Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences.

[Rankin, Robert L]

All:

I'm co-teaching a seminar in "ergativity" (including a consideration of
active/stative languages) this semester.  The concept of "syntactic
ergativity" refers, among other things, to the fact that in, e.g., some
Australian languages, you can't have transitive and intransitive verbs
in the same sentence with coreferential subjects without using an
antipassive.  So "father saw mother and (X) returned" causes problems
because 'father' is a transitive subject but the subject of 'returned'
is intransitive.  So the speaker is forced to make 'see' into an
intransitive construction so that the case functions of the subject(s)
will match.  They manage to do this, but my question relates to Siouan
languages.

I assume that Siouan languages are not "syntactically sensitive" to the
active/stative distinction in sentences with two fully conjugated verbs.
In other words, I have been assuming that you can have such sentences as
"The boy chased the deer and was very tired."  'Chase' is active (and
transitive), while 'be tired' is stative and intransitive.

Does anyone know if there are restrictions on this kind of sentence?
Since each verb typically has its own pronominal prefixes, I wouldn't
expect restrictions.  But in my own study of Kaw, I didn't have the
presence of mind to check.  So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can
you have something like:

1.  I ran fast and am very tired.  (two conjugated verbs)

And, then, in the sentence:

2.  The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired.

Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean
"the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it
mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."?  Or
would it simply remain ambiguous?  How do speakers treat this?

These are things I should know, but I don't.  Anyone have answers here?

Bob