# prima di essere spogliato



## Flaming June

Ciao, non riesco a decidere come tradurre il verbo della seguente frase (contesto archeologico)

"...un asse viario in uso per molti secoli prima di essere *spoliato *per la costruzione della città medievale..."

il dubbio è se saccheggiare e spoliare (o spogliare) abbiamo lo stesso significato o meno. A me sembra che il primo implichi violenza (non a caso, si saccheggia durante le guerre) ma non mi pare che questa connotazione faccia al caso mio. Il mio tentativo:

"... a road axis in use for many centuries before being spoilaged/ransaked when the medieval town was built..."

Esperti, madrelingua... un aiuto??? 

Cheers,
FJ


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Qual è il tuo dubbio?
Il forum si occupa di traduzioni, non di verificare se il testo originale ha senso o meno..quello spetta a te


----------



## Flaming June

Ciao Paul, sono d'accordo con te. 
Il mio dubbio è sul verbo in inglese (spoilage VS ransack) perchè non ho la "sensibilità" necessaria per stabilire se in inglese il primo verbo (quello che mi sembra più appropriato ma non molto usato) è meglio del secondo nel contesto in questione (si tratta di pietre, dopotutto... ). Forse non riesco a spiegarmi...?


----------



## elfa

Flaming June said:


> "... a road axis in use for many centuries before being spoilaged/ransacked when the medieval town was built..."



Mai sentito "spoliage" come verbo...

Non sono secura se un "road axis" può essere "ransacked". A che serviva questo asse viario?

Edit: forse va meglio "despoiled"


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Penso che despoiled oppre plundered possano essere corretti.


----------



## longplay

Piccolo commento: il saccheggio è avvenuto PER la costruzione...." When " da la stessa precisa idea ? La Roma imperiale fu saccheggiata per costruire chiese e palazzi
nobiliari, con l'asportazione  di statue, marmi pregiati, mosaici ecc.. "to spoil" non va bene?


----------



## Flaming June

longplay said:


> Piccolo commento: il saccheggio è avvenuto PER la costruzione...." When " da la stessa precisa idea ? La Roma imperiale fu saccheggiata per costruire chiese e palazzi
> nobiliari, con l'asportazione  di statue, marmi pregiati, mosaici ecc.. "to spoil" non va bene?



Il "saccheggio" è avvenuto nel corso dei secoli: le pietre che rivestivano l'asse viario sono state sottratte e riutilizzate per nuove costruzioni. Il fenomeno si è particolarmente accentuato nel momento di massima fioritura dell'edilizia medievale. Il materiale di riutilizzo (pietre, non statue o altri elementi decorativi di pregio) è stato impiegato per costruire palazzi, abitazioni etc...
FJ


----------



## elfa

Flaming June said:


> Il "saccheggio" è avvenuto nel corso dei secoli: le pietre che rivestivano l'asse viario sono state sottratte e riutilizzate per nuove costruzioni. Il fenomeno si è particolarmente accentuato nel momento di massima fioritura dell'edilizia medievale. Il materiale di riutilizzo (pietre, non statue o altri elementi decorativi di pregio) è stato impiegato per costruire palazzi, abitazioni etc...
> FJ



Grazie della spiegazione, però mantengo che un "axis" non può essere "plundered". Forse

_...a road axis in use for many centuries before the stones [used in making the road] were plundered when the medieval town was built.
_


----------



## Flaming June

elfa said:


> Grazie della spiegazione, però mantengo che un "axis" non può essere "plundered". Forse
> 
> _...a road axis in use for many centuries before the stones [used in making the road] were plundered when the medieval town was built.
> _



Grazie Elfa!
Quindi non useresti despoiled: "*in use for many centuries before it was despoiled when the medieval town was built*" ??? 
Non voglio essere pedante, ma sto tentando di non aggiungere parole in più rispetto all'originale perchè mi viene richiesto di mantenere una lunghezza il più possibile omogenea per questioni di stampa.

Cheers ,
FJ


----------



## longplay

Flaming June said:


> Il "saccheggio" è avvenuto nel corso dei secoli: le pietre che rivestivano l'asse viario sono state sottratte e riutilizzate per nuove costruzioni. Il fenomeno si è particolarmente accentuato nel momento di massima fioritura dell'edilizia medievale. Il materiale di riutilizzo (pietre, non statue o altri elementi decorativi di pregio) è stato impiegato per costruire palazzi, abitazioni etc...
> FJ



Of course I agree with you. However, i must recall the fact that many sections of the roads built under the roman empire were decorated (with statues and so on).

