# Homo Novelus



## edwardtheconfessor

_'Homo Novelus'_ - does that make sense??
i.e. is that correct Latin?

Application: I'm writing an (academic) thesis - postgrad. level (I ceased being a student scientific author long ago).
Part of the thesis - hopefully for eventual publication as a book - is themed, and titled:
'The Case Against Darwin'.

It is a scientific discussion of the arguments (no, I'm not a so-called 'creationist' or Christian apologist, btw - and there's no theology in its discussion).  And no; it's not in Latin!!  It's in English.
So; why the Latin?

Well, I am arguing that if Darwin were right, we should by now (after around 50,000 years of Homo Sapiens being the dominant, and (for nearly 20,000 of that) the _only _human species on Earth):  I am arguing that if Darwin's theories - about the origin of species by 'natural selection' - and 'Neo-Darwinism's explanation that this process happens by a 'lucky' fit of random genetic mutation with micro-changes in the survival environment;  if that is right, I'm arguing, then we should by now to have seen real significant morphological changes in our own species ... after all, there have been truly _massive_ changes in our environment since Palaeolithic times, and the retreat of the last great ice age ... when we Homo Sapiens replaced Neanderthals.  

I am saying that this 'new man' ought, therefore, to have been visibly evolving in all that time. And he hasn't - no  evidence of any _physical _change whatever - not even since the times of Cromagnon and Grimaldi Man (who were also physically identical to us - i.e. Homo Sapiens) all those millennia ago.

Okay; enough of the science and the anthropology. This was just to give the context.  You need not agree or disagree with me - not at issue for our purposes here.
But I am calling this new kind of human - whom I say ought by now to be seen emerging if Darwinism is right: I am calling this hypothetical but non-existent emergent new human species  

_Homo Novelus (i.e. 'New Man') 

.. _by analogy with _Homo Sapiens ('Wise Man'), Homo Neanderthalensis (_after the place where the first fossil of the type to be acknowledged by science was found, of course) ... or with, say _Homo Erectus ('Upright Man'  - _nowadays taken to include, usually, also the slightly later Sinanthropus (or 'Peking Man') type as well).

So, simple question really: is 'Homo Novelus' correct Latin here?
If not, can anyone put me straight on the linguistics here?
NB: as I always point out when I ask a  question about Latin - I'm NOT a Latin scholar ... so keep the grammar simple please.

Many thanks    - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## ablativ

I just read this article containing a different opinion than yours.

"homo novus" or sometimes written "novus homo" has a different meaning (upcoming knight class in ancient Rome) from what you want to say. The same here (Born-Again-Humans), which would mean that "homo novus" cannot be used for your purpose. I also found an article about "homo novelus" with no connection to what you mean to state. "homo novelus" may perhaps not be the best choice either.

What about "homo contemporaneus", even though this term also exists in other articles but more or less with reference to a period of time from long ago (in your case very long ago) until now?  ???

"novus" is relative and so is "novelus" and also "contemporaneus".


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you ablative. Yes, I checked out the links you so kindly researched for me. Mustn't get way off topic here ... but yes, I know Professor Hawks actually - or, at least, I have corresponded with him ... though that was more about his theories of how come the amount of (apparently Neanderthal) DNA was found in the famous 'Otzi the Iceman' - that's another (really off!)-topic - as is my view that what Hawks et al are really describing here bears testimony to variation _within _species - which no-one denies is genetically possible. I'd love to discuss - but we must keep on topic.  The Roman _Novus Homo _- yes, I agree; this  doesn't seem to help us much here.  And the other link to 'Homo Novelus' - yes I've seen this before myself ... when I was googling a while ago (to see if anyone else had ever used the term in any scientific context, that is). I confess to being very bemused by this particular usage of what I thought was my complete neologism.  But it sure isn't science, is it? It looks like science _fiction_... but gives no literary or movie reference or similar.  Hmmmm?

'_Homo Contemporaneous' _is interesting - but doesn't have quite such a morpheme compactness though as 'Homo Novelus'.  You say that you've seen this elsewhere - but are you saying that, in that usage, it refers to some time in ancient history or pre-history? ... whereas, as you rightly suggest, I am querying the existence of any solid evidence for the steady 'drip, drip, drip' of evolution which modern 'Neo-Darwinism' (in any of its variants) asserts is going on all the time - but far too slowly for us to notice (according to the theory).  I can't discuss here either (though I'd love to) the famous Kettlewell 'experiments' of the 1950s with peppered moths - which are so often offered up as evidence.  But, yes, you have grasped what I am saying: that, if the conventional wisdom on all this be correct, then there should by now be some kind of anthropological evidence of this transmuting of Homo Sapiens on towards a new species altogether ... slowly happening over thousands of years (and not just five thousand!) as _physically _noticeably different from us, over time,  as were Neanderthals.  What to call this hypothetical 'new man' though (whom I say is conspicuous by reason of his absence)? Hmmmmm.

