--- robin wrote:
Jorge Llambías wrote:
What it would change is simple negations like
{mi e do na klama le zarci}. Instead of meaning that
either I don't go, or you don't go, or both, it would
mean that neither I nor you go.
I would find that rather weird (lojbanically - it makes sense if you
want to make Lojban closer to English),
That's certainly not the goal. I don't mind Lojban differing from
English whenever it makes sense, but the global scope of {na} makes
no sense even from a strictly lojbanic point of view. It just
doesn't fit well with everything else with scope, and it creates
some problems that need more ad-hoc rules to solve them.
and also think it would defeat
the point of using "na" rather than "na'e".
{na'e} modifies a brivla, it is quite different from {na}, which
negates a bridi. I am in no way proposing to conflate them.
If "na" doesn't mean "it is
not the case that [brivla]", what does it mean that isn't covered by a
different negative?
{na} means "it is not the case that [bridi]". That doesn't change.