This is not our case, I must assume.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elfa said:


> Grazie della spiegazione, però mantengo che un "axis" non può essere "plundered". Forse



Why not? "asse viario" is not an object, but an area.


----------



## Odysseus54

Paulfromitaly said:


> Why not? "asse viario" is not an object, but an area.



What is it exactly ?  I thought myself it only meant a 'main road', a 'highway'.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Odysseus54 said:


> What is it exactly ?  I thought myself it only meant a 'main road', a 'highway'.



Yes, so it's not an object that can be physically stolen or removed, but it's a place that can be despoiled/plundered or from which objects can be removed.


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> Yes, so it's not an object that can be physically stolen or removed, but it's a place that can be despoiled/plundered or from which objects can be removed.



I think it really depends what comes before this part of the sentence (a full sentence would be useful here ) I don't know that if you read about a "road axis" being "plundered" (which I prefer to "despoiled" now that I know the context) you would necessarily understand that it's the stones that are being plundered/removed. A road highway/axis/call it what you will can't actually be plundered - hence my confusion at the beginning of this thread. And "despoiled" in this context sounds as if a load of hooligans have come along and drawn graffiti on the road itself.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elfa said:


> I think it really depends what comes before this part of the sentence (a full sentence would be useful here ) I don't know that if you read about a "road axis" being "plundered" (which I prefer to "despoiled" now that I know the context) you would necessarily understand that it's the stones that are being plundered/removed. A road highway/axis/call it what you will can't actually be plundered - hence my confusion at the beginning of this thread. And "despoiled" in this context sounds as if a load of hooligans have come along and drawn graffiti on the road itself.



Of course you need a detailed context to understand the correct meaning.
I believe here the meaning is "the road surface, made of stone blocks, had been dismantled throughout the centuries", but how?
Did people just steal the stone blocks piece by piece or were some of them removed, systematically, when the city council needed building materials?


----------



## marcolettici

I'm not convinced by any of the choices so far... plundered, despoiled, ransacked... none of them seems appropriate.  Paul has used the word "dismantled."  It is the best choice, in my opinion, if indeed we are only speaking of the stones being removed from the road and hauled off for other uses.  Maybe something like: "The road axis itself, in use for many centuries, was dismantled in the construction of the mideival city."


----------



## elfa

marcolettici said:


> Maybe something like: "The road axis itself, in use for many centuries, was dismantled in the construction of the mideival city."



But this doesn't give the feeling that the stones were taken away in a dishonest and possibly violent manner, as suggested by "spoliato"


----------



## marcolettici

Hi Elfa.  You're right, it doesn't necessarily imply any violence or theft. But the other suggestions, in my opinion, don't apply in the taking apart of a road.  Maybe the original is a typo and the author meant "spogliato?"  (WR dictionary doesn't even define "spoliare." Why is that?)  Doesn't "spogliare" mean stripped bare in a more general sense?  I suppose you could say the pavement was stripped and plundered.  You can't plunder a road, but you could plunder the stones once they were stripped from the road.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

marcolettici said:


> Hi Elfa.  You're right, it doesn't necessarily imply any violence or theft. But the other suggestions, in my opinion, don't apply in the taking apart of a road.  Maybe the original is a typo and the author meant "spogliato?"  (WR dictionary doesn't even define "spoliare." Why is that?)  Doesn't "spogliare" mean stripped bare in a more general sense?  I suppose you could say the pavement was stripped and plundered.  You can't plunder a road, but you could plunder the stones once they were stripped from the road.


As suggested in the original post, it could be "spo*g*liare" which can also mean "to strip bare".
Why can't you plunder a road if you can plunder a village?



> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plunder
> 
> *1. * To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: *plunder a village*.
> 
> *2. * To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.


----------



## elfa

marcolettici said:


> You can't plunder a road, but you could plunder the stones once they were stripped from the road.



Quite so, marcolettici. 

Paul, I defy you to find any example of "plundering a road" 

Edit: you could use "stripped bare" here though.