You say that 'novus', 'novelus' and 'contemporaneous' are 'relative'.  Do you mean that they are 'relative' adjectives of quality and degree, as say, in English usage comparative and superlative forms e.g. big, bigger, biggest; good, better, best  - and so on?

Hope you (and any others here?) can help me out a bit further here??

Much appreciated.  Thanks    - edwardtheconfessor

PS: The other link you kindly researched for me - to the introductory essay by Gaudreault - is fascinating cultural history (I am also a qualified cultural historian), using here, as he does, 'evolution' in very much the diluted sense that many cultural historians mean it. This, of course, is not quite what Darwin meant (even influenced as Darwin was in fine by reading Malthus on demographic pressure to survive and so forth - whole another subject altogether again).

CONCLUSION: We really need a term here which - preferably - does not get 'crossed up' at all with such ideas, with strange sci-fi or occultism and which 'looks' and sounds solid enough (like _Homo Sapiens_, say, or _Homo Erectus)  _to 'throw down the gauntlet'  as if to truly ask: well, where is he?

Maybe we might have to explore some of the _'anthropus' _possibilities as well - meaning 'human being' (as in '_Sinanthropus', _say or _'Pithecanthropus') _- but isn't that a form which really only came into 'New Latin' from the Greek??  And anyway, I'd prefer to avoid getting into those, rather earlier, hominids who predate even Neanderthals in this particular point ...  for I have other arguments presented about those.


----------



## ablativ

edwardtheconfessor said:


> You say that 'novus', 'novelus' and 'contemporaneous' are 'relative'.  Do you mean that they are 'relative' adjectives of quality and degree, as say, in English usage comparative and superlative forms e.g. big, bigger, biggest; good, better, best  - and so on?


Thank you for your response, Edward! Let's wait for others' opinions with more knowledge of Latin and the topic you're writing about.

("new" and the other terms are relative: A breakfast roll is old after one day - contemporary music should not be older than a few years - Early Modern Age started in 1500 - your "homo novelus" is ten thousands of years old.)


----------



## Dib

The proper Latin form for "novelus" would be "novellus" with two l-s, i.e. the diminutive of novus. So, is "homo novellus" correct grammatically? Yes. Is it idiomatic in Latin? I don't know. Probably not. But, as you said, you are not writing a dissertation on Latin idiom. So, I'd think you should be just fine using "homo novellus" for your purpose. That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete omnes!

From the discussion so far it seems to me that edwardtheconfessor is looking for a putative term, taxonomically equivalent to _homo sapiens/erectus/Neanderthalis_.

For reasons already given by DiB (# 5), _novelus_ is out.

_homo recens_ might work, or _homo sapiens recentior_.

Evolutionary biology (or rather the history of its science) is an enthusiasm of mine, but I'm still not entirely sure what creature edwardtheconfessor is trying to describe or define.

Σ


----------



## jakowo

Scholiast said:


> .. a putative term, taxonomically equivalent to _homo sapiens/erectus/Neanderthalis_.



So what about _Homo brevi novus_?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

edwardtheconfessor said:


> Sinanthropus


_Mellontikanthropus - Man to come_, which is of course all Greek to me , save for the ending _(Neanthropus_, unfortunately, describes the current race).

Back to Latin: _Homo futurus_, likewise not necessarily _future man_ but _man to come.

_Or _Homo progressus (advanced man)._


----------



## beezneez

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of Latin, and what I do know has already be stated better by others, but I just wanted to point out to the original poster, you should take note of how the responders are not capitalizing the species or subspecies, following scientific convention. In taxonomy, only the genus is capitalized. Thus, your invention would be _Homo novellus_. That said, I think "new man" is too politically and historically loaded, even for your polemic objective. I'd opt for something more original. _Homo inventatus_? _Homo nihil_? _Homo apologeticus_? That would be more accurate and clear.

 << Drifting off topic. >>


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete omnes


> _Homo inventatus_? _Homo nihil_? _Homo apologeticus_


If this is meant as a joke, , for none would make sense, or even Latin.

