Tempo, let's set aside 'onte' for the moment and consider how adverbial participles work in Esperanto.

Ili ŝatis gvati la fraŭlinojn portantajn siajn somerajn robojn, promenante sur la stratoj de Parizo.

Now who is promenantaj, the oglers or the young ladies. Is it clear?

A similar 'perplekso' arises in your sentence Oni aŭdis pri homoj umantaj ion kun paregoriko kaj ŝupoluraĵo, injektonte ĝin. Grammatically, does the adverbial participle refer to Oni or la homoj?

sudanglo:Tempo, let's set aside 'onte' for the moment and consider how adverbial participles work in Esperanto.

Ili ŝatis gvati la fraŭlinojn portantajn siajn somerajn robojn, promenante sur la stratoj de Parizo.

Now who is promenantaj, the oglers or the young ladies. Is it clear?

A similar 'perplekso' arises in your sentence Oni aŭdis pri homoj umantaj ion kun paregoriko kaj ŝupoluraĵo, injektonte ĝin. Grammatically, does the adverbial participle refer to Oni or la homoj?

Aha! The adverbial participle must refer to the subject. Classic case of me overthinking something simple... Thanks for the clarification.

"Oni" vs "ili" was just a mistake. So the corrected sentence would be: Ili aŭdis pri homoj, kiuj umis ion kun paregoriko kaj ŝupoluraĵo kaj injektis ĝin/la miksaĵon." Though I still like "umi" here, in the sense of "do some uncertain/unspecified action", which it seems the original was getting at - "fabriki" seems a bit too formal given the context.

Tempo, if you look through the usage in the Tekstaro you will see that fabriki is used in Esperanto in a wider sense then just manufacture. But choice of word here is a matter of translator's preference.

Qu'est-ce que tu fabriques (French) is translated by my dictionary as what are you up to (doing).

By the way, I stopped posting passages for translation in the Forum because I was disappointed by the number of people prepared to have a go. The interesting thing is to see the differences between contributions. It looks as though you are encountering the same issue.

1. Ili ŝatis gvati la fraŭlinojn portantajn siajn somerajn robojn, promenante sur la stratoj de Parizo.

Suppose we rearrange this to:

2. Ili ŝatis gvati la fraŭlinojn promenantajn sur la stratoj de Parizo portante siajn somerajn robojn.

Now the adverbial participle seems to more clearly relate to the young ladies (not the oglers).

And if we transform it further to:

3. Ili ŝatis gvati la fraŭlinojn kiuj promenis sur la stratoj de Parizo portante siajn somerajn robojn.

then it is crystal clear.

The problem seems to arise from the extent to which verbal force of the adjectival participle following 'fraŭlinojn is felt, with its implication of subject.

Note however that in both 1. and 2. it seems right to use the reflexive siaj to refer back to the implied subject (ie the fraŭlinoj)

In the end, it shouldn't be a ball-breaking consideration of what the grammar of Esperanto strictly implies', but what makes the translation easy to understand.

By the way, I stopped posting passages for translation in the Forum because I was disappointed by the number of people prepared to have a go. [...] It looks as though you are encountering the same issue.

So I am discovering!

But I will try one last time to revive this thread. Perhaps this will be a more entertaining snippet. If nothing else, I get good practice translating my own texts.

I once gave a course in logic for high-ranking NATO officers. I suggested a possible procedure according to which one has to first make clear what the choice is all about, then evaluate the consequences of possible decisions, then make the choice. I took an example of a commander on board a Norwegian torpedo boat, who, in a war with Russia, discovers a huge Russian battleship helplessly cooped up behind a neutral tanker at the end of a narrow fjord in Greenland.

I asked the officers to first map out the possible choice-alternatives. But, to my surprise, they protested violently. I had, they claimed, attacked the problem from the wrong end. It turned out that what they resented was that they were going to make the choice. They did not like it a bit. And here is how they managed to avoid decision and responsibility:

1) There are, it seems, such things as "militarily relevant data".

2) With each torpedo boat follows what one might call a "direction for usage."

(Herman Tennessen, "Philosophy versus Psychotherapy," Journal of Existentialism, 1966)