I gave an example:
>> 2a. **/bara kewanata/
Miguel mocks:
> Worse, so must the dog be: disjointed and dismembered ("je porte du
> chien"?).
Now you're getting into the partitive case and its usages in different
languages but this really has little relevance to the idea that the
perfect is underlyingly a transitivized intransitive, hence the *-e at
the end of 1ps *-xe, 2ps *-txe and 3ps *-e, to declare the object without
a break in the semantic flow of the phrase.
Miguel:
> The (Northern) Afro-Asiatic stative is suffixed, and has nothing to
> do with the personal pronouns:
> *malika-ku "I am king"
> *malika-(t/k)a "you are king"
> *malika "he is king"
> etc.
If I remember correctly Diakonoff had reconstructed *?a-, *ta- and *ya-
for the 1p, 2p and 3p singular statives. They are _prefixes_ as they are
attested in Proto-Semitic as well. Unless your asterisked items are part
of a deeper analysis that rivals Diakonoff, I can't acknowledge its import
here. A quick glance however tells me that this is just a denominal verb.
It happens all the time. However, statives using the prefixes would
not have been denominal. They are just intransitive verbs preceded by
older absolutive pronouns. The shift from intransitive to stative is
trivial.
= gLeN