Perhaps this is not the place to debate the finer issues of contemporary evolutionary theory - but I would like to set on record my fondness for and admiration of Stephen J. Gould's splendid writings. _Humanitas_ sums it up.

Σ


----------



## beezneez

Scholiast said:


> Salvete omnes
> 
> If this is meant as a joke, , for none would make sense, or even Latin.
> 
> Perhaps this is not the place to debate the finer issues of contemporary evolutionary theory - but I would like to set on record my fondness for and admiration of Stephen J. Gould's splendid writings. _Humanitas_ sums it up.
> 
> Σ



Uh oh, did a break a rule by introducing humor?   What about _Homo non sequitur_? I'm pretty sure THAT is Latin.  Actually it doesn't have to be real Latin, since it's not meant for an ancient Roman audience. Most scientific names, in fact, are not Latin, but Latinized. Take neanderthalensis, for example. No one in the Roman Empire would have recognized that word for a thousand years. Many are proper nouns with a Latin-sounding suffix, as the aforementioned example. Many others come from English, Japanese, Chinese and a multitude of other languages, and likewise lengthened with -us or -ensis, or something of the like. By the way, I absolutely agree with you about the late Mr. Gould. I wish more people were familiar with his ideas.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you everyone who is contributing here. I am getting some interesting suggestions. However, two points if I may:

1) << Response to deleted comment. >>

I gave, in my original post, a very _brief_ outline - and that of only the _relevant _salient points of my argumentation here - re: the evolution (or alleged continuing evolution) of Homo Sapiens in order to provide _context _for the (linguistic) advice that I am seeking.

 [ASIDE: re: capitalisation] - [I'm not sure if this should be capitalised? I am advised by some posters that it should not - yet I have often seen it capitalised,  and species names of other hominids too for that matter (extinct or still living) in many scientific publications. So, I should like more clarification as to _sources _from those who advise me _not _to capitalise, please.]

2) A lively exchange of views is most welcome here always - so long as it remains relevant to the subject in hand (and to the _linguistic_ question being raised).
 While most of us are appreciative of a little scholarly banter now and then, and the occasional exchange of academic wry wit (I sometimes indulge myself!); I think  _most _helpful are those of you who are seeking to address the (slightly more serious) question of what I should call this (hypothetical) 'new' species of hominid whom, I argue, ought, by all the laws of _gradualist_ evolutionary theories, to have been slowly evolving now for tens and tens of thousands of years - but who is yet nowhere in sight  ...
and this notwithstanding some of the arguments from molecular biology that there have been some changes _in our DNA _- and my view that these merely indicate _adaptation __within _the present species - a phenomenon which no-one, not even the fiercest opponents of all current theories of evolution, denies - see my post earlier on this thread, responding to some arguments underscored by anthropologist Professor Hawks (with whom, as I say, I have corresponded)).

Ladies and gentlemen, with all thanks of course to those who are seeking to shed light on my (admittedly rather subtle) linguistic problem here - please do so continue.

Many thanks   

-edwardtheconfessor


----------



## Cagey

How about _Homo absens_? 

It has the advantages of not being used already in the discussion of other theories and of being fairly transparent to English speakers. It means what it looks like it means, and would work as a placeholder in your argument. 

It also follows the rules of Latin grammar.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you everyone.  I think we are almost there now.  Many thanks especially to Cagey.  I rather like the sound of _Homo absens _(I'm taking on board beezneez' point about initial capitalisation of only the first (genus) part of the taxonomic identifier - though I still have not had any poster yet point up any scientific references or links clarifying this alleged rule of thumb.  Oh well ...). _Homo absens _appeals because it is a) facetious, ironic, sardonically witty, even a little sarcastic yet b) sounds solidly scientific enough. It is rather good dry scientific humour (which, as I said, I am not above!).  
However, as I think about this now, I rather feel I would like my little crtique on this point - it is only one small part of the argumentation of  my entire thesis - to run something along the lines of:- 

Beginning with a different, also sollidly scientific sounding, term - let's call this *'X'* for the moment -
; _*asking*_, as it were: what _*of *_this new human species which should have been evolving, as I said, incredibly slowly like the drip, drip, drip of a leaky tap (yes, I actually use this simile in my text) according to all gradualist theories of evolution, over the some fifty thousand years since Cromagnon and Grimaldi types *[I think initial capitalisation is okay here, is it not - these being, in this partiular usage, place name borrowings?] * first appeared on Earth (i.e. the first Homo sapiens, biologically and morphologically identical to you and me). 

