OK, I've been reading up on this whole "reproach" matter. I'm not sure whether Nate and Irene are still interested, so I'll keep it brief. I'm willing to elaborate if anybody wants.
There is a basic and important philosophical distinction in the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language between what are called "propositional attitudes" and other non-propositional mental states. You can take beliefs and pains as examples of each. Beliefs necessarily have propositional content. Pains do not. Propositional content is signaled by a "that" clause. You have a belief that Paris is in France. You can't have a pain that Paris is in France. You just have a pain. Maybe it is in your foot, but it has no propositional content. Other propositional attitudes are desires, intentions, fears, hopes, etc. Other non-propositional mental states are sensations, orgasms, tingly feelings, etc. But while only the PAs take "that" clauses, both can govern "because" clauses, as can just about any verb if for no other reason than everything has a cause. Now Attic is pretty similar to English in that propositional attitudes are typically marked by oti or ws as we see when we study indirect speech; there you see many many verbs for various PAs that take oti or ws to spell out their content. LSJ calls them "Verbs of seeing or knowing, thinking or saying". So when faced with the unfamiliar ὀνειδιῶ, the question arises: what kind of thing is this? Is it a PA? Or not? Does it take oti in the sense of "that" or only in the sense of "because". Now I found LSJ rather annoying as I tried to figure it out. It seems that the most basic meaning is to reproach (dative) someone (accusative) something. But if you work through all the examples they give you find a few things.
1) A lot of the examples have neither the dative nor the accusative, just some anger floating around.
2) A lot of the examples just have the dative: somebody is mad at somebody.
3) LSJ, I was surprised to learn, actually misquote people more than once in just that one entry. I guess it is for pedagogic reasons, but I wasn't happy about it.
4) LSJ do say that ὀνειδιῶ can take a relative clause instead of the accusative and cite the very passage from the Apology that got us started and a passage from Homer: τὼ νῦν Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν ἧσαι ὀνειδίζων, ὅτι οἱ μάλα πολλὰ διδοῦσιν ἥρωες Δαναοί: σὺ δὲ κερτομέων ἀγορεύεις. We cannot use the Apology to shed light on the Apology. As for Homer, it seems that this can be read either way.
What I want to ask you guys is what is the main way to translate "because" into Attic? If oti is not a common way, then I guess one has to grudgingly grant that this is a PA. But if oti is a common way, then I'm somewhat inspired to resist thinking of it that way primarily because there is a real paucity of evidence. Perhaps the best thing to do is adopt an intermediate position. Generally when we reproach or upbraid someone a direct object is in order. I reproach myself my laziness vis. a vis. my textkit postings. But we can force a "that" clause and say: I reproach myself that I haven't posted my thoughts sooner.
Nate, I'm not inclined to add legwv as I think that just muddies the water.