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