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

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Sun Sep 2 01:22:54 PDT 2018

Am 02.09.2018 um 00:13 schrieb De'vID:
 > Did Marc Okrand say anything about the (usual) object of {DIj}?

No, he did not.
> I was a bit surprised to see {DIj} used with the object being a thing  > whose representation was to be drawn on paper.[...]> {DI'raq 
DachenmoHmeH rItlh naQ yIDIj}?

I had always understood that {DIj} was used like {ghItlh} in the meaning 
of the action of painting.

KGT first talks about the {rItlh naQ} and then says:
The word {DIj} means "use a {rItlh naQ}, paint with a {rItlh naQ}."

For me, it means that the {naQ} is part of the verb {DIj}, not its object:
   {nuq DIgh ghaH?} - "What does he do?"
   {DIj} - "he is painting with a rItlh naQ (applying paint to the nagh)"

The answers to the question {nuq DIj?} are indeed not clear and leave 
room for interpretation. Mine is as follows:
   1. {rItlh naQ DIj} - no, that's part of the definition
   2. {nagh beQ DIj} - no, because what else would he paint on? Okay, 
paper, wood, wall, the ceiling - possibly.
   3. {vay' DIj} - hm... this is not clear, but possible as well and 
seemed the most logical usage at the time I started my translation, if 
you regard DIj like ghItlh.
   (4. Skip the idea of DIj-ing a batleth)

On an other topic, I first wonder if you can say {chenmoH} when you make 
a drawing. I think if we ask Maltz, we may get three new words referring 
drawing just as we have qon, gher, and ghItlh for the act of writing.
In the case of my possibly incorrect usage of DIj, I can certainly argue 
like you did and say that this was a shortened form of something. :-)

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list