Ian Scott wrote: >I'm working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the use >of the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause is >this one: > > ei tis umas euaggelizetai par' o parelabete > >Is umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it an >indirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct object >would be an implied "Gospel" which serves as the understood antecedent of >the relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong? *u(ma=s* is the second direct complement (DC) of *eu)aggeli/zw*, constructed in the double accusative scheme of verbs of teaching (like *dida/skw tou\s pai/das th\n grammatikh/n*). In Ancient Greek, difference between indirect object (or best indirect complement, IC) and second direct complement with such verbs is a difference of degree of transitivization. Since both (the first DC and the IC) can be the subject of the passivized construction, the constituent in IC function is here felt as another CD, and takes the accusative case. The situation is very unlike Spanish and closer to English; Spanish presents very strong restrictions to the functions that can be passivized, but the English passivization allows "Mary was given ..." and "the book was given..." as pasivizations of "They gave the book to Mary". Since in Greek we have a very clear formal indication of the grammatical status of *u(ma=s* (the accusative case) it is clear that the function it accomplishes is CD, not IC. Why English grammars unanimously consider "Mary" as IC and never a DC in sentences like "They gave the book to Mary" is a question I leave to English grammarians. But of course, if you prefer a functionalist analysis, *u(mei=s* will be considered as benefactor in the sentence, no matter if it is used in the accusative or the dative case. The best study of this constructions in Greek is Jacquinod, Bernard. 1989. Le double accusatif en grec d'Homre la fin du Ve sicle avant J.-C. Louvain -la-neuve: Peeters; cf. also 1717,0071,0000Jacquinod, B. 1991. Le double accusatif et l'organisation de la proposition en Grec ancien. En Etudes de syntaxe du grec classique1717,0071,0000, editado por M. Biraud. Niza; Erasmi, Gabriele. 1986. Costruzioni col doppio accusativo in inglese e la loro resa nelle lingue romanze. Rassegna-Italiana-di-Linguistica-Applicata1717,0071,0000 18 (1):55-68. Garca Hernndez, Benjamn. 1994. From lexemics to syntax: the double accusative with doceo and the dative with sum1717,0071,0000. En Linguistic studies on Latin. Papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest 23-27 March 1991) = SLCS 281717,0071,0000, editado por J. Herman. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamin; Hudson, Richard. 1989. English passives, grammatical relations and default inheritance. Lingua1717,0071,0000 79:17-48. ___________________________________________________________________ Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha. 28010-Madrid, Espan~a --- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]