Back to SIch, it seems clear it differs from paw in that only a body part or implement is used to arrive at its object. I think another difference is what the progressive aspect means. Compare reaching for a book and a train going to a city or a station. As soon as someone begins to reach for a book, regardless of his ultimate success, I'd say he SIchtaH or SIchlI'. But I would only say pawtaH of a train that is entering the city or pulling into the station.

The continuous and progressive aspects are used when a sentence is meant to express continuousness or progressiveness. paq vISIch: I stretch my hand to the book. I'm not saying anything about how it is done, just that it is what I do. paq vISIchtaH I am in the middle of the ongoing act of stretching my hand to the book. paq vISIchlI' I am in the middle of the ongoing act of stretching my hand to the book, and it'll be over when my hand has grasped the book. Any of the three sentences could be used to describe the same circumstance; what matters is how I want to describe it happening.

Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified.

Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? ?chabHom bal qoD ghopwIj vISIch I reach my hand into the cookie jar.

Or can the body part or implement be the subject? ?chabHom bal qoD SIch ghopwIj My hand reaches into the cookie jar.

SIch seems to take the thing reached for as its object, so the first one is probably not right. The subject seems to be the entity that causes some extension of itself to move toward the thing reached for, so using a body part or implement as the subject is questionable. I'd stick to the known interpretation unless more information were forthcoming. paq vISIch; tlhapmeH jan vIlo' I use the grabber to reach for and take the book.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name