On Sun, Sep 2, 2018, 15:34 Rhona Fenwick, <qeslagh@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