Talk:Aes signatum
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Terminology
[edit]"Asses signata," beyond being grammatically impossible (asses is masculine, signata neuter), is not the plural of aes signatum for the reason that asses is the plural of as (a measurement of weight; masculine gender), not of aes (bronze; neuter gender). The usual method of expressing a plural quantity of aes signatum in Latin is by the partitive genitive and a number or the generalizing numerus with the partitive genitive (cf. Livy 28.38.5: senatu misso urbem est ingressus, argentique prae se in aerarium tulit quattuordecim milia pondo trecenta quadraginta duo et signati argenti magnum numerum). When in reference to coins, one finds aerei signati [nummi], as in Vitruvius 3.1.7: ex eo etiam videntur civitates Graecorum fecisse, quemadmodum cubitus est sex palmorum, in drachma, qua nummo uterentur, aereos signatos uti asses ex aequo sex, quos obolos appellant where aereos signatos refers to the coins, asses to the weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:0:5CFC:F1CC:5D66:DFE:2204 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The proper plural of "aes" is "aera", following latin language declination rules, see this table: [1] Or check the following numismatic forum (with lots of interesting informations, too) here: [2] Also, "Ramos Seccos" is wrong: the plural of "Ramo secco" is "Rami secchi", and the definition is used in its singular form. See: [3] 217.133.51.150 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