*[Aside: just to make my point very clear here, for context - no, I am *not* accepting the theory (which some anthropologists still support) that Homo sapiens evolved directly from Neanderthals, and neither am I accepting the view, which some hold, that Neanderthals never truly went extinct, but were merely 'subsumed' into Homo sapiens; or else that both (Neanderthals and Homo sapiens) were/are merely different _varieties _of the same species (which is why some anthroplogists now like to refer to contemporary humans (from Cromagnon and Grimaldi ancestral stock - i.e. to all of us; to you and me) as _Homo sapiens *sapiens*_). 

I cannot discuss here, obviously, the scientific argumentation I put forward to challenge all these theories, nor the evidence I examine.  However, hopefully, this helps to further clarify context. Neither can I here discuss the theory, which a small nunber of anthroplogists support, that _Homo ergaster _was the true ancestor of _Homo sapiens_. So, for me, then; Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are, and always were, completely different species - and we even lived together, cheek by jowl so to speak, especially in Europe, for thousands of years ... Homo sapiens, in fact, driving Neanderthals farther and farther to the very margins of the habitable land. For me; the disappearance of Neanderthal - with a brain at least as good as ours, and much better adapted to the the sub-tundra and receding tundra conditions into which we suddenly appeared is _not _adequatley explained by any of these theories. In fact, I argue that it is just one (of many) fatal flaws in all Neo-Darwinan evolutionary theory.
I sure hope this helps to give full context.]*


Okay; enough with the science.  Let's stay on topic.  So, to 'cut to the chase' then: after setting out my argumentation - as to *why *this 'new man' reallly *ought *to have shown some clear physical signs of evolving into something noticeably different from our Cromagnon and Grimaldi ancestors by now ... in response to truly _massive _changes in our environment since the retreat of the last ice age in late Pleistocene times (when these Homo sapiens first appeared); I then conclude by saying that _he/she is *nowhere to be seen*_ - which is where I make my final academic _piece de resistance _(!) by calling this hypothetical, but non-existant, 'new man' *Homo *_*absens*_!  Brilliant (ahem!) - pity I can't accredit you all by name for your linguistic help!

So; the only problem that remains is: *'X'* (as I have called the term I still need for the beginning of this argument - see my para. 2, above).
Suggestions please!   
I am thinking that an _anthropus _(capitlisation here?) term would work well here.  It would provide a nice neat contrast. _Anthropus, _though Greek originally, has, I think also passed into scientific Latin - and Latin hybrid terms (I take the point that many scientific terms - especially those used in much anthropology - are not true Latin anyway).  _Mellonikanthropus _('man to come') is interesting. Thank you, Schimmelreiter. However, the only problem here is that he/she is not exaclty 'to come' (if the classic theories of Neo-Darwinism be correct), is he/she?  Rather, we are asking why he/she is not _already on the way_, if you see what I mean?

So; I await a few more lively suggestions, all - and many thanks indeed for all your help, thus far.

- edwardtheconfessor


----------



## Cagey

Please start a new and more focused thread for this question: 


> So; the only problem that remains is: 'X' (as I have called the term I still need for the beginning of this argument - see my para. 2, above).


So much explanation invites more off-topic comments.  

Cagey, moderator.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Just trying to clarify, Cagey.
Focussed and brief enough?  :-


_'Ought to be' _man or - better - _'ought to be improving' _man.  I would call this an irrealis construction.
Is there an '-_anthropus' _that might answer to this? If so, maybe we're there!

-edwardtheconfessor


----------



## wandle

Some hominid species are named after a place (*neanderthalensis*, *pekinensis*, etc); some after a characteristic (*erectus*, *habilis* etc.). 

In this case, no place name is available, because the idea is that the species does not exist.

However, we can perhaps coin a pseudo-place-name. The English 'ubiquitous' comes from the Latin *ubique* 'everywhere'.
The rare Latin term *nullibi* means 'nowhere'. On that basis we might form the term *homo nullibiquitus*: 'nowhere man'.

The key characteristic in this case, if I have followed the argument, is that the species should be one that ought to have appeared but has not done so.

For this, I would suggest two names with genuine Latin terms:

*homo exspectatus* (long awaited, much looked-for)

*homo destituens* (failing to appear, letting us down)

and one coinage:  *homo serigradus*.

