|Subject=I, Object=3rd person||from a linear object moving axially [with one end] non-obliquely against the FIGURE||for a small shiny spherical object to move||out of a snug enclosure/a socket||factual|
|I poked his eye out (with a stick.)|
|Subject=I, Object=3rd person||from the mouth/interior of a person, working ingressively, acting on the FIGURE||for a small shiny spherical object to move||all about, here and there, back and forth||factual|
|I rolled the round candy around in my mouth.|
Of course, people are people; after explanation, the similarities are easy enough to make out, and presumably given enough time anyone can learn to look at a situation and decompose it into elements like these, rather than the elements that "leap out" at an English speaker. In fact, I suspect that having to learn to see things the way the people you talk to do is one of the subtler drivers behind contact-induced language change. But cases like this provoke thought: just how much can the attributes of a situation most relevant to formulating a sentence vary from language to language?