104 Paul Danove ity.6 This applies even in John 4:9 where Jesus lacks the implements that would permit him to draw water from a cistern. Since this action typi- cally incurs for the Agent some reciprocal obligation to the one able to grant the request, the particular conceptualization of αἰτέω is assumed to recognize some constraint or reciprocal obligation on the action of asking. In general, affectedness of the subject/Agent resides in constraints on the action that exceed those assumed by the particular conceptualiza- tion of the verb. Since the NT authors could assume a familiarity with the particular conceptualization of αἰτέω, this discussion assumes that additional constraints apply only when the context introduces them, either explicitly in the surface structure of the text or, as the following discussions clarify, implicitly in relation to two specific referents of the Experiencer and one specific referent of the Content. The constraints resolve into two groups: restrictions on the Agent’s performance of the action and obligations incurred by the Agent in the performance of the action. For example, an external force is able to place restrictions on what an Agent can ask, and an Agent is able to impose obligations on himself/ herself to use what is asked in a specific way. The implication is that the failure to accomplish the restrictions or obligations incurs negative consequences (failure to receive what is asked) for the Agent. In particular, Agent affectedness resides in constraints on the action that the context does not identify explicitly as satisfied or fulfilled. This discussion labels these as “unfulfilled constraints” and those that are satisfied as “fulfilled constraints”. These considerations identify three possible scenarios: contexts with no constraints, contexts with fulfilled constraints, and contexts with unfulfilled constraints. Among these, only contexts with unfulfilled constraints have the potential to result in the marking of Agent affectedness by middle forms. Finally, the verb marks Agent affectedness only when there is the recognition that the Agent’s action is characterized by unfulfilled con- straints. This recognition may reflect one or both of two perspectives. When the Agent is attributed with directly asking for something, only the perspective of the Agent is applicable, and the Agent consistently is attributed with recognizing any constraints introduced within the preceding context. When a character other than the Agent makes a state- ment about the Agent’s action, the recognition of unfulfilled constraints 6 E. Abbot, “Critical Notice on Richard Chenevix Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testa- ment”, North American Review 114 (1872) 182-83, is correct in noting that the request is for the Experiencer to give something rather than to do something and that the one requesting is not limited to someone socially inferior to the one requested.