Joel, let me preface my response with the sincere appreciation for your taking the time to correct my understanding and perhaps fallacious reasoning. I also appreciate the enormous frustration you must feel in knowing you're right and confronted with someone who can't understand your point and no matter what line of reasoning you take, your message just doesn't get through. This present discussion reminds me of when I thought epsilon could be lengthened and you insisted that it is always short, that there is no such thing as a long epsilon and although I had seen many references to books and papers on vowel lengthening, the pure and simple fact is there is no such thing as a long epsilon. You were right, of course, and when I accepted that, it made a profound difference in my ability to scan Homer and for that I'm grateful. I'm sorry if that's a little long-winded, but I want you to know how much I appreciate your patience and effort.
Perhaps it would help to retrace the argument.
Here is the statement I saw and thought about:
jeidsath wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:53 pm
"...ὁ θεὸς Σεβαστός". Apparently this is a translation of the Latin "divus". ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ is also common. There is discussion of it in the LSJ entry.
At this point I did look up the LSJ entry and found 1.3.a and 1.3.b., which confirmed that ὁ θεός=divus. Considering that the topic of the thread is "converting a noun into an adjective", I understood the statement here to be that θεός was being used as an adjective having the meaning of θεῖος, which it does not. In Latin however, divus can be used this way, i.e., either as a substantive or adjective. As far as I know, in Greek there is a separate word for each function. However, AFAIK, it is possible in Greek to have two nouns applied to the same person or thing. This lead to my suggesting that θεός and Σεβαστός are being applied appositionally to Octavian and θεός and Καῖσαρ to Julius Caesar. I did not mean to imply that ὁ Σεβαστός Καῖσαρ and ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ are equivalent expressions that could be used interchangeably.
At this point, the reply was:
jeidsath wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:22 pm
I don't believe that's the usage. Strabo, for example, contrasts ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ (Julius) from ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ (Augustus) in the same sentence.
I asked to see the whole sentence because I still didn't see any problem with the appositional use of θεός. The contrast as I perceived it, was in what two individuals did, as opposed to the different elements in their titles and in this I agree with your next statement:
jeidsath wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am
I have to say that this is obviously the sentence, and I would have hoped that we could all read it without translation, but it has nothing to do with my argument.
jeidsath wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am
"ὁ θεός" would be translated as a title into English, not a noun.
I think this is where we started to go in different directions. Titles are nouns (not adjectives, unless being used as substantives), so in my reasoning, if you apply two nouns to one person, you are using them in apposition. As to the question of what parts of speech are represented by <x1> and <x2>, my answer would have been noun or noun phrase or adjective at least in this context.
jeidsath wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:08 pm
My point is that your appositive theory is impossible, but you have confused that statement with the idea that these are not transcriptions of the Latin titles (which they are).
When I see the word "transcription", I think of representing a word from one language using the alphabet of another language, thus Καῖσαρ is a transcription of Caesar. θεός is a noun and one of several possible translations for divus.
jeidsath wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:08 pm
If you go back and look, you will see that the point was not that Καῖσαρ should have been dropped. But that one wouldn't expect to see a repeated apposition like that, and that therefore we can conclude that these are not simple nouns in apposition.
I obviously misunderstood and I'm afraid I still don't understand. Yes, there's repetition of Καῖσαρ, but there has to be: there are two individuals that happen to have that noun as part of their titles. How we go from there to the conclusion that the two nouns that make up each title are not being used in apposition is where I lose you.
Having proceeded through what I think are the key points of the discussion, I believe:
1. We do not agree on what part of speech the word "title" represents. You say adjective, I say noun.
2. It's quite possible that there is a misunderstanding as to what is in apposition to what; to be clear, I'm referring to the pair of nouns within each title. You could get rid of ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ altogether; just consider θεός and Καῖσαρ, both nouns, both referring to Julius Caesar.
3. Much of the historical information does appear to be extraneous. My reason for supplying it was to support the idea that deified Roman emperors were more than just divine (adjective). They were gods (noun).
Joel, I'm sorry but I don't do Zoom. Call me camera shy, but the truth is I'm not very good at quick comebacks. I'm the kind of person that always discovers his brilliant answers long after everyone else has left the building. Case in point, I started typing this 4 hours ago. You deserve the best answer I can give and this is it.
EDIT: I just saw mwh's post. To me the only word I have to describe the relationship of a string of nouns in a title is apposition. Obviously I've got a lot more to learn about titular construction. Consider me told. Joel, I also thank you for the information from Mason. At some point, I'll have to find a copy of it.