[tlhIngan Hol] then/now and law'/puS

[mayqel qunenoS]

lieven
> You want to say "At that time, I was younger than I am now", right?

HIja'.

lieven:
> Something in my blood tells me it's not
> allowed though.

yes, in mine too

> I think the problem is adding a quality verb to
> a verb. The rule says it's applied to nouns.

I think it is illegal because in the place of {ngugh} and {DaH}, we need to
have nouns instead.

It is a pity though. It makes easily sense, right ? So, why dismiss it ?

Let alone that we have the {'ul law'} "too much electricity" canon example,
right ?

So, why can't we have {ngugh jIQup law'}, meaning "then I was very young",
followed by the {DaH jIQup puS} "now I'm less young" ?

And now that I'm thinking of it, I believe that it is indeed correct. Think
of it as two sentences, one after the other, which happen to resemble the
law'/puS construction.

So, unless someone proves wrong the last reasoning, I'll accept it as being
correct.

But wait a minute.. I just realized that in the canon example the {'ul} is
a noun. ghuy' !

So it's wrong after all.

qunnoq
ghogh HablIwIj'vo' vIngoHta'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160827/df45a884/attachment-0017.htm>