Detail #17: Marking for Atypical Arguments

Consider a verb such as to eat, and consider some possible arguments: to eat food, to eat cheese, to eat dust, to eat a lot.

In Hungarian, verbs mark whether the object is definite or indefinite (although there are further complications: 1st and 2nd person objects trigger indefinite verbs). The indefinite conjugation is also present on intransitive verbs.

I was thinking what else one could do with verbs, and having typical objects vs. atypical objects could maybe be a reasonable thing to mark. Which one is more likely to take a marking? Somehow, atypical objects feel like the more likely to trigger a marking here, as they're less likely to occur.

An atypical object would be anything outside the usual scope of objects for the verb, which clearly makes this a rather culturally influenced thing. In the examples above, eat dust would probably have the unusual object marking if meant literally. Of course, that particular idiom would probably not exist in the language, but similar considerations apply.

However, what if the same verbal marking applies to any salient argument - not necessarily only objects?