20 Paul Danove καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Καιν Ποῦ ἐστιν Αβελ ὁ ἀδελφός σου; And God said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” (Gen 4:9) ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν... But I say to you, “Love your en- emies...” (Matt 5:44) ἄγγελος κυρίου εἶπεν τῷ Γαδ τοῦ εἰπεῖν πρὸς ∆αυιδ... A messenger of the Lord said to Gad to say to David... (1 Chr 21:18) καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν... And they said nothing to anyone... (Mark 16:8) In the first two examples, the direct objects relate the exact content of God’s and Jesus’ speech through quotes; whereas, in the latter two exam- ples, the third complements (‘to say to David...’ and ‘nothing’) designate the content of discourse. This usage of λέγω may be represented by the following syntactic, semantic, and lexical description: SYN. 1 (2) [3]* * 1=subject, 2=indirect object, 3=object, ( )=indef. null com., [ ]=def. null com. SEM. Agt Exp Con** ** Agt = agent, Exp = experiencer, Con = content LEX. N N/P N/V*** *** N = noun phrase, V = verb phrase, P = prepositional phrase This description characterizes the requirements of λέγω in the active voice according to its syntactic (syn.), semantic (sem.), and lexical (lex.) properties. The subject or first complement, 1, lexically realizes the agent (Agt) either by a noun phrase (noun or pronoun, N) or by the verbal ending. The indirect object or second complement, 2, lexically realizes the experiencer (Exp) by a noun phrase (N) or a prepositional phrase (P). The direct object or third complement, 3, lexically realizes the content (Con) by a noun phrase (N) or by a clause or other verb phrase (V). The parentheses, ( ), in the syntactic description indicate that the second com- plement may be omitted (null) even when the preceding linguistic context does not specify its semantic content. In such cases, the indirect object is granted an indefinite interpretation, ‘someone’ or ‘whoever might hear’:4 Indefinite null complements receive development in Charles J. Fillmore, “Pragmatically 4 Controlled Zero Anaphora”, Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (1986) 95-107, and are treated in other linguistic approaches under the designations, “unspecified noun phrase deletion” in Bruce Fraser and John R. Ross, “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion”, Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-5, and “pragmatically controlled model-interpretive null anaphora” in Ivan Sag and Jorge Hankamer, “Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing,” Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45.