This is formed by analogy with *tardigradus* 'walking slowly', 'slow-paced'. The adjective *serus* means 'late' and includes the sense of 'too late'.

Hence *serigradus* would mean 'walking too late', 'dawdling', 'overdue'. This combines the sense of gradualism (step-by-step movement) with that of being too late to meet expectation.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you, wandle.  I like _Homo nullibiquitus. _I think this would go nicely in my final paragraph - dismissing this alleged 'new' hominid who ought to have been evolving all this time for his/her non-existence; after I have already delivered my 'hammer blow' to the theory by describing hiim/her as _Homo absens _(see above posts). I could even then (sneakily) slip in a facetious quote from Lennon, Mc.Cartney: 'He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land ...' (etc.).
Your other suggestions are intriguing.
All that I lack now is a nice, neat suitable sounding -_anthropus _(as from borrowed Greek into some scientific Latin) with which to open that pararaph of discussion - as I indiciated above: an _-anthropus _meaning, as I've said: _'ought to be man' _or - better - _'ought to be evolving/improving man'  _... and  even, as you suggest (but in an -_anthropus_  derivative) _'tardy, long overdue, dawdling  _etc. _human_.  Or will I have to go to the Greek subsection of this forum for that (and have to explain all this over again there - pity; when we're so very close here). Hmmm.


----------



## Cagey

IF you want a Greek word, you will have to ask for suggestions in the Greek forum.  

You can give a brief explanation of what you want in that particular term, and include a link to this thread for people who want a more general discussion. 

If you want to combine a Latin prefix with the Greek noun, this forum can work on it.


----------



## wandle

Scientific terminology depends upon employing a single term for a single entity, or for a single concept. 

Granted, a satirical approach is in any case unlikely to change established theory, but if you were to use more than one term for the same concept, would that not risk reducing the potential impact of your views?


----------



## Kevin Beach

What about "Homo hodiernus" - "Today's Man"?


----------



## wandle

One problem is that *hodiernus* in adjectival use only has the literal meaning 'of today': that is, 'belonging to this calendar day' (not 'belonging to the modern age').

Even if it did mean 'belonging to the modern age', though, this would mean 'man as he now is', would it not? - not 'man as he ought to have been'.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Hello everyone. I'm back!  Many thanks to all who gave very useful responses to my  initial query here.  I have now made more progress on the thesis/publication itself and have now got to the more serious writing of the part which deals with my anthropological arguments.
I take on board everything that you have all so kindly advised thus far.
I am now thinking about a good leader heading to the section on this question in my thesis.  I have thought about the (obviously well-known):

_Ecce Homo

_(which, I understand, is really the 'ecclesiastical' Latin version - originally, of course, from the Latin Vulgate Bible).
_Ecce Homo, _if I understand this correctly ('ecclesiastical' Latin version of 'Ecce hom' ...) means something very like 'Behold the man!'.

What, then, would be the NEGATIVE exact equivalent of that?  I.e. 'Behold not the man!' ... sounds a bit weird, but I think you can all see why - if you've followed this thread at all. I'd be looking for a good punchy and memorable title leader just like that (and one instantly likely to strike a chord with most scholars).

_Non Ecce Homo  _(?????) or can you correct my woeful ignorance of Latin and Latin grammar here??

Many thanks     - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## Joca

Behold not the man would read in Latin: ne aspexeris hominem.

ecce actually means "here is", like 'voici' in French.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you. Well, like I said 'my woeful ignorance'!  Now I think about it; _ecco _in Italian (in which I am moderately fluent) means 'here is ..' or 'here it is', so, now I think about it, the etymological derivation is pretty obvious.

_Ne aspexeris hominem.  _Hmmm! Absolutely semantically correct for 'behold not the man', but ....
not the EXACT OBVERSE of _ecce homo_.
If we concede to _ecce homo _meaning literally 'here is the man' (in Italian, I know, it would be: _ecco uomo_) .. and not, as I now see, 'behold the man' ; then can we get the exact negation of that in Latin please?
(again; in Italian, I know it would be normally said as _uomo non ecco_  - difficult to translate exactly literally but as if in English:  'the man is not there/here').
Anyone help me further here (please keep it simple!). NB however, it really does need to look and sound instantly recognisable as my witty parody on 'ecce homo' (see explanation in my preceding post above).

Many thanks again   - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## Joca

Hi

One possible (but possibly not the best) solution to your quest would be to say: *ecce homo abest* (look, the man is not there, the man is absent), or *ecce homo abivit *(look, the man has gone away).

