Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.
If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.
There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths".
Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness
So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing.
I don't think it's a normal interpretation?
For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical.
Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics especially : separating something into component parts or constituent elements.
Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.