----------



## longplay

I think that the Italian "spoliare" o "spogliare" is not usual but does exist (from the Latin "spoliatio"). My dictionary (Devoto-Oli) defines the related action ("spoliazione") as

follows : systematic subtraction of objects, rights, properties, not necessarily carried out by using (material) violence". If it can help....  Hi , participants !

ps plundering implies "material violence". Am I right ?


----------



## marcolettici

Paul, I think it's because a road is a singular entity.  It doesn't contain anything except itself.  A village contains all kinds of individual, stealable things. So mght "the countryside" (houses, barns, animals, etc..)  But a road doesn't have constituent _separate_ parts; it's a conglomerate.  However, once the road is disassembled into its constituent parts, those parts might be plundered, depending on what they are.  That's how I think of it anyway.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

marcolettici said:


> Paul, I think it's because a road is a singular entity.  It doesn't contain anything except itself.  A village contains all kinds of individual, stealable things. So mght "the countryside" (houses, barns, animals, etc..)  But a road doesn't have constituent _separate_ parts; it's a conglomerate.  However, once the road is disassembled into its constituent parts, those parts might be plundered, depending on what they are.  That's how I think of it anyway.


But in this specific example a road has parts: the pavement blocks, probably some boundary stones and other itmes that can be stolen..
I understand that in a more general context a road can't be plundered 
What about "looted" (if in the original text the items were stolen by people) ?


----------



## marcolettici

Paul, I think technically you're right, but in actual usage it just sounds wrong... at least to my ear.  There isn't an assumption of stealable parts when speaking of a road.  You'd have to mention those parts by name, and to get to them to mention them by name and render them stealable, you are going to have to disassemble the road.  Then it becomes a plunderable bunch of objects, stones, boundaries (which are no longer a part of the road).  Similarly, when speaking of plundering a house, I don't think of stealing the beams and studs and flooring and shingles.  I think of taking the paintings and chairs and china and other valuables.


----------



## longplay

Sorry, but I can't agree entirely : a road axis is more complex than a single road that goes across the desert. Ancient (rome empire, at least) roads were decorated (in part),
and we had buildings along the roads ("villas", little temples, horse changing posts, small 'hotels' _ motels , army guard-posts...). The destruction of an entire axis was a
time-consuming business,necessarily related to more complex events than simple robberies, in principle. However, our "road" could belong to a rather different subset of roads. But...who knows (except the author)?  Thanks.


----------



## elfa

longplay said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree entirely : a road axis is more complex than a single road that goes across the desert. Ancient (rome empire, at least) roads were decorated (in part),
> and we had buildings along the roads ("villas", little temples, horse changing posts, small 'hotels' _ motels , army guard-posts...). The destruction of an entire axis was a
> time-consuming business,necessarily related to more complex events than simple robberies, in principle. However, our "road" could belong to a rather different subset of roads. But...who knows (except the author)?  Thanks.



I'm sorry, longplay, but it's a question of language. As marcolettici points out (and I agree entirely with his previous post), it doesn't sound right in English, and the fact that you will find next to no examples of this phrase - "plunder the road axis" -  on Google backs up this point. You may well be right about road axes in general in the Roman Empire, but buildings built along it aren't necessarily inherent in those two words. You can only plunder things that are "stealable" i.e. loose items. And when we say "plunder a village", it is loose items that we are referring to. However, I am really just repeating the point that marcolettici made earlier.

If you think a suitable translation might be "destroy the road axis", would that equate to "spogliare" or "spoliare"? However, "to destroy" isn't the same as "to plunder".


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Destroy isn't quite the same as spogliare which means to dismantle, piece by piece.
Think about  spogliare = to undress - when you undress a child you take off every single clothing item until the child has nothing on any more.


----------



## longplay

Thank you, ELFA. It's really a question of language ! While I understand and "feel" perfectly "spoliata" and "spoliare", I don't like at all the translation "plunder" which might
imply a single act of violence or a short war.I tried to clarify my position (e.g. post no. 21). "To spoil" is really meaningless in our context ? Ancora, grazie !


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> Destroy isn't quite the same as spogliare which means to dismantle, piece by piece.
> Think about  spogliare = to undress - when you undress a child you take  off every single clothing item until the child has nothing on any  more.



Quite so, Paul. My question was rhetorical.



longplay said:


> "To spoil" is really meaningless in our context ? Ancora, grazie !



