a. duplex c. i.

[Lavrentivs]

νῦν δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἀνθρώπω ἐστόν, τίνα αὐτοῖν ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ἐπιστάτην λαβεῖν;

If I am not mistaken, this is an accusativus duplex cum infinitivo.

Is it correct to say that the order of dependence is the following?

ἔχεις
τίνα
λαβεῖν
ἐπιστάτην

[annis]

νῦν δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἀνθρώπω ἐστόν, τίνα αὐτοῖν ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ἐπιστάτην λαβεῖν;

If I am not mistaken, this is an accusativus duplex cum infinitivo.

I don't think so. The subject of λαβεῖν is the same as that for ἐν νῷ ἔχεις, "you have in mind," so the duplex accusative is going with λαβεῖν, "to take as".

[Lavrentivs]

νῦν δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἀνθρώπω ἐστόν, τίνα αὐτοῖν ἐν νῷ ἔχεις ἐπιστάτην λαβεῖν;

If I am not mistaken, this is an accusativus duplex cum infinitivo.

I don't think so. The subject of λαβεῖν is the same as that for ἐν νῷ ἔχεις, "you have in mind," so the duplex accusative is going with λαβεῖν, "to take as".

I don't see how you are contradicting me: you admit that there is an acc. duplex that goes with an infinitive, but not that it is an acc. duplex c. inf.?

[annis]

I don't see how you are contradicting me: you admit that there is an acc. duplex that goes with an infinitive, but not that it is an acc. duplex c. inf.?

The acc. c. inf. construction is specifically when one of the accusatives is the subject of the infinitive, as in indirect discourse. That is not the situation here.

[Lavrentivs]

I see. Thanks.