I'd like to comment on the following:
On that front: here's some data that was instrumental for my change in perspective away from an approach similar to Iver's toward the one I have now. The relative prominence approach depends centrally upon there being a contrastive alternative for the pronoun (Iver mentioned 2 Tim 3:10 and suggested the contrastive focus reading "MY teachings, etc. as opposed to other teachers." But that doesn't work super well for imperatives.
Matt 17:15 κύριε, ἐλέησόν μου τὸν υἱόν
Mark 9:24 βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ.
More often than not a pronoun is pulled forward and no contrastive alternative is available (there's only one son being talked about and one person's belief being talked about). At the same time demotion makes a whole lot of sense. These imperative forms come with significant emotional force on the petitioned act: HAVE MERCY, HELP. Incidentally, I'd say that these two clauses are good examples of instances where Stephen's #4 *can* be viewed as marking Focus. Randall, if you say this ordering (V αὐτοῦ NP) is a marked construction, but not marked for focus, then what is it marked for? Incidentally, I don't think I've ever seen an ἐμοῦ ordered like V αὐτοῦ NP, only the enclitic μου.
The reason I like the principle that left movement implies hightened relative prominence is that it can nicely explain all the data with a simple and powerful principle. However, I should clarify that hightened prominence does not necessarily presume a contrastive alternative. The quote from Levinsohn shows that there can be a thematic prominence, where the speaker wants to remind the heares of WHO we are talking about and that what is being said is about this particular person who is the main character in the context.
As we have been focusing on personal pronouns, the heightened prominence relates to the person whom the pronoun refers back to. This applies whether the pronoun is a direct/indirect object of the verb and therefore a constituent in the verb phrase or whether it is a constituent in the noun phrase. In English in some context this is best translated by adding "own".
In the two examples above with imperatives, an imperative is naturally prominent because it focuses on the action, and it would normally come first in its clause, before the NP object. (It may follow an aorist participle, but I would take that as a subordinate clause.) It is also necessary to look at the semantic weight of the verb. In Matt 3:3 the clause starts with εὐθείας ποιεῖτε, where the semantically most prominent information is in the adjective: make-straight.
I look at the clause level and phrase level separately. In ἐλέησόν μου
τὸν υἱόν, there is relative prominence on the speaker over the son: Lord, please help me, i.e. my son who is sick. It does not intensify the verb, but it does highlight the person who is crying for help. The same with the other example: Help me, i.e., me, who lacks faith.
We saw the same in John with the eyes and the ear: Jesus anointed him on the eyes. When recounting the incident, the blind man is highlighting himself as the one who was anointed and healed. That it was the eyes is not quite as prominent as the person. Similarly, Peter cut the servant of the high priest with a sword. He specifically cut off his ear. The servant as a person is more prominent than where he was cut.
I like to look at data, so let me repeat the set from earlier:
a. (Mark 5:30) τίς μου ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων;
b. τίς ἥψατο μου τῶν ἱματίων;
c. τίς ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων μου;
d. τίς μου ἥψατο;
e. τίς ἥψατό μου; Cf. Luke 8.45 τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου;
The question word τίς naturally comes first, because it sets the scene as a question. It also helps to distinguish it from the indefinite pronoun which rarely comes first in its clause, and if it does it is probably a fronted constituent in a noun phrase.
I would explain the difference between b. and c. by saying that in b. the person speaking is more prominent than the clothes - who touched me (somwhere at my garments). In c. the clothes are relatively more prominent than the person, but you could also say that this is the default order, so there is no particular emphasis. But still, the fact that there is a choice indicates that the speaker chose not to highlight the person.
In a. the person has an even higher degree of prominence by being placed further to the left, in front of the verb.
In d. and e. the choice is between highlighting the touching or the person who is being touched. When the disciples repeated Jesus' quesion in v. 31 they left out the last two words and said d. This supports the claim that the person is highlighted, not the clothes. But when the woman said/thought earlier in v. 28 Ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ she was focused on touching just his garments, not Jesus himself.