Patrick A. Tiller 58 It should be a simple double accusative in which the underlying infini- tive is not omitted. In this context, however, Paul means to say that they demonstrated something that they consciously wished to communicate. The verb, then, in this context is logophoric. The reflexive in the next example is peculiar. 1 Cor 7:7 qelw de; pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~ ei\nai wJ~ kai; ejmauto;n: v I-want but all people to-be as also myself; w~ kai; ejmautovn is an abbreviated clause meaning «as I am.» Since the J reflexive is in the accusative case, it must be grammatically either a direct object or the accusative subject of an infinitive. Since there is no transi- tive verb that could be supplied, it must be the subject of an implied infinitive ei\nai (‘to be’). On the other hand, the phrase should not be understood to be derived from an underlying wJ~ kai; qevlw ejmauto;n einai (‘as also I want myself to be’) because that is not what Paul means \ here. The next verse is exactly parallel, except that the pronoun in ques- tion remains nominative and not reflexive. 1 Cor 7:8 kalon aujtoi`~ eja;n meivnwsin wJ~ kagwv: ; (It is ) good for-them if they-remain as also-I (am) In vs. 7, an underlying wJ~ kagwv (kaiv [‘also’] + ejgwv [‘I’]) has become w~ kai; ejmautovn because of its association with the complement clause of J qelw (‘I want’). qevlw is not a logophoric verb and it does not trigger indi- v rect or logophoric reflexives because it represents the subject’s thought of what is potential only. But here wJ~ kai; ejmautovn is not a potentiality in Paul’s mind but an actuality. It is therefore a logophoric pronoun without a true logophoric verb. It may be possible to make sense of this by sup- posing that there is an implied verb (‘to say’) that controls the clause and triggers the pronoun to be logophoric: «But I want all people to be as also (I say that) I am.» We have now examined all of the true indirect reflexives in the NT. Every one of them can be explained as logophoric pronouns. Since there does not seem to be any other principle that can satisfactorily explain the use and non-use of indirect reflexives, we must conclude that this is the correct explanation. The syntax of the reflexive Now that we know what can trigger a reflexive we must consider what pronouns can be triggered. For this discussion I will limit myself to the «gen- uine» Pauline epistles and to third person reflexives, not reciprocals. In order to further simplify the problem I will consider only direct reflexives. The question is, when a pronoun is co-referent with its clausemate subject, under