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.
There are more things at work here. The prefix trick teaches us that the prefix doesn't always indicate the direct object; something it refers to an indirect object. This might be QoQ HIQoymoH cause me to hear the music, in which case the direct object in the object position is third-person QoQ but the prefix agrees with an unstated indirect object, jIH.
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>?
Since there is no verb in Klingon that means be heard, you have to build the meaning off of Qoy hear. What does let me be heard mean? It means cause someone to hear me. HIQoymoH. Oops. You can remove some ambiguity by making the someone explicit: vay'vaD HIQoymoH.
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.)
*Obviously there's no way to add -moH to the sentence torghvaD taj nob matlh to make Kruge cause Maltz to give Torg the knife. Or is there?
Not that I know of.
-moH simply changes the subject from the entity doing the action into the entity causing the action to be done. The object changes from indicating what the action is done to, to either what the action is done to or what the causing is done to. If the sentences has both, then what the causing is done to is considered an indirect object and given -vaD.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name