This is something I puzzled over for quite a while: what role is played by the object of a transitive verb plus -moH? In the case of raS vIyuvmoH, obviously the table isn't doing the pushing. But in the second example of this type of construction in TKD, HIQoymoH <let me hear (something)>, the object is the speaker, who would be the one doing the hearing. So in some cases in which there is only an object without a Type 5 suffix, the object can assume either role unambiguously despite the apparent lack of a fixed grammatical rule to determine it, just as in English one can say both "She teaches French" and "She teaches the children." Of course, since both types of object are frequently required, as in "She teaches the children French," I was delighted when I learned about the -vaD/-moH construction.

But here's a question about HIQoymoH: what if you meant to say <let me be heard> instead? Depending on context, couldn't you use the same expression? Alternatively, my first instinct is just to avoid the whole -moH problem and say vIQoylu' 'e' yIchaw'. Or are there better ways to say <let me be heard>?

Here's another question: can -vaD always work with -moH on a transitive verb to make an unambiguous sentence? Is the noun plus -vaD always going to be that which is made to do something, or could it still be the beneficiary of the action, as with nob?* To expand on the example from TKD, might you construe beqvaD HIQoymoH as <let the crew hear me> or <let me hear for the crew> or both? (My expectation is that a sentence using the -vaD/-moH construction is likely to be ambiguous out of context, but since it's a known construction, the favored interpretation is that the noun with -vaD performs the action of the verb, and that context would make it clear in almost any case.)