Onwards with #258: Dummy Subjects for essentially intransitive verbs

A way of taking idea #258 further could be to permit intransitive subjects to become objects, if the subject of a previous, coordinable verb also is made the formal subject of the new verb phrase.

Anyways, let us assume there is no distinction between third person pronouns - he/her/it are all the same word, here represented as "E". The object form is 'em'.

John walks e's dog. E is happy.In this, John is happy.

John walks e's dog. Is-BIZARROVOICE happy em.
Here, John is not the one being happy, the dog is.

John walks e's dog. John/E_John is happy em_dog.
Here, again, the dog is happy. John serves only as a formal subject with no actual semantic relevance to the dog being happy. (Although, of course, the language could develop such connotations as well!)

John walks and is happy e's dog.Here, the verbs are coordinated; both are parsed as transitive, and therefore, it's the dog that is happy.

John walks his dog and is happy
Here, the verbs are coordianted. Since the object is close to the first verb, the only permissible parsing has the second verb intransitive, and therefore John being happy.

As for what it means for verbs to be coordinable, which as you may recall is a requirement I set up above, I left that somewhat unclear. Maybe the language only permits coordination of verbs of similar TAM? Maybe there are syntactical restrictions - some types of embedded verbs cannot be coordinated (e.g. a verb in a relative subclause cannot be coordinated with a verb in a matrix clause), etc. I leave this up to the interested conlanger to decide (although I might come up with ways of classifying verbs by 'coordinability' for conlanging purposes later on).