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

[Rhona Fenwick]

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.


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. In the past I've also used it in contexts where the object is the pigment itself, rather than the depiction:


DopvamDaq DIng, DopvetlhDaq DIng
'ej mI' ram Hegh Sech mIS.
rItlh DIjbogh veqlargh rur bIQ'a',
wov 'oH, 'ej SuD, 'ej chIS.

"About, about, in reel and rout
The death-fires danced at night;
The water, like a witch's oils,
Burnt green, and blue, and white."

(The Rime of the Ancient Mariner II.11)


QeS 'utlh

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180902/281ba08c/attachment-0015.htm>