Talk:Novus homo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

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]