History: le broda ku na brode Gotcha

Source of version: 1 (current)

(repeating from ((Gotchas))) See also ((naku)). This means "Not all of the brodas are brode". To say the more intuitive "(Each of) the broda(s) are not brode", the negation must be "na ku" and follow the le sumti, "le broda ku na ku brode". (''This bit written by And; the rest added anonynously.'' __No problem admitting the 'Swallowing my annoyance' bit is mine__ --- mi'e nitcion) ---- That doesn't make any sense. And even if it did, it seems broken that that ((elidable terminator)) can affect the semantics like that. ---- Swallowing my annoyance at anything in ((The Book)) being called into question :-) , I refer you to [http://www.lojban.org/files/reference-grammar/chap16.html] . As it turns out: * le broda na brode = ro le broda na brode = naku ro le broda cu brode = __naku__ ro le broda zo'u: le broda cu brode = ''It is not true that for all As, A does B.'' ** ''na'' has scope over the entire ((bridi)), by default. * le broda naku brode = ro le broda naku brode = ro le broda __naku__ zo'u: le broda cu brode = ''It is true that for all As, it is __not__ the case that: A does B.'' ** ''na'' has scope over whatever follows ''le broda'' ''naku'' is a floating sumti, and not a 'tense', like normal ''na''; so this isn't just a matter of an elidable terminator. In fact, in ''ro da naku su'o de na klama'', the two ''na'' are doing quite different jobs; and the ''ku'' is not elidable there at all. Of course, the 'user-friendly' way to approach this is to dodge ''na'' completely, and use ''na'e'' in this case. ---- This is only an issue if there is more than one of ''le broda''. If there is exactly one, they both mean the same. Also, ''le broda naku brode'' is equivalent to ''no le broda cu brode''.