The intransitive verbs that typically enter into constructions with perfect participles of the so-called "dominant" type are deponent: e.g., ante Ciceronem mortuum, post Ciceronem natum, etc. The same generalization holds for Ablative Absolute constructions like Cicerone mortuo, Cicerone nato, etc. However, some non-deponent intransitive verbs can also be found in these constructions: e.g., ante solem occasum, sole occaso, etc.
Tum facito ante solem occasum ut venias advorsum mihi (Pl. Men. 437)
Quibus verbis ita videtur dierum observationem divisisse, ut qui post solem occasum ante mediam noctem natus sit, is ei dies natalis sit, a quo die ea nox coeperit (Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. 3.2.3)
quae horis sublata duabus // omnia sunt sole occaso (Lucil. Sat. 68-69).
Putting transitive verbs aside (e.g., cf. post urbem conditam, Barcinone condita, etc.), I was wondering which is the specific grammatical class of intransitive verbs that can enter into these participial constructions. Or to put it simply: why is it the case that a non-deponent intransitive verb like occidere can enter into an Ablative Absolute (sole occaso) and into a dominant (perfect) participle construction (ante solem occasum), but an equally non-deponent intransitive verb like advenire can't? E.g, cf. the ill-formedness of die advento and ante diem adventum.
NB: As for Romance languages it seems to be the case that those intransitive verbs that can typically enter into absolute participle constructions are the so-called "unaccusative" ones: e.g., Cat./Sp. morir 'to die' in Cat. Mort Ciceró,.../ Sp. Muerto Cicerón, ...; Cat. arribar / Sp. llegar 'to come' in Cat. Arribat el dia..., / Sp. Llegado el día,..., etc. However, Latin appears to make a different cut since unaccusative verbs like advenire (e.g., ubi dies advenit (Sall. Jug. 113)) cannot form, as pointed out above, Ablative Absolute constructions like *die advento nor other dominant (perfect) participle constructions like *ante/post diem adventum.
