Talk:Pecunia non olet

Money laundering?
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. --86.178.194.184 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Filthy / Clean
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
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 173.55.176.67 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar error?
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". 217.233.200.24 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in the title?
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 93.34.56.18 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the title was wrong - I moved it--Sajoch (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)