Detail #30: Two ideas for lexical derivation

Having perfective aspect morphology derive historically from a definite object marker is a bit been-there/done-that as far as ideas in this blog goes. However, aspect morphology can be interesting in other ways.

The detail I like here is the idea of having verbs along the line of arrive formed from the preposition one would use to express movement to the place being the object of the arrival, and a perfective morpheme. However, these would then grammaticalize into just average verbs, and maybe use a separate perfective morpheme to mark actual perfectiveness, alternatively lack imperfective forms.

Another thing I've been thinking of (and which could be interesting to combine with the previous idea) is object-type markers. These would mark perfective aspect, but the marker is semantically determined by the kind of action or kind of object involved:

ŋei - intransitive verb (only occurs with normally transitive ones), (also maybe some types of objects under some restrictions - non-kinetic non-... action)
ga - human object, also marks indirect object of bivalent verb (and then isn't restricted to perfective verbs)
den - liquid or very soft object (up to dough-type consistency), verbs such as pour, ...
toz - mass object
iŋk - object of ingestion or consumption
sek - structured object, collective object
sim - object of transaction
...

Now, these could maybe combine with adpositions too to form verbs:
in + iŋk = swallow
in + den = fill
out + toz = eject
out + den = ejaculate
out + sim = have sold at too low a price
at + sek = to arrange
in + ga = to have intercourse with, to marry?

Note that they would not be compounds, but separate words that together form phrasal verbs of some kind.

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?