Where is the object in the example sentences for definition #2 of the verb "atendi" in PIV?

Question

http://vortaro.net/?w=atendi#atendi

PIV notes that the verb "atendi" is transitive. However, definition 2 ("Prokrasti ian agon ĝis okazos alia ago") has example sentences that do not have anything that I recognise as a direct object (ie, there's no -n).

Example: mi atendis, ĝis ili ĉesos paroli

I'm assuming (and only because there doesn't seem to be any other option) that the phrase "ĝis ili ĉesos paroli" is some kind of "accusative phrase".

Is this right? Can a better grammarian than me explain?

And as a bonus question, I've taken a phrase from tatoeba (and yes, I understand that is not a reference in itself...) "tedas atendi", which I have taken to mean "it's boring to wait" or "waiting is boring". Is this a correct sentence? Because it sounds like atendi is behaving intransitively here. Or is there an unspoken object "tedas atendi (on something...)"? Or should it just be "tedas atendado"?

Answer 1

I think this is just a case where the object has been elided. For example, in the following phrase:

Mi ne malsatas, mi jam manĝis

manĝi is still transitive despite not having an object because you can assume that they ate something, they just haven’t mentioned what.

In your example they are still waiting for something (ie, atendas ion) but they haven’t mentioned what. It could be that they atendis flugantan elefanton, but given the context you would assume it’s something like:

Mi atendis [la ĉesigon de ilia parolado] ĝis ili ĉesis paroli

As a further example to show that the part with ĝis doesn’t form the object of atendi, consider the following example where the object is clearly something different:

Bob perdiĝis en la ĝangalo. Li atendis helpon ĝis leono manĝis lin.

I think it is the same in your second example, and you are right that there is just an unspoken object.