110 Paul Danove syntactic first complement (the subject when the verbs have active or middle forms), second complement (the typical subject when the verbs have passive forms), and third complement (the atypical subject when the verbs have passive forms): Master, you (Agent) gave over to me (Goal) five talents (Theme) (Matt 25,20) κύριε, πέντε τάλαντά μοι παρέδωκας The Lord God (Agent) will give to him (Goal) the throne of David his father (Theme) (Luke 1,32) δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον ∆αυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ This study groups all occurrences of the verbs with these linked semantic and syntactic properties into the usage, Transference to a Goal. The study transforms all passivized occurrences into their correlate active or middle forms and analyzes them accordingly. The 636 NT occurrences of the thirteen verbs of “giving” resolve into seven usages. With each of these usages, the verbs require completion by three arguments. With six of the usages, the first complement functions as an Agent. The second and / or third arguments may remain unrealized as complements on occasion. When the context does not specify the exact semantic content of an unrealized complement, it is an indefinite null complement (INC).2 Indefinite null second complements consistently have the interpretation “whatever can be given in the manner designated by the verb”. Most frequently this is “a gift”. When the context specifies the semantic content of an unrealized complement, it is a definite null complement (DNC); and the grammatical interpretation of the verb requires the retrieval of its semantic content from the context.3 1.2. The Distinctive Characteristics of Verbs of “Giving” Verbs of “giving” exhibit four linked characteristics that distinguish these from all other NT Greek verbs. This discussion develops the four characteristics in relation to the illustrative examples from Matt 25,20 and Luke 1,32. 2 Indefinite null complements receive consideration in B. Fraser and J.R. Ross, “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion,” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-65, and I. Sag and J. Hankamer, “Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing,” Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45. 3 Discussions of definite null complements appear in Anita Mittwoch, “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion,” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971) 255-59, P. Matthews, Syntax (Cambridge 1981) 125-26, and D.J. Allerton, Valency and the English Verb (New York 1982) 34, 68-70.