Σολομῶντα (Solomonta) in Matthew 1:6: Noun Accusative Singular Masculine

Noun: this form names a person, here the individual Solomon, rather than an action or quality.

Accusative: the form usually marks the direct object or another complement in the clause, and here it fits the object of the verb.

Singular: the form is grammatically singular in this occurrence and points to one named person.

Masculine: the noun belongs to the masculine grammatical class, which here reflects the name form and does not by itself make a theological claim.

ἐγέννησε

The accusative form is governed by the verb ἐγέννησε, which takes the child or descendant as its object in this sentence.

It functions as the direct object, identifying the one David begot in the family line.

It is not functioning as the subject, and the case form alone should not be read as adding any special emphasis beyond its clause role.

High: The accusative personal name keeps Matthew's genealogy line clear at the David to Solomon link.

Accusative object in a genealogy clause. names Solomon as the one begotten in this genealogy entry. Attached to Σολομῶνα. Governed by ἐγέννησε. The grammar tracks the descent line; it does not add a hidden emphasis beyond the genealogy statement.

Whom does the genealogy say David begot here? The accusative name identifies Solomon as the object of the begetting statement.

Direct: The direct-object role directly supports rendering David begot Solomon.

The case marks a genealogy object here and should not be made into a special theological emphasis by itself.

Case form adds hidden emphasis to a genealogy: The accusative identifies the person in the clause; Matthew's genealogy context supplies the significance.

The received text in Matthew 1:6 reads τὸν Σολομῶντα after ἐγέννησε, so the witness presents Solomon as the one begotten in the line.

The lemma Σολομών identifies Solomon by name, and the gloss confirms the referent as Solomon, the son of David.

The accusative case fits the verbal pattern of begetting and marks Solomon as the object of the action, while the surrounding genealogy supplies the larger sense.

The verse states that David, described as the king, begot Solomon from the woman connected with Uriah, placing Solomon within the royal family line.

Within Matthew's genealogy, the form supports the chain of descent leading toward the messianic line without needing any special claim from the case itself.

For readers and translators, the grammar clarifies who is being named as the child in the sequence and helps keep the genealogical relation clear.

Do not derive extra theological meaning from the accusative case, and do not treat the form as changing the identity of Solomon or overriding the verse's genealogical context.