[tlhIngan Hol] [The Little Prince] Is {DI'raq} "sheep" new canon?

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 08:00:11 PDT 2018


On Sun, Sep 2, 2018, 15:34 Rhona Fenwick, <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:

> ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
>
> > Actually, wouldn't the object of {DIj} be a pigment stick, i.e., the
> command
>
> > ought to have been something like {DI'raq DachenmoHmeH rItlh naQ yIDIj}?
>
>
> Given that KGT's definition of {DIj} is "use a {rItlh naQ}, paint with a
> {rItlh naQ}" (in the text) and "use a pigment stick, paint with pigment
> stick", no parentheses in either case, I'd have thought {rItlh naQ} is
> the one thing that would never be used as its object. The {rItlh naQ} is
> expressly included in the definition of the verb.
>

Okay, but what if I draw a picture of a pigment stick with a pigment stick,
then underneath it write {rItlh naQ 'oHbe' Dochvam'e'}. rItlh naQ
vIDIjpu''a'?

While we have no overt sign of how {DIj} might work with an object, absent
> other evidence I don't have any problem at all with the use of {DIj} with
> the depiction as the object.
>

The painting-{DIj} is clearly the same verb as the bat'leth-{DIj}. What
would you {DIj} with a bat'leth? Presumably the opponent's sword. In that
case, I'd think the object of painting-{DIj} is the surface you're scraping
your pigment stick on

I've always suspended {DIj} to be related to the words {bo'DIj} and
{ghIpDIj}. I don't know what that tells us, though. Maybe in the past, when
you court-martialed someone, you painted something on their *{ghIp}.

-- 
De'vID

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180902/b32d5029/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list