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'