From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: chinas


Etymology 1[edit]

Proper noun[edit]


  1. plural of China
    • 1962, Richard M. Nixon, Six Crises[1], Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, page 408:
      Kennedy said that he was opposed to recognition of Red China. He indicated, however, that strong arguments had been presented to him in favor of the so-called “two Chinas policy.” Under this policy, Nationalist China would retain its seat on the Security Council, and Red China would have only a seat in the Assembly. This would mean that Red China would have only one vote out of about a hundred in the Assembly and would not be able to block UN action by veto.
    • 1972, Seymour Topping, Journey Between Two Chinas[2], Harper & Row, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 399:
      Even Chiang Kai-shek is opposed to the so-called two Chinas, and he is also opposed to the one China and an independent entity of Taiwan.
    • 1978, Richard Nixon, RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon[3], Grosset & Dunlap, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, page 556:
      As early as August we had publicly withdrawn our opposition to consideration of this question and indicated our support of the concept of the "two Chinas," Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China on Taiwan and the Communist People's Republic of China, each to have membership in the world organization.
    • 1983 August 21, “Chinese Realities”, in Free China Weekly[4], volume XXIV, number 33, Taipei, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 4:
      The existence of an independent Taiwan seems to be still very much a fact of life, which Peking will just for the moment have to accept. What is more, there seems to be no prospect for Taiwan, with its healthy economic and political performance, to become a cast-off on the world trade and political scene anywhere in the foreseeable future.
      The idea of One China may have gained some theoretical acceptance; it's still Two Chinas in the real world.
      The careful wording of the foreign ministry note in Peking is an indication that Red China is well aware of the realities. It has no choice.
      Otherwise it might well find, like King Canute, that it is one thing to challenge the waves - quite another to turn the tide.
    • 1987, Geoffrey Marston, “Abandonment of Territorial Claims: The Cases of Bouvet and Spratly Islands”, in The British Year Book of International Law 1986[5], volume 57, Oxford: Clarendon Press, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 356:
      The Commissioner General asked for Foreign Office guidance in view of his information about earlier events relating to the British claim. In reply, the Foreign Office, in a telegram dated 12 June 1956, pointed out that as there was now a territorial dispute involving the two Chinas, the Philippines and possibly Vietnam over the Nansha Islands the British vessel should ‘stay well clear’ of Spratly Island.
    • 1994, Hsin-hsing Wu, Bridging the Strait: Taiwan, China, and the Prospects for Reunification[6], Oxford University Press, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, page vii:
      This book suggests that the gradual increase of transactions and communications between the two Chinas since 1987 should contribute to the ‘normalization’ of relations between the two Chinas. Nevertheless, these transactions and communications are not expected to lead to the political reunification of the two Chinas in the foreseeable future due to four main obstacles: the PRC’s intention to localize and isolate the ROC internationally; the PRC’s refusal to exclude the use of military force against the ROC; the difference between the two Chinas’ living standards and political philosophies; and the Taiwan Independence Movement.
    • 1998, George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed[7], New York: Alfred A. Knopf, →ISBN, page 93:
      After I was nominated to the vice-presidency, Ronald Reagan asked me to go to China to reassure Deng that, despite having mentioned it in a campaign speech, he did not believe in two Chinas, and that he would honor the Shanghai Communiqué— which declared, in effect, that there was but one China. Joined by his top foreign policy team, Deng listened carefully as I explained that Reagan’s statement had been taken out of context. Just as I was finishing, a door opened and a message was passed down the line of advisors until it reached Deng. On reading it, he looked puzzled and annoyed. “He did it again!” he announced. “Ronald Reagan has again referred to ‘two Chinas’ in a speech!” I talked fast and got out of there.
    • 2011, Tang Baiqiao, My Two Chinas[8], →ISBN, →OCLC, pages 304–305:
      There are two Chinas. I have known them both. One is the global superpower whose rich ancient culture and generous people have already made their influence known in the world of the twenty-first century. The other China is whispered about: a brutal, corrupt autocratic regime whose long list of human rights offenses soils her dignity, brings about shame.

Further reading[edit]

Etymology 2[edit]

Sanskrit चीनः (cīnaḥ)


Chinas pl (plural only)

English Wikipedia has an article on:
  1. (historical) A people mentioned in ancient Indian literature from the first millennium BC and first millennium AD, such as the Mahabharata, Laws of Manu, and Puranic literature.




  • (file)

Proper noun[edit]

Chinas n

  1. genitive singular of China



Proper noun[edit]


  1. accusative plural of Chīnae