Talk:Pecunia non olet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the kidneys and renal physiology.

Money laundering?[edit]

This wouldn't be used as an argument against regulations to stop money laundering, would it? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No; money laundering is about evading taxation and tracking of money. This might be used as an argument for charities to accept tainted donations, for example. --Gwern (contribs) 13:15 22 August 2009 (GMT)
In fact, it's been quoted in court to explain why immoral / etc earnings should be taxed. -- (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Filthy / Clean[edit]

From the article: " This phrase is still used today to show that money is all equally filthy (or clean)"

Since the phrase is about how money does NOT smell I think this would be better as "This phrase is still used today to show that the value of money is not tainted by its origins"

all the kings men[edit]

in literature, it is referenced in Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men around page 350 or so —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar error?[edit]

Since "pecunia" is plural, shouldn't it be "olent"?

I027614 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that "pecunia" is plural? It's singular. The plural would be "pecuniae". (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in the title?[edit]

The title of the page is "Pecunia non olent" but the phrase is "Pecunia non olet". One of them is wrong, apparently the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the title was wrong - I moved it--Sajoch (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)