OP stative verb ablaut?

[Rory M Larson]

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote:
>> I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a
flexible
>> concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside.  It
would be
>> interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns.  'Wind, water',
and
>> 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially
>> "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may
qualify
>> for -akha on that basis.  On the other hand, animacy may not be involved
at all.
>> This is  a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way
too.
>
> But notice also
>
>     S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga.
>     Horse-harness  the   it's heavy.
>     The horse harness is heavy.
>
> I'll concede that 'horse harness' might be animate, but it seems less
> likely to be so.

I tend to agree with John on this, but before we place too
much weight on this one, let me clarify that this sentence
was mine, not a spontaneous offering from the speakers.
My head was still spinning with the epiphany of finally
seeming to understand the proximate/obviate distinction;
I explained it to Mark; he asked me to explain it to the
class; I did so in the presence of the speakers, appealing
to them with heavy eye-contact.  They agreed heartily with
my explanation and my sentence, but they have also been
known to accept a student's rendering of aNsni'te for
'I am cold', which they quickly reject in favor of sniaN'te
when it is just Mark and me.  I *think* the above rendition
is valid, but it needs to be tagged with a caveat.

The sentences with ma' and ni', and the "Watch out!-- It's
heavy!" were volunteered by the speakers without prompting.

Rory