Talk:Novus homo

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Draco argenteus in topic Move?

Disambiguation edit

The search for "New Man" redirects here, and it is a term equally employed by many Marxist critics to designate a "man" whose psycho-affective character has radically changed since the fall of capitalism. Someone should create a disambiguation page...I'm not really sure how Emancipated (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nouveau riche? edit

Can novo homo also mean nouveau riche (new rich) or upstart; and is it safe to put it on Wikipedia? To quote the "Pocket Oxford LATIN Dictionary", in the Latin section under "homo" verbatim:

Homo, -inis m human being, person: man, woman; fellow
* novus ~ nouveau riche, upstart.

This meaning can also be found in William's Whitaker's Words which I find very trustworthy, as I have used it for almost a year now, and it has helped me a lot. Also if one googles the words novus homo + nouveau riche one finds many results. So is it safe to add "new rich" as an additional meaning of this phrase? --BiT 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't consider it safe putting that on this page. I would make 'Noveau Riche' its own page. Being a 'Novus Homo' actually had the very specific definition of being the first in you family to hold the position of consul. 'Noveau Riche' is a more general term referring to those who have only recently become wealthy, specifically later wealthy plebeian families (such as the Sempronii Gracchi) 8:10 3 March 2008 user:Imperator101

Nouveau riche is an economic description whereas novus homo is political. Trimalchio is nouveau riche. Cato is a novus homo.
I was just thinking whether the phrase have two distinct meanings in Latin; that is to say both a political meaning and a economical one. --BiT (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Novus Vir? edit

Wouldn't a new man, in a non condescending tone be novus vir, not novus homo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.148.250 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Homo, I believe, is used as a reference to man in general where as Vir refers to a specific man (eg that man over there). I believe that to be correct. 8:13 3 March 2008 user:Imperator101

Homo is also used to refer to a "man" in the meaning of a "human being". Although the title of novus homo was only given to males. --BiT (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Modern ideologies edit

The article should probably mention the concept of the New Man in modern ideologies such as Communism, Fascism and Nazism. One of their major goals was to create a new kind of citizen according to their belief that mankind was infinitely perfectible. ADM (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unprecedented scale? edit

" When a man entered public life on an unprecedented scale for a high communal office" what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.98.142 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Move? edit

Grammatically speaking, only "Homo novus" is correct. See: homo erectus, homo universalis, civis Romanus etc. "Novus homo" is just a bad calque of English "new man", which is not what this is about. Google shows 72.600 results for "Novus homo" -Wikipedia and 210.000 for "Homo novus". Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "grammatically speaking", but from searching through the PHI corpus of Roman writings, I got the impression that "novus homo" (in various cases and numbers) is actually the more common word order overall, even. That is, with the Romans. Draco argenteus (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply