Note I am trying to translate to Cicero's Latin. Roma had already banks, which we could suppose that in an alternate timeline where the day Cicero is born the banks of the Empire start issuing checks, and the day of the years 4 after Christs the Caesar orders a central banks that must emit fiat currency?
Note I am not worried to have diagreement to possible use in common usage terminology.
Title: Money-currency dicothomy
There exist a clear distinction between Money and Currency, meanwhile Money is a commodity accepted by general consent as a medium of economic exchange, Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. (Making it a superset of money). This distinction is important for economic theories (generally is recognized, but for some must important that for others).
So far I have decided to use the word pecunia to refer to money, because for what I have seen in Lingua Latina per se Illustrata pars I it is being used to refer to money in the same abstract way of no mentioning any kind of coin as would be expected of the word of money in any language.
In what respect to the existence of this dichotomy in classical times, it is almost sure that it did not existed in any classical term given that non-money currency not would exists until after medieval times. The same logic applies to the existence of any classical word for the concept of currency.
Nevertheless all coins of some kind did share the effect of the process of monetary impression of ancient times (making the same denomination currency with cheaper material), so maybe there is some possibility of classical translation from the literature about this phenomena in classical times (if it even exists).
Some candidates:
- dívísum (Like in spanish)
- currens (like in English)
- Latin Wikipedia says Moneta which aside of not being in my dictionary is too concrete to my likes, I don't like the idea of calling coin to the abtract idea of currency.
