Alkanadi:
Wow. I searched the tekstaro and this verb is not used at all.
sekis = 3 hits
sekas = 0 hits
sekos = 0 hits
seki = 0 hits

My search of the Tekstaro turned up slightly more results than yours. I got 4 hits for the root sek-, all in the past tense. This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?
There are lots more hits for the -ig and -igx forms: 77 for sekigx- and 52 for sekig-

Alkanadi:Couldn't it be said that Mi sekas fruktojn denotes direction as well. You are dry on account of the fruit. You are dry because the fruit was there.

Mi sekas bantukon = I became dry because of the towel

These sentences are incorrect, "seki" means "to be dry". If you said these sentences, I wouldn't be sure of what you're trying to say and I'd assume you probably meant "sekigi".

richardhall:This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?

Because "herboj" is the subject of "sekis": "before grasses were dry because of the winter".

richardhall:This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?

There are lots of mistakes in the tekstaro.

...mi povis boli viandon por buljono.
Mi finis.
Li ne finis.

Mutusen:

richardhall:This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?

Because "herboj" is the subject of "sekis": "before grasses were dry because of the winter".

So what is the function of Vi in the sentence?

Alkanadi:There are lots of mistakes in the tekstaro.

It would be remarkable if there were none, but are you sure there are really "lots"? Is 'Mi finis' really a mistake?

richardhall:

Mutusen:

richardhall:This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?

Because "herboj" is the subject of "sekis": "before grasses were dry because of the winter".

So what is the function of Vi in the sentence?

You need the full sentence:

Vi, antaŭ ol pro l' vintro sekis herboj, far kuŝa morbo lukte privenkita, pereis, ho tenera!

So it is another subject.

richardhall:

Alkanadi:There are lots of mistakes in the tekstaro.

It would be remarkable if there were none, but are you sure there are really "lots"? Is 'Mi finis' really a mistake?

Probably not.

Sunjo:You need the full sentence:

Vi, antaŭ ol pro l' vintro sekis herboj, far kuŝa morbo lukte privenkita, pereis, ho tenera!

So it is another subject.

That explains it. I mistook the comma for a full stop, which proves that I must get into the habit of wearing my reading glasses at the computer!

Alkanadi:

richardhall:This one: "Vi, antaŭ ol pro l’ vintro sekis herboj" puzzled me. Why isn't it "...sekigis herbojn"?

There are lots of mistakes in the tekstaro.

...mi povis boli viandon por buljono.
Mi finis.
Li ne finis.

"Mi finis" and "Li ne finis" are not wrong at all, depending on the context. You would need to look at the surrounding text to know.

Fini is transitive but if context makes it clear what is being finished, then those are perfectly good sentences.

"Cxu vi jam finis la laboron?" -"Jes, mi finis".

Alkanadi:Intransitive verbs can't take an accusative object?

If you are asking this question, then you probably shouldn't be offering grammatical advice to people in the forums. This is a pretty basic thing not to know about.

erinja:

Alkanadi:Intransitive verbs can't take an accusative object?

If you are asking this question, then you probably shouldn't be offering grammatical advice to people in the forums.

I was just wondering since the tekstaro uses this sentence structure.

If you aren't able to answer such a basic question, maybe you shouldn't be offering rhetorically answers.

richardhall:

Alkanadi:There are lots of mistakes in the tekstaro.

It would be remarkable if there were none, but are you sure there are really "lots"? Is 'Mi finis' really a mistake?

Short answer: Yes, it is a mistake.

Long answer: No. It isn't a mistake. But I don't have time to explain why.

I find it fascinating that my question doesn't seem to have a simple answer. Which, I suppose is good to know. It's a reminder that language A and language B aren't necessarily going to have a one to one correlation. I can live with that.