From: Carlton L. Winbery (
Date: Mon Aug 05 1996 - 08:42:45 EDT

Burton J. Rozema
>Mike Phillips posed a question about the "double accusative" construction
>in Rom 6:16, asking, I assume, what the construction is for DOULOUS, the
>second accusative. I hesitate to use the "double accusative" designation
>for this construction, saving that for the use of double acc. after
>such verbs as ERWTAW. Eg, "I asked him (acc) for a loaf of bread (also

As I indicated in my first post there are two kinds of double accusatives
treated in the grammars, 1) personal and impersonal (Eg. above) and
2)Primary and Secondary. The latter I first learned as an object
compliment. It is the type that usually needs something added to make
sense in English. The difference between the two seems to me to be a
matter of English and not inate in the Greek.

>But I digress. My point in writing is to say that I have always given
>this EAUTOUS DOULOUS construction the name "objective complement." I
>find it takes students a while to get the hang of it, but it is very
>useful whenever a second accusative occurs that in essence complements or
>describes an already stated accusative. I don't have my NT handy, so I
>can't cite other examples, but I'm sure I could if you wish. My
>English example is, "We elected him secretary." Ie, "We elected him (to
>be) secretary."
>This construction requires that there be a direct object of a verb, such
>that there can be a complement. I may be just using another name for
>what Carl Conrad suggested by inserting the infinitive "to be."
Yes and to diagram either type of double accusative requires a line between
the two accusatives slanting back toward the first one. That shows that
one compliments the other. The second also acts a lot like a substantive
in apposition to first accusative.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:47 EDT