Sounds like you’re taking the “traditional” approach to building your PAO, meaning you’re linking all of your actions and objects to the person. This is fine, but there are a couple of things to consider with it.
I’ll preface this by saying that the ultimate goal of a PAO number system is to get you to a place where you can see a number and instantly associate either its “person” or its “action” or its “object” with no intermediate conversion steps. Given enough practice, just about any system can get you there. In the end, the system itself will kind of fall away and not be needed anymore once you develop instant fluency.
The downside, in my view, to building a PAO where all of the As and Os link back to the P, is that it creates an additional conversion step to overcome. The mental encoding process initially becomes “see a number” → “read the phonetics of the number to get the person” → “think of that persons PAO attributes to get to the A or the O that is needed.” Similarly for decoding a mental image: “here is an action or object” → “which person does this action/object associate with?” → “which number does that person represent?”
My take is that its better to associate the P’s and the A’s and the O’s DIRECTLY to the numbers right off the bat so that there is no middleman conversion step. It becomes “see a number” → “visualize the action or object that it represents”.
This is something that is possible to do if you use a phonetic system like Major. By making your PAO for say 39 as MoBy and MoPPing and MaP, you can read each element directly from the number itself with no extra steps. Its important to think of a PAO not as “39 is MoBy MoPPing a MaP” but as “39 is MoBy when its in the Person slot” OR “39 is MoPPing when its in the Action slot” OR “39 is a MaP when its in the Object slot.” More on this here: Tip for practicing PAO
Since it seems like you already have a good collection of Major System based objects, it will be very easy to import those into the object slots of a PAO! You’ve already done the work of directly associating those objects to numbers which is the end goal of a PAO anyway. You’re 1/3 of the way there! Keep mop as your 39 object. Don’t worry if it doesn’t intuitively “fit” your 39 person. Thats not the goal. The goal is to fit it to the number. Whatever your 38 object is, make that your 38 PAO object. It probably won’t “fit” with Morgan Freeman, but thats ok! Remember, you shouldnt think of 38 as “Morgan Freeman is Actioning with/to/on an Object,” you should be thinking of it as 38 is Morgan Freeman, OR 38 is this action thats associated with 38, OR 38 is this object that is associated with 38.
In addition to the benefit of learning direct associations right from the start, this approach has another advantage in that you can avoid the problem of similar actions and objects due to people that might be similar. If you have three basketball players on your list, say Lebron James (56), Michael Jordan (36), and Steph Curry (07), you might have trouble finding distinct actions and objects that clearly link to only one of them using the “traditional PAO” approach. Is Lebron shooting or MJ or Steph? Who had the ball, who had the backboard, who had the net? By associating each element with the NUMBER via the Major System instead of with the PERSON, you can end up with easily visualizable and unique action and object elements for the NUMBERS without needing to care if they match the person. So 56 would be Lebron James as the Person, and maybe LaSHing as the action, and a LeaSH as the Object. Michael Jordan is 36 when the Person is called for, and MaSHing when looking for the Action, and a MaTCH when an Object is needed. Steph Curry is 07’s Person, SuCKing is 07’s Action a SoCK is 07’s Object.
For your second question about verbs, I prefer picking ones that either can be done TO something or WITH something. When practicing visualizing the TO verbs, its easy because the action is self contained and non-dependent on a specific object. Sitting on, slapping, farting on, stomping, kicking, eating, etc are great.
When practicing the WITH verbs, I try to imagine the action itself and erase the object. A good example is “mopping.” Typically, you’d imagine this as someone pushing a mop around, hands on the stick, swishing side to side. You can mentally erase the mop and imagine someone “miming” the action of mopping, then when you need to visualize it as part of a PAO sequence with a random object, just put that object as the head of the mop, or as the entire mop.
Try visualizing “writing” as a mimed action. Then when paired with “playing card” you could imagine the playing card is rolled up like a pen and ink is coming out of one end. It becomes the writing implement. This is easy when you build and practice your PAO as independent elements that are just associated with the NUMBER. Its a lot tougher to overcome if you’ve linked actions to people and have learned and practiced your numbers as complete PAO scenes. Einstein Writing On a Chalkboard, almost forces the “writing on” action to be visualized with chalk built in. Its hard to unsee that chalk if you’re used to always bringing it back to that set grouping. But, if you think of “writing on” as an independent action directly associated with a specific number, you can isolate it to the physical action itself and reduce the noise and interference.
If you’re interested in what a PAO thats completely based on direct association to Major System number phonetics looks like, I’ve posted mine up here: Post your 0-99 List here for other people to use... feel free to add - #14 by TheHumanTim
One last thing on verbs… Actions that are internal are much tougher to use. Things like “thinking,” “reading,” “hating” etc. Usually verbs that involve physical motion are preferred. The internalized ones can work, they just require more creativity and practice and usually involve making up some kind of visual cue, like a person scowling for “hating” or stroking the chin for “thinking.”
Ultimately you’ll need to experiment and see what works best for your own mental preferences. Some people like me really click with the structure and logic of basing all elements on a consistent set of rules. Others do well with more freeform intuitive setups. Some really love the traditional PAO approach and have little trouble getting to direct association fluency with it. There is no single system that works “best” for everyone. Good luck with all of this!