I wouldn't say "to spoil" is meaningless, more inappropriate in this context. It means "sciupare" - which isn't quite the same thing.


----------



## Einstein

elfa said:


> And "despoiled" in this context sounds as if a load of hooligans have come along and drawn graffiti on the road itself.


Hi elfa I'm not particularly defending "despoiled", but "despoil" doesn't mean "spoil" or "deface"; it definitely means "strip". We can say the Colosseum was despoiled of the decorative facing.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Einstein said:


> Hi elfa I'm not particularly defending "despoiled", but "despoil" doesn't mean "spoil" or "deface"; it definitely means "strip". We can say the Colosseum was despoiled of the decorative facing.


Then "to despoil" should be the right term.


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> Then "to despoil" should be the right term.



Well yes, on reflection, I think that probably comes closest.


----------



## longplay

elfa said:


> Well yes, on reflection, I think that probably comes closest.



Good morning ! Very glad for the agreement you reached ! After all , I believe to  despoil is a good substitute for spoil (in ancient use).
P.S. Allow me to add : MW thesaurus: Spoil (verb)- "3 - to reduce soundness, effectiveness or perfection..." and "spoilage" (mcmillan  thesaurus).

Thanks for the interesting discussion ! Allow me an after-brunch thought: "brought to ruins" = ridotto in rovine(a) would be acceptable ??


----------



## Odysseus54

Dico la mia - comincio dal testo italiano :

- spoliare : per quanto possa esistere 'spoliazione' , il verbo 'spoliare' , in italiano comune moderno, non esiste.  Puo' essere un latinismo di settore, ovviamente, oppure un anglicismo da 'spoliate', che invece, secondo il MW, esiste ( syn of 'despoil' ) , come esiste 'spolia', che Wiki definisce come :

_*Spolia* (Latin,  'spoils') is a *modern art-historical term* used to describe the re-use  of earlier building material or decorative sculpture on new monuments.  The practice was common in late antiquity_

- La frase " .. un asse viario in uso per molti secoli prima di essere _*spoliato *per la costruzione della città medievale_.." ai miei orecchi suona un po' monca.  Si salta qualsiasi riferimento ai materiali rimossi dalla _strata_ romana, il che lascia qualche ambiguita'  ( infatti ci siamo chiesti se si tratti di pietre o statue ).  La stessa espressione 'asse viario' dovrebbe indicare un'asse direzionale, non la _strata_ nella sua materialita'.

Detto cio',  un'altra soluzione potrebbe essere :

" .. a road (axis) which had been used for centuries before the/its stone pavers were scavenged to build the medieval town.. "


----------



## Einstein

Yes, "scavenge" is a good alternative.

Is there any reason why you say "stone pavers" instead of "paving stones", which I would consider more usual?


----------



## longplay

Odysseus54 said:


> Dico la mia - comincio dal testo italiano :
> 
> - spoliare : per quanto possa esistere 'spoliazione' , il verbo 'spoliare' , in italiano comune moderno, non esiste.  Puo' essere un latinismo di settore, ovviamente, oppure un anglicismo da 'spoliate', che invece, secondo il MW, esiste ( syn of 'despoil' ) , come esiste 'spolia', che Wiki definisce come :
> 
> _*Spolia* (Latin,  'spoils') is a *modern art-historical term* used to describe the re-use  of earlier building material or decorative sculpture on new monuments.  The practice was common in late antiquity_
> 
> - La frase " .. un asse viario in uso per molti secoli prima di essere _*spoliato *per la costruzione della città medievale_.." ai miei orecchi suona un po' monca.  Si salta qualsiasi riferimento ai materiali rimossi dalla _strata_ romana, il che lascia qualche ambiguita'  ( infatti ci siamo chiesti se si tratti di pietre o statue ).  La stessa espressione 'asse viario' dovrebbe indicare un'asse direzionale, non la _strata_ nella sua materialita'.
> 
> Detto cio',  un'altra soluzione potrebbe essere :
> 
> " .. a road (axis) which had been used for centuries before the/its stone pavers were scavenged to build the medieval town.. "



Very sorry Odysseus. I must wait for English-native comments , but scavenge gives me the idea of searching among the ruins....As to the Italian spoliare , I must say that
it stands for the more usual term spogliare (see post no.21, please; you can find spoliare as a "second meaning" (or 3rd) of the more usual spogliare).Can you comment,
please? Thank you .


