

message: The page Sinae is about a region in Asia. It seems to me we are using the wrong word here: Sinae means "Chinese people" That word can conveniently be used, as at present, in political names such as Res Publica Sinarum etc.; very classical, in fact; but it's wrong (I think) to make it mean a geographical region, when in fact it means the people who happen to be living there. 
So, I suggest, this page about the region be moved to Serica (which is definitely a classical name for the region we call China). That would leave the heading Sinae free to be used, in the near future, for an article equivalent to :en:Chinese people. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this move would make things easier. We already have [Categoria:Incolae Sericae], [Categoria:Linguae Sericae], [Categoria:Urbes Sericae] etc. Gabriel Svoboda 13:14, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :But Hofmann says that it is the region which is called Sinae or Regio Serica, the people Seres, and the chinese sea Mare Sericum; It seems Serica is an adjective only meaning "pertaining to Sinae": SINAE = "Regio, quam hodie Cinam Vulgus appellat, ultima terratum [re vera terrarum] Asiae, in quadrum exrensa ab oriente et meridie, aluitur oceanô, quem Sericum vel Eoum prisci dixêre: ab oceidente, Indiam ulteriorem attingit: a sepretrione, dingitur Massageratum, Scitharumque limitibus...." --Rafaelgarcia 21:01, 25 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, this is what Hofmann says ... but the equals sign is yours! I am not sure that Hofmann's first sentence is phrased as a definition of Sinae. If you read on through the article, he seems to use Sinae as the name of a people ("ipsis autem Sinis Tamin, i. e. Regnum luminis") and as the name of a city ("Historia gentis paulo diffusior haec est, Sinae, colonia pervetusta ...").

text: ::Anyway, Hofmann's a modern source, after all. His classical source for Sinae is Ptolemy's Geography. Ptolemy does use Sinai as the name of a city (7.3.6), but he also says (7.5, and similarly elsewhere): I quote via H. Yule, A. C. Burnell, Hobson-Jobson (1886) s.v. "China" but I've checked their translation against the Greek text: "The inhabited part of our earth is bounded on the east by the Unknown Land which lies along the region occupied by the easternmost races of Asia Maior, the Sinai and the people in Serike." So, to the classical writer (admittedly Greek, not Latin), the Sinae are a race, apparently the most notable inhabitants of the region called Serica. So far as I know, this is the one and only classical source for Sinae and Serica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 27 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I can't comment on the Greek sources of Sinae, and I grant you that it is confusing that Sinae is used by Hoffman to refer loosely both to the region and the people, but I think it is quite clear that at least Hoffman does regard it as a the "accepted Latin name" of the region and Seres as at least an unambigous name of the people. History isn't always logical when it comes to names. In short, I don't think Hoffmann was quoting Ptolemy to justify the name, but in order to give the history of the origins, in order to be complete (as an encyclopedia).

text: :::It is true the equal sign is not his but the paragraph starts like this in the original , with a comma instead of a =, but clearly meaning =: "Sinae, Regio, quam hodie Cinam Vulgus appellat, ultima terratum Asiae, in quadrum exrensa ab oriente et meridie, aluitur oceanô, quem Sericum vel Eoum prisci dixêre: ab oceidente, Indiam ulteriorem attingit: a sepretrione, dingitur Massageratum, Scitharumque limitibus....--Rafaelgarcia 01:44, 28 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::OK, I won't press it. Would you object to a move to Sinae (regio)? A discretiva page seems necessary, since historically the name has meant (a) a city, (b) a people, and (c) a region. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 28 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes, I agree a disambig is called for.--Rafaelgarcia 13:25, 28 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I created the disambig page and divided the content of this page into Civilizatio Serica and Sinae (regio). The various languages aren't consistent in how they discuss things, so the interwiki's obtained from english and spanish are a little funny in my opinion.--Rafaelgarcia 04:46, 29 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Since Ammianus uses Serica as a noun (as Ptolemy already did in Greek) Regio Serica didn't correspond with the footnote, so I removed the "Regio". Of course, if some other source uses the phrase "Regio Serica" it could be added back with its own footnote.

text: :::::::Now I remember that I saw "regio Serica" implied in Lewis & Short, so I've added that reference into the footnote. But from the text of Ammianus I can't confirm their claim! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 29 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Hoffmann, in the footnoted passages we discussed above, cites Sericus -a -um as the general adjective meaning "Chinese" or "of china"; he writes Sinae and regio Serica (the Chinese region) interchangeably. I don't know Greek, but I suspect (just a suspicion) that using Serica alone (without regio next to it) is just a short hand, just as we can say interchangeably scientia physica and physica, and both physica (pl) and physica (sing), etc., I think the Romans were a bit looser with their language than we moderns tend to be..Anyway I think the reader can figure out what is meant.--Rafaelgarcia 16:33, 29 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::"I think the Romans were a bit looser with their language than we moderns tend to be". Very neatly put :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 29 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinae > Serica? 

message: ::Discussion moved to "Disputatio:Sina". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 1 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings of Sina