112 Paul Danove nature of the relationship between these two Benefactives depends on the conditions that characterize the action. In Matt 20,25, the master’s action temporarily places the talents in the possession of the slave without removing the master’s ultimate possession. Since the context presents no apparent conditions to God’s action of giving in Luke 1,32, the action accomplishes a complete transfer from David, the historical Benefactive of the throne / authority to Jesus, the present and continuing Benefactive. That is, henceforth, the throne can be referred to as David’s only in reference to the past. In order to clarify the grammatical constraints on interpretation with each usage, the following discussions use a procedure for translation that introduces within double brackets, [[ ]], the entity that functions as the Benefactive of both the action itself (characteristics #3) and of the entity undergoing a change (characteristics #4), whenever these are not realized as distinct verbal complements. The content of the null Benefactive of the action itself appears immediately after the verb and is introduced by “for”; and the content of the entity that becomes Benefactive of the entity undergoing a change appears after that entity and is introduced by “who / which” + a form of “become”. The procedure also introduces within double parentheses, (( )), the content of other null verbal complements. This procedure produces the following “working” translations for the two illustrative examples: Master, you gave over [[for me]] to me five talents [[which became mine]] (Matt 25,20) I will give [[for him]] to him the throne of David [[which will become his]] (Luke 1,32) 1.3. Implications of the Benefactive Relationship Just as an Agent that acts on an entity functions as a Benefactive of that entity (characteristic #2), the introduction of a Benefactive for an entity establishes the grammatical possibility that the Benefactive entity may be attributed with some sway over or capacity to act with respect to that entity. The sway or capacity to act generally is circumscribed by cultural, legal, ethical, and / or contextual considerations. In the following example, δίδωμι first makes the Goal entity the Benefactive of the action and Theme and then licenses an adjunct in which the former entity acts on the latter entity in a contextually circumscribed manner (“eating” as opposed to any other action): He gave [[for them]] to them bread [[which became theirs]] from heaven to ((them)) eat ((the bread)) (John 6,31)