Please wait until the other members check this post.


----------



## wandle

L&S  say *ecce* is a demonstrative adverb: 


> [it] points out an object with emphasis, lo! see! behold!


Typically, it either (a) indicates that something is present (as in *ecce homo*: 'Here is the man' or 'Look! The man!') or (b) introduces something unexpected or strange.

Thus Joca's suggestions fit with sense (b). *Ecce* draws attention to the fact of his absence.

However, when we consider *ecce homo*, the difficulty is that this phrase is not something that can have a negation. 
The demonstrative *ecce* means that the object it draws attention to is present.
If something is not present, there cannot be a demonstrative exclamation to draw attention to it.

I suppose you could say *Eheu homo abest*: Alas, the man is not here.


----------



## Joca

I see what you mean, wandle. Possibly, this is nonsense, but anyway couldn't *ecce* refer to or draw attention to the fact that the man is no longer there? Much like French voilà: Voilá (qu') elle est partie!


----------



## wandle

That is what I meant by this:


wandle said:


> Thus Joca's suggestions fit with sense (b). *Ecce* draws attention to the fact of his absence.


That idea works in Latin, but it can hardly be called a negation of *ecce homo*, and therefore I suppose it is not what is wanted.

I do not see how there can be any negation of *ecce homo*, as explained above.


----------



## Joca

Oh,* now* I understand. Sorry.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

This is engendering an interesting debate everyone.  I think I see now why some _have, _in fact translated _ecce homo _as 'behold the man!'.

I am, of course, out of my depth on the Latin grammar.  However, one point I need to underscore here (check back my earlier posts on this thread and why I started it):
I wish to suggest NOT that this 'new man' ('homo novelus'  or whatever) _has gone away_. No.  If you read my earlier posts here you will see that I am arguing that this 'homo novelus' _never arrived_ (even though, according to theories of Darwinian evolution, he is long overdue! .... but we'll not labour the science here).
Is it really impossible for there to be an exact negatve obverse of _ecce homo_?

Does the fact that no-one has ever used it mean it is impossible?  Bertold Brecht wrote a play called 'The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui'.  There is no such word in German for 'resistible' (nor in Italian, either, when I tried to translate it for some Italian-speaking friends in general conversation), and I cannot find it in an English dictionary either. That was exactly the point.  That was the point that Brecht was making - the rise (to power) of the gangster (Arturo Ui - who represented Hitler) was, in Brecht's view '_resistible' _...  or could have been, had only decisive action been taken early enough. Anyone who knows the play will know exactly what I mean.  
In a comparable way, I am saying '[negative] ecce homo' - 'the man is _not_ here'.  Everyone knows what an 'IRResistible rise (to power)' means.  Brecht's deliberate grammatical reversal made his message very poignant.  Everyone knows, too, the famous words attribued to Pontius Pliate (John 19:5 in the Vulgate Bible). I hope that I can get a comparable grammatical obverse of this and make _my _point similarly poignantly.

Does this help to shed light?  I hope so!

Thanks  - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## wandle

edwardtheconfessor said:


> I am arguing that this 'homo novelus' _never arrived_





Joca said:


> One possible (but possibly not the best) solution to your quest would be to say: *ecce homo abest* (look, the man is not there, the man is absent)


As stated above, this suggestion by Joca fits the second meaning of *ecce* mentioned in post 27 (sense b).
Equally, you could say *Ecce, homo nondum advenit*: See, the man has not yet arrived.

Neither of these suggestions, though, is really a negative of *ecce homo*. As explained, the demonstrative _*ecce*_ can draw attention to a striking fact (sense b), but in the case of *ecce homo* (sense a) it can only draw attention to something that is present.

To put it another way, with *ecce* there are two options:  
(a) _*ecce homo*_ 'Look! The man!' or 'Here is the man';
(b)* ecce homo adest* 'See, the man is present'.

It is possible to put (b) into the negative: *ecce homo non adest* 'See, the man is not present'; or to express the opposite of it: *ecce, homo abest* 'See the man is absent'.

However, there cannot be a negative or an opposite of (a), because in that usage *ecce* is a literal demonstrative (pointing to some actual thing that is actually present).


----------



## dragongal

Not at ALL a Latin maven (yet!) but how does hominus novus compare to what OP was getting at, and the rest of your suggestions?


----------



## francisgranada

Homo postsapiens, homo neosapiens ...


----------

