OP stative verb ablaut?

[Koontz John E]

 On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote:
> I've understood that rule for a long time with respect to active verbs,
> but I've been fuzzy about the situation with stative verbs.  Today Mark
> and I worked with our speakers on stative verbs for a while, and it
> seems to have emerged that stative verbs work the same way, except that
> the 3rd person singular does not ablaut.  Stative verbs use oN- for
> "me", dhi- for "you", (a)wa- for "us", and wa- for "them". So the basic
> conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb ending in -e seems to
> work as follows:
>
> bi'ze   'dry'
>
>   oNbi'ze  'I am dry'
>
>   dhibi'ze  'thou art dry'    dhibi'za  'you all are dry'
>
>   wabi'ze  'we two are dry'   wabi'za  'we all are dry'
>
>   bi'ze  's/he is dry'        wabi'za  'they are dry'
>
> Does this square with what other OP students have found?

I remember ablaut in 1985 (ex. snede) and that and =i in the texts.  I
also don't remember wa- in stative plurals.  However, I have gone back to
the texts to see and found a complex situation.

'Dry' actually occurs and works as you describe, or so it appears from the
limited examples.

Exx. with bi'ze 'be dry'

90:563.3

niN'  ga'=the bi'ze=tte
water that    it will dry up (*PI)

90:598.12

e'gidhe bi'ze              ama
at last (the hoop) was dry QUOTE (*PI)

The subjects here are inanimate, and in the first case use an inanimate
article.


Exx. with wakhe'ga 'be sick' (not ablauting).

Here we do find =(b)i, but note that this verb is probably not really
stative, but rather an experiencer verb.  The true patient is the wa-
prefix.  The subjects here are animate.

90:479.1/2

dhittaN'de      wakhega= i
your son in law was sick PI

90:487.8/9

Mis^e'dha ihaN'      wakhe'ga he'ga=   b=az^i
Michel    his mother is sick  a little PI NEG
(another French name!)

Note common idiom 'not a little' = 'very much'.  Here he'ga=z^i governs
wakhe'ga 'be sick' and preempts the plural/proximate, but I assume we may
still count it.

90:651.6

kki wa?u'  wiwi'tta wakhe'ga      ha
and woman  my       is sick (*PI) DECL

The lack of =(b)i in the third of the three preceding examples may depend
on obviation?

90:482.10/11

s^iNgaz^iNga dhi'tta wakhe'ga=      the  e'=skaN,
children     yours   are sick (*PI) EVID perhaps

t?e'=    iN=the  s^aN' anaN'?aN  kkaN'=bdha
are dead perhaps even  I hear it I wish

Here apparently even a plural doesn't require =(b)i, but there may be
something about irrealis that acts in these cases (note even t?e lacks
=(b)i).


Here we have another experiencer verb, apparently idhi'Nge 'he lacked',
though it may be that the i is part of the 'sleep' expression.  There is
no =i, but this may be obviative?

90:62.18

Is^ti'nikhe=akha z^aN=th idhiNge         ama
Monkey      the  sleep   he lacked (*PI) QUOTE