OP stative verb ablaut?

[Koontz John E]

> Rory wrote:
> 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' (Obv.)  bi'za  'they are dry'
>   bi'za  's/he is dry' (Prox.)

It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive.
I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both?  I'd expect
the first or last.

> Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural
> in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural
> in stative verbs.  I hadn't realized that before.

Initially I went down the same path myself.  However, there just don't
seem to be any examples of wa- as a P3 plural for statives.  In short,
it's an object only form.

> I hadn't realized that before.  Also, the proximate/obviative
> distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the
> statives.  ...

I'm relieved to hear that, though it might have been nice to have a way of
distinguishing stative and "experiencer subject" verbs from each other
easily. Great examples of its use, by the way.

> The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings.

The horse harness example also applies.  I still don't feel particularly
close to understanding the articles ...  They remind me of Russian motion
verbs.  They make perfect sense as each example is explained to me.