----------



## Odysseus54

Einstein said:


> Yes, "scavenge" is a good alternative.
> 
> Is there any reason why you say "stone pavers" instead of "paving stones", which I would consider more usual?




Deformazione professionale - stone etc. is what I do for a living, and 'stone pavers' are the first expression/image that comes to my mind - and I agree with you, in this case "paving stones" is more appropriate.




			
				longplay said:
			
		

> Very sorry Odysseus. I must wait for English-native comments , but  scavenge gives me the idea of searching among the ruins....As to the  Italian spoliare , I must say that
> it stands for the more usual term spogliare (see post no.21, please; you  can find spoliare as a "second meaning" (or 3rd) of the more usual  spogliare).Can you comment,
> please? Thank you .



On 'scavenge' you have Einstein, and I add this from the MW :

_*3 :* to salvage from discarded or refuse material; also   *:* to salvage usable material from _


On 'spoliare' - I don't recognize it as Italian, I do recognize it as Latin , I haven't found any dictionary entry, not even in the Dizionario della Crusca , and the google hits I get are not of Italian texts.  Does your Devoto-Oli have an actual entry for 'spoliare' ?


----------



## longplay

Yes, Odisseus. I can give you the full text : (slowly, please) : "Spogliare v.tr....(Latino spoliare, da spolium '-spoglia-')....2.fig. Sottrarre, privare, spesso con la violenza,
l'inganno o l'astuzia : spogliare una persona dell' eredità-ecc. ".END. Actually, this is a definition for spogliare but you can find "spoliare" with the same meaning in various
texts .Is it an abused term ? I don't know, but the direct connection with -spolium(singular)/spolia(plural) - and the Italian "spoliazione" (Latin 'spoliatio-onis) should be
clear enough. Just to specify: I am not a "latinist"; I studied Latin in my "teen" years. Best greetings.

P.S. The Italian spoliazione is a correct term; "spogliazione" is used also, but is very rare and has a strange " sound ". Incredible inconsistency !


----------



## Odysseus54

longplay said:


> Yes, Odisseus. I can give you the full text : (slowly, please) : "Spogliare v.tr....(Latino spoliare, da spolium '-spoglia-')....2.fig. Sottrarre, privare, spesso con la violenza,
> l'inganno o l'astuzia : spogliare una persona dell' eredità-ecc. ".END. Actually, this is a definition for spogliare but you can find "spoliare" with the same meaning in various
> texts .Is it an abused term ? I don't know, but the direct connection with -spolium(singular)/spolia(plural) - and the Italian "spoliazione" (Latin 'spolatio-onis) should be
> clear enough. Just to specify: I am not a "latinist"; I studied Latin in my "teen" years. Best greetings.




OK, so the Devoto-Oli does not have an actual entry for 'spoliare', but it has 'spogliare'.  Got it, thank you for making that clear.

Now, while we keep looking for a dictionary that has an actual entry for 'spoliare',  can you point me to actual Italian texts where the word 'spoliare'  is actually used ?   

I am not saying that 'spoliare' is not understandable, mind you - if I say 'ti volio bene' everybody would understand what I am saying, however that would not make 'volio' an Italian word, would it ?  

And words related to the Latin 'spoliare' ( 'spoliazione' ) do not, per se, prove the existence of an Italian verb 'spoliare', unless 'spoliare' is documented in dictionaries and bonafide Italian texts - the same way as 'perplesso' does not imply ( not yet, at least ) the existence of a verb 'perplimere' in standard Italian.


----------



## longplay

Sorry, but we cannot play a "duet" on this subject. I can't give you a precise answer in a few seconds. Try with a Latin thread & 19th century italian books! I already gave you several pieces of information with no cheats (and you confirmed I was straigthforward). Thanks. We are a bit OT, i believe. However , the text at the beginning of THIS
thread is not an example in itself ? How is the weather in Florida ?


----------



## london calling

Mi avete stuzzicato la curiosità!

Spoliare (Wiki). The English verb, "spoliate" , is interesting. I can't say I'd ever heard it or read it, but it means "despoil", according to this.


