On 8/4/2017 9:33 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
We know we can say:
{la' jaq law' yaS jaq puS} The commander is bolder than the officer
But can we say:
{yaS jaq puS la' jaq law'} The officer is less bold than the commander ?
Okrand has not signed off on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. But it's not really necessary, since it is logically equivalent to the first sentence.
And can we say:
{la' jaq puS yaS jaq law'} The commander is less bold than the officer ?
Same answer.
Also, we know we can say:
{la' jaq law' Hoch jaq puS} The commander is boldest of all
But can we say:
{Hoch jaq puS la' jaq law'} All are less bold than the commander ?
My instinct would be no. Use the former.
And can we say: {la' jaq puS Hoch jaq law'} The commander is less bold than all ?
I again tend towards no. If the commander is just not necessarily the boldest, I might extrapolate one of the legitimate forms to *la' jaq law'be' Hoch puSbe'*/the commander is not bolder than all./ Although it is not mentioned, I feel confident that this one is allowed. If the commander is actually the least bold of all, I'd use a different Q: *la' jaqHa' law' Hoch jaqHa' puS*/the commander is the un-boldest of all./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name