Change the scope of NA

[lagleki]

Describe the bug CLL 1.1 Section 15.2 says:

In discussing Lojban negation, we will call the form of logical negation that simply denies the truth of a statement “bridi negation”. Using bridi negation, we can say the equivalent of “I haven't stopped beating my wife” without implying that I ever started, nor even that I have a wife, meaning simply “It isn't true that I have stopped beating my wife.” Since Lojban uses bridi as smaller components of complex sentences, bridi negation is permitted in these components as well at the sentence level.

Similarly, Section 16.9 says:

As explained in Section 15.2 , the negation of a bridi is usually accomplished by inserting na at the beginning of the selbri:

but then Section 15.2 says:

When a selbri is tagged with a tense or a modal, negation with “na” is permitted in two positions: before or after the tag. No semantic difference between these forms has yet been defined, but this is not finally determined, since the interactions between tenses/modals and bridi negation have not been fully explored. In particular, it remains to be seen whether sentences using less familiar tenses, such as:

2.13) mi [cu] ta'e klama le zarci I habitually go to the market. mean the same thing with “na” before the “ta'e”, as when the negation occurs afterwards; we’ll let future, Lojban-speaking, logicians decide on how they relate to each other.

It is also implied that na na has one of them having a higher scope than the other one:

The grammar of na allows multiple adjacent negations, which cancel out, as in normal logic:

Example 15.21.

ti na na barda prenu co melbi mi This [false] [false] is-a-big person that is-(beautiful-to me). which is the same as:

Example 15.22.

ti barda prenu co melbi mi This is-a-big person that is-(beautiful-to me).

If both na had the same scope then the phrase ti na na barda prenu co melbi mi would presumably mean the same as ti na barda prenu co melbi mi.

Expected behavior ta'e na and na ta'e as well as the scope of na is clearly formalized.

Possible solution 1

If selbritcita starts with na then this na negates the bridi otherwise selbritcita is affected by other scope rules. In case the selbritcita contains a na not in the first position then this na is affected by the scope as if this na belonged to BAI.

Possible solution 2

1. change na to work like BAI so that it negates bridi in case outer quantifiers are all ro or are used with constants like mi
2. change example "Example 15.16."
3. search for all uses of “internal bridi negation” using na, write them out, propose changes
4. ta'e na works as ta'e ku na ku

Possible solution 3

1. selbritcita are bridi wide
2. a sequence of tags in selbritcita has the scope of those tags expanded left to right as it's done with sumtcita.

[lagleki]

Research: what's the scope of selbritcita in general? write out examples. + combination of selbritcita with sumtcita