I was expecting Funkstille as from Friday midday so logged off, but I see I have missed some interesting discussion.
I am not sure that chopping up utterances into small bits and expecting them to make grammatical sense (i.e. to be parsable) is going to get us very far. It's easy to take bits out of context and say, e.g. in #30, that they are "nonsensical", as you do, Bob. You write in #27 "as a unit, you to go is nonsense, it cannot be parsed". To which I would just say of course not, because it it taken out of grammatical (and semantic) context. "I want her" as a snippet taken out of the context of the sentence "I want her to go" is also nonsense, semantically, because it can only mean "I have lustful desire for her" or "I choose her over the other candidates" or similar, which is "nonsense" in the ocntext of the whole sentence.
Bob is right, but not for the reasons he gives. "I told her to go" and "I want her to go" are only ostensibly equivalent constructions, as he says, but simply because one takes an indirect object and the other doesn't.
The grammatical model I gave above in #20 was wrong. There need to be two:
"subject - verb1 - (indirect object of verb1 combined with subject of verb2, though not in nominative case) - (verb2 in infinitive) - optional complement"
(I told her to go)
"subject - intransitiveverb1 - (subject of verb2, though not in nominative case) - (verb2 in infinitive) - optional complement"
(I want her to go)
Sorry , the terminology is probably out of date, I'm not really a linguist.
This is, of course, all off-topic. (Reminder: the OP was about the case of the missing preposition.)