My examples aren't super great, so I have some references to help.

​

In order of your responses:

1) This is a nice clarification! Thanks :)

2) Maybe mendi isn't the best word to choose in Esperanto here, but how about instead we contrast

"Mi petas vin ankaŭ poste prunti al mi.FE.14 Sed same bone eblas diri: Mi petas al vi ankaŭ poste prunti al mi."

with

"Ho, Marion, ke mi denove aŭdas vin paroli.BV.80 Paroli estas perverba priskribo de vin, la objekto de aŭdas. Senca subjekto de paroli estas vi."

(http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/i-verboj/aliaj_frazroloj/kun_alia_subjekto.html#j-sbt)

In the first example, the word vin isn't really the object of petas, even though it is in the accusative. This is an English-sounding form that stands for . . ., ke vi ankaŭ poste pruntas al mi. So vi is actually a subject of a subclause as opposed to the object of petas or and object of petas prunti, though either of the latter two are indicated by its case marker. Although, since vin is in between petas and prunti, it would be an object of petas and prunti would be its "perverba priskribo", like in the second example. The overlap between the two cases depicted in each example above, at least to me, seem as though they would be confusing to a speaker not comfortable with this pattern in English grammar. Now, I'm not a fluent speaker of any language other than English, so I'm not sure. That's why I'd like another's opinions on this.

​

3) This confusion is explained here: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/komparoj/kiel_ol/tiel_same_kiel.html at the bottom of the page. But I would otherwise agree with your interpretation.

​

4) How about vi malgajnas, kio faras ĝin ne tempinda? In Tuja Vortaro, the word malgajni is listed as transitive, but on tatoeba, it's used intransitively. So, is this saying that "The fact that you are losing is what makes it not time-worthy", or is it saying that "you're losing that which makes it not time-worthy", as if there is some kind of game that inherently makes "it" not time-worthy?