`iobj` without `obj` and with `xcomp` — proposal

Proposal: accept the 2.12 "Sole iobj" amendment and the EWT custom, not the text of _en/dep/iobj.md and _en/specific-syntax.md (Indirect object without a direct one and with xcomp).

What exactly in mova.

iobj can be the only internal argument (remind me, ask Bush);
iobj can stand next to xcomp when the verb takes an addressee or recipient: ask/tell/allow/convince/urge/persuade/cause/trust/teach/remind/warn X to do;
with let, make, get, have, keep, find, want, help + xcomp — obj;
the boundary between these two classes is set by the lexicon (Verbs that take an indirect object, VerbNet), not by examples;
permit and recommend have both variants in EWT. mova takes whichever the lexicon says once its rule matures, and until then — as in gold.

Why.

Matches the universal guideline. The 2.12 amendment is of type AMENDMENT and cancels the condition on which the _en text rests.
More informative. iobj with ask X to distinguishes the addressee from the "causee" obj with make X do. Merging into obj, as _en says, would lose this difference.
Lossless. Export to EWT 2.18 is identity. If the literal _en text is ever needed (with xcomp — only obj), the iobj → obj transition is deterministic. The reverse transition goes through the lexicon.

Evidence from the data (EWT 2.18, engine):

iobj — 795; without obj/ccomp — 243; with xcomp — 93;
the same verb class with obj + xcomp — 39 (encourage, enable, order, invite, force, require);
iobj is present in GUM (482), LinES (101), ParTUT (33), GENTLE (31).

Origin. Indirect object without a direct one and with xcomp; 2.18:docs/changes.md#sole-iobj; report verbal.md.

Mova decides.

iobj without obj and with xcomp — proposal