Pecunia Non Olet

J.M

Active Member

Greetings,

Is this phrase correct for saying 'money has no smell?'

Thanks,
J.M
 

Issacus Divus

H₃rḗǵs h₁n̥dʰéri diwsú

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Gæmleflodland
It's "money doesn't stink."
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Lago Duria
In the context of this phrase it does.
"Money has no smell" is perfectly fine with the context too, I don't see why he felt the need to correct it, as if it were wrong somehow.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Because the anecdote it's derived from features Vespesian's question to Titus as to whether Titus felt offended by the money's smell. It has to stink in order to offend the nose, not just have some neutral kind of smell.
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Lago Duria
Because the anecdote it's derived from features Vespesian's question to Titus as to whether Titus felt offended by the money's smell. It has to stink in order to offend the nose, not just have some neutral kind of smell.
Bad smell is just a smell, it's just less specific but still perfectly fine with the context. If it were in English they might as well have said "money has no smell" and it'd have been perfectly fine.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I agree with Laurentius that "money has no smell" works here.

Incidentally, the phrase doesn't actually appear in Suetonius:
Reprehendenti filio Tito, quod etiam urinae vectigal commentus esset, pecuniam ex prima pensione admovit ad nares, sciscitans num odore offenderetur; et illo negante: Atqui, inquit, e lotio est.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Well, if you're trying to say that there's no need to over-correct, J.M's original phrase, I tend to agree. I don't see how the word for smell (even in English) doesn't have any negative connotation, here, though.
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Lago Duria
Well, if you're trying to say that there's no need to over-correct, J.M's original phrase, I tend to agree. I don't see how the word for smell (even in English) doesn't have any negative connotation, here, though.
Because the negative connotatin is given by the context, not the word itself. Issacus looked like he was correcting OP when there was no need for correction, that's what I mean.
 

Issacus Divus

H₃rḗǵs h₁n̥dʰéri diwsú

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Gæmleflodland
Laurentius, I wasn't correcting it...I just was going from the well known phrase. Maybe I was unclear. Of course either is fine.
 

Michael Zwingli

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Pecunia non olet?
Is this phrase correct for saying 'money has no smell?'
A bit lost in the weeds over an unimportant technicality, when there is a more pertinent one. Pecunia non olet? This is "Does the money not smell?" Technically, to say "Has the money no smell?/The money has no smell?", I think one would want to say Odorem pecunia non habet? In the sentence "The money has no smell?", the word "smell" is an objective noun, describing what is not had, and is not a verb. No? Nor does odor carry the negative connotation...it can equally mean "a fragrance" or "a stench".
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
A bit lost in the weeds over an unimportant technicality, when there is a more pertinent one. Pecunia non olet? This is "Does the money not smell?" Technically, to say "Has the money no smell?/The money has no smell?", I think one would want to say Odorem pecunia non habet? No?
Literally, yes, but things don't always have to translate literally. It's fine to translate pecunia non olet as "money has no smell" because it conveys the same meaning.

I believe the question mark should have been outside the quotation marks. The phrase pecunia non olet as a statement, not a question, is a famous one.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I know. I was referring to the OP's post.
 
Top