I have not read the rest of what you have to say yet, but several things already come to mind. One, is that I am not trying to "dis" Quirk et. al. All along I have found from the references to that team that they have done EXTREMELY complete and detailed work.
As a matter of fact, on this forum, I have several times referred to what I call the British approach to grammar as a Victorian mansion as opposed to the log cabin of the American approach. (But both buildings keep the rain and wind out.) (And Reed-Kellogg is FUN!)
About "talented" I agree. As an educator, I was very annoyed when the term "gifted" began to appear since there was no verb "to gift". But language development does not always follow clear rules. In a sentence like "He has just talented me." (which makes no sense), "talented" is, by its use, the past participle of a transitive verb. Syntax does not necessarily have to do with making sense.
I suppose that behind this whole discussion is my objection to mixing morphological terms with syntactic ones --the question of the role of "shut" in that sentence -- verb or adjective. What does it matter? It is an objective complement modifying the direct object (as I remember the sentence). If by "verb" one means, simple predicate, then that is easy. The word is "swung".
Let me read on.
Interested in Language