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

[Daniel Dadap]

On Sep 2, 2018, at 03:22, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

>> 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}."

I didn’t think {rItlh naQ} made a lot of sense as the object of {DIj} either, but after thinking about it a little more, maybe it does work if you think of it as being related to the combat meaning of {DIj}, where the object, if any, might be an {'etlh}.

However, even after considering this, I still don’t really see the {rItlh naQ} as being the object of {DIj}. Perhaps that’s because I’m comparing it to “paint” in English, although “paint” happens to be slightly ambiguous itself. “I am painting a sheep” could mean “I am painting an artistic representation of a sheep onto some medium” and it can also mean “I am applying paint to a sheep”.

I think I like envisioning of {DIj} as being like {ghItlh} as well. IIUC you don’t {ghItlh} a {nav}; you {ghItlh} {mu'mey} onto a {nav}.

I do wonder… if one were to use the prefix trick and rephrase the request to {DI'raq HIDIj}, if the nature of the object of {DIj} would be less ambiguous (within the context of the phrase). It seems more likely that one would {DIj} a {DI'raq} as the subject matter of a {mIllogh} or {nagh beQ} or whatever, for the benefit of another person, than that one would {DIj} a {DI'raq} as a medium, for the benefit of another person.