----------



## elfa

Odysseus54 said:


> " .. a road (axis) which had been used for centuries before the/its stone pavers were scavenged to build the medieval town.. "



Nice input from everyone 

Personally I feel much happier just using "road" rather than "road axis", which is a very uncommon expression in English. 




london calling said:


> Spoliare (Wiki). The English verb, "spoliate" , is interesting. I can't say I'd ever heard it or read it, but it means "despoil", according to this.



Nice detective work, Jo  This would bear out the "despoil" of previous posts, though I also like Ody's "scavenge" too.


----------



## london calling

elfa said:


> Personally I feel much happier just using "road" rather than "road axis", which is a very uncommon expression in English. Ditto.
> 
> This would bear out the "despoil" of previous posts, though I also like Ody's "scavenge" too. I was thinking of something along the lines of _destroy_ or _ruin_, to be honest.


Edit. I take that back! If the paving stones were used to build other things then _ruin_ is no good, really (although they did in fact "ruin" the road in order to take the stones away)._ Despoil_ is the best bet here, I think.


----------



## longplay

A furher hint, if I may...From the BRITISH NATIONAL CORPUS:<< your query was..."despoil"<< result EB7 798 = "Christianity became the official...religion...and thereafter
several attempts were made TO DESPOIL and eventually destroy pagan monuments">>. Yes, I know...a road axis is not a monument...but in the end...the idea... .
No "axis" ? Let's try "road transport complex" or something similar (including bridges and some other parts of ...) .THANKS!

P.S. Further BNC examples: < ...search for uplands to despoil and destroy...> and < ...despoil the natural environment...>.


----------



## Odysseus54

london calling said:


> Edit. I take that back! If the paving stones were used to build other things then _ruin_ is no good, really (although they did in fact "ruin" the road in order to take the stones away)._ Despoil_ is the best bet here, I think.



Wikipedia, in its infinite wisdom, anticipating this discussion, has prepared for us a whole page on ... ruins.  There we can see how all our variations are being used , and ancient buildings are _despoiled, scavenged, stripped, dismantled._ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins

I am left with a totally OT question in my mind - why did these medieval dudes dismantle a perfectly good Roman road ?  Was traffic that slow at the time ?  Had all economy become local ?  Or perhaps it is that they did not have the manpower to maintain the roads anyway, so they left them first fall into disrepair, and then started scavenging them for building material ?  Sad...


----------



## Einstein

Odysseus54 said:


> Was traffic that slow at the time ?  Had all economy become local ?  Or perhaps it is that they did not have the manpower to maintain the roads anyway, so they left them first fall into disrepair, and then started scavenging them for building material ?  Sad...


I'd say all these reasons. But it's a normal phenomenon, unfortunately.


----------



## longplay

I am left with a totally OT question in my mind - why did these medieval dudes dismantle a perfectly good Roman road ?  Was traffic that slow at the time ?  Had all economy become local ?  Or perhaps it is that they did not have the manpower to maintain the roads anyway, so they left them first fall into disrepair, and then started scavenging them for building material ?  Sad...[/QUOTE]

EINSTEIN is perfectly right.And,as you certanly know, the roads were an important source of building materials, not "stones" only: they were "stratified" structures, with a
depth of about 2 feet (about 60 centimeters)( not bad for that time!).At each level of the stratification, there was a certain type of material (e.g. sand and very small 
stones and other stuff); the big flat stones were the visible part. Since you are interested in Latin/Italian, I take the liberty of  reminding you: the "stratification" is at the
root of the  Latin "stratum (singular)/strata (plural) : the origin of the  Italian "strada/strade".Been of any interest? Best greetings !

PS Sorry, i checked : the depth of the roads could vary from 3 to 4 feet,in general. The precise Latin for strada was "viae strata", today split in the 2  Italian via/e and
    "strada/e".


----------



## Odysseus54

Einstein said:


> I'd say all these reasons. But it's a normal phenomenon, unfortunately.



I wouldn't call it 'normal' - it's the main symptom of a major civilization breakdown.  Mind you, I know all that, in general terms - that's a lot of what I studied at school.  It's that, when you look at the local level, it makes you wonder - what did exactly happen, how did local factors contribute to the general trend.  And the image of a stone-paved road being scavenged for building material is as ominous as thinking of people scavenging the railroad tracks for metal.  Mad Max stuff.


----------

