Le jeudi 23 mai 2013 02:35:14 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> I am confused. I agree that this http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na
> is applied to all BAI tags, but do the following bridi have the same
> scope of {na}, or only (6c) and (6d) have wider scope of {na}, though
> the four bridi seemingly have the same meaning?
>
> (6a) bau lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6b) fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6c) fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6d) mi do zo'e lo jbobau na tavla
The scope of {na} is the same in all those; it only scopes over the
selbri. If you placed {na ku} in front, then the negation would have
scope over {bau} and {fi'o ve tavla} in (6a) and (6b) respectively
(whether or not it makes a difference). {fo} isn't tradionally
considered a tag like all the others, so I assume it would be a
"constant" tag. (6c) and (6d) should be the same.
{na} is a selbri tag in all those, but it, as well as {bau} and {fi'o ve tavla}, is a bridi operator.
Traditionally, the selbri tag {na} is equivalent to {naku} at the beginning of the sentence, then {na} scopes over the whole bridi in every case.
However, because of the problem shown in
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na , {na} is treated in the same way as the other bridi operators: the earlier has wider scope. Then the four bridi are equivalent to the following bridi:
(6a') bau lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
(6b') fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
(6c') naku zo'u fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e tavla
(6d') naku zo'u mi do zo'e lo jbobau tavla
The scope of {na} seems different between ((6a'),(6b')) and ((6c'),(6d')).
The "standard idiom" that I see on IRC for those that even use {na} as selbri tcita anymore is basically xorxes' paragraph number 6.