NA as tag

This was initially brought up by la vensa, who opined that {na ku} suggests that {na} must be usable as a tag also, but he imagined it to be more similar to du'o/fi'o jinvi. Here I present my personal ideas about NA as tag.The first step is to convert the old NA to the new tag-NA.na broda = na zo'e broda = na ku broda

na is based on natfe and ja'a is tolna'e.

I propose the following general interpretation:
na broda = na zo'e broda = zo'e natfe lo du'u broda
.i mi na klama lo panka is equivalent to mi na zo'e klama lo panka (in good ol' TAG fashion)

What is that zo'e in na zo'e supposed to be?
Often it doesn't actually matter, but here are some possible things that zo'e in na zo'e can mean.
Using mi na klama lo panka, which is equivalent to zo'e natfe lo du'u mi klama lo panka, there are several possible natfe1 that make sense (even though, in practice, we don't have to be concerned about them):
1) lo du'u mi na klama (tautology) — This is the catch-all case that works everytime.
2) lo panka na zasti
3) mi na zasti
4) mi na ka'e klama
5) it's impossible for some other reason that i could ever go to a park

[...]

Giving NA tag properties would leave all the old usages of NA intact, while making a lot of things grammatical that formerly weren't. (NA was never allowed anywhere without ku except as selbritcita.)

So in short, you could say na ~= fi'o natfe, and ja'a ~= fi'o tolna'e.


More consequences:
NA (which of course also includes {ja'a}) would move into TAG. This means that all the usual TAG mechanics are then possible with NA as well, e.g. .i NA bo, gi'e NA bo, and the interesting broda .i na je'i ja'a bo brode.


NA and scope
With this new NA, it's much easier to define scope formally.
[...]