I am analyzing the transitivity of verbs in Esperanto, and I don't seem to find any coherence. For that reason, when I write a text, I constantly feel the need to search in a dictionary for the direct object a verb should take. Could anyone help me find the rule(s), please?
According to PIV, tra/vid/i does not take the direct object of vidi tra as its own direct object, but rather takes the indirect object introduced by tra: so the sentence mi vidas (la fiŝon) tra la akvo becomes mi travidas la akvon.
The same can be said about super/verŝ/i: according to PIV, verŝi la palan lumon de la luno super blanka maro becomes superverŝi blankan maron de l' pala lumo de la luno.
However, according to PIV, sur/hav/i does keep the direct object of havi as its own direct object: so the sentence nia domo havas ardezan tegmenton sur si becomes nia domo surhavas ardezan tegmenton.
The same can be said about en/hav/i, for which PIV gives this tautology from Zamenhof: la vorto «ĝi» enhavas en si ion malaltigan.
If I check PIV for peti, I can see that both peti iun pri io and peti ion de iu are correct, so the direct object of one becomes the indirect object of the other, and vice versa. So if the transitivity of peti can be equivocal like that, why is it not the same with verbs like el/pet/i, of which PIV suggests the direct object must be ion (and the indirect object de iu or al iu)?
The same as peti can be said for rimark/ig/i: according to PIV, one can say rimarkigi ion al iu or rimarkigi iun pri io. Also the same for sci/ig/i. So why can we only say vidigi ion al iu?
Finally, why is it that Zamenhof gave two direct objects to atent/ig/i in this example from PIV: iliaj disĉiploj atentigis ilin, ke estas jam tago? Shouldn't transitive verbs in Esperanto have only one direct object?
I hope to finally have a clear answer on those issues that seem totally illogical to me.