Implied direct object. (2 Tim. 4:18)

[Bert]

In a sentence that consists of two parts it is common to have the verb omitted from the second part.
1 Tim. 4:18 seems to have this happen with the direct object.
[face=SPIonic]r(u/setai/ me o( ku/rioj a)po\ panto\j e)/gou ponhrou= kai\ sw/sei ei)j th\n basilei/an au)tou= th\n e)poura/nion: me [/face]is omitted in the second half of the sentence, but it seems to be the object here as well.
Is this a comon thing? I can't recall seeing it before.

[klewlis]

are you sure that the object is the same in both clauses??

(just kidding, I'm sure it is)

I don't think it's REALLY common but I'm sure I've seen Paul at least doing it here and there. But I can't name any instances off the top of my head. :(

[Paul]

Hi Bert,

I researched this high and low, finding almost nothing.

You are certainly right that the 2nd clause has an understood direct object [face=SPIonic]me/[/face].

For now I would lay such ellipsis at the doorstep of style.

Cordially,

Paul

[Skylax]

Here what I found in Aeschines, 2, 68 on Perseus

[face=SPIonic]ka/lei de/ moi )Amu/ntora )Erxie/a kai\ e)kklh/teue, e)a\n mh\ qe/lh| deuri\ parei=nai[/face]

"if you please, call Amyntor of the deme Herchia; if he does not come hither voluntarily, serve summons upon him." (Translation from Perseus)

The "upon him" matches the implied direct object of [face=SPIonic]e)kklh/teue[/face]