Structural classification

Structurally epithets can be divided into simple, compound, phrase epithets and a string of epithets.

1) Simple epithets are ordinary adjectives.

2)Compound epithets are built like compound adjectives, e.g. heart-burning sigh, curly- headed good-for-nothing.

3) Phrase epithets. A phrase and even a whole sentence may become an epithet if the main formal requirement of the epithet is maintained, i.e. its attributive use. Phrase epithets are always placed before the nouns they refer to. E.g., the following situation: a guy who is looking for something which has rolled under his bad. “Yes, here it is” he said in the-lying-on-the-floor voice. These epithets are usually hyphenated. (or at least they are traditionally hyphenated. In some modern books these epithets are not hyphenated, that could be done on some sort of stylistic purpose.)

Another structural variety of the epithet is so called reversed, or inverted epithet. It is composed of two nouns linked in an of-phrase., e.g. “the shadow of a smile”, “her brute of a brother”, “…he smiled brightly, neatly, efficiently, a military abbreviation of a smile”, “A little Flying Dutchman of a cab”.

How to translate these epithets;

A dream of a house - не дом, а мечта, дом – просто мечта, дом – настоящая мечта

One more example of this kind:

We carried that big ox of a Harry aboard.

Such epithets should not be confused with an ordinary of-phrase. Here the article with the second noun can help in doubtful cases: “the toy of the girl” (the toy belonging to the girl); “the toy of a girl” (a small, toylike girl).

There is another very interesting structural peculiarity of epithets. That is when they perform predicative function. E.g. “her voice was full of money”.

This is a transferred epithet. And syntactically this is of course a predicate “full of money”. There isn’t a very tangible border-line between metaphors and epithets in some cases. It’s very hard to draw a line of demarcation between prediction and attribution. So it’s rather difficult to say whether in the sentence “her voice was full of money” we have a predicate, or a metaphor, or it is still an attribute.

So sometimes transferred epithets very closely border on metaphors, and some scholars regard these cases as metaphors.

4)A string of epithets. For example, in his depiction of New-York O. Henry gives the following string of epithets:

“Such was the background of the wonderful, cruel, enchanting, bewildering, fatal, [feitl] great city”. The string of epithets gives a many-sided depiction of the object. In such strings there is generally an ascending scale, which culminates in the last epithet. Here it is fatal.

In conclusion we should note, that the epithet is a direct and straightforward way of showing the author’s attitude towards the things described. Other SDs reveal the author’s evaluation only indirectly. That is why when an author wants to show objectivity and impartiality in depicting their heroes he uses few epithets.

Realistic authors use epithets sparingly. And Romanticism, on the other hand, may be characterized by its abundant use of epithets.