If a gerundive is used with non, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation? For example, can non loquendum est mean both "it is not necessary to speak" and "it is necessary not to speak"? Does the word order have a role here?
If you want to argue that a gerundive with non can have a certain meaning, can you please provide a classical quotation where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities? In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.
To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too. This was discussed in connection to the earlier question concerning negative obligations, but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter.