2.3.3 |
SIX MORPHEMES, OF WHICH ONE
INEFFABLE |
The n (or m) is an acceptable consonant for symbolizing
stability and consequently neutrality; the ä (or
schwa) an acceptable vowel for symbolizing centrality and consequently also
neutrality. In addition, both the n and the ä are
acceptable letters for symbolizing universality and consequently
inclusivity.
Together, morphemes constituted of n and the neutral a as in
schwa can therefore very well represent the notion and ideal of
neutral-inclusivity.
Starting with n the potential morphemes are na, nan,
nana and so on; starting with a they are an,
ana, anan and so on. More complex morphemes like naan
(with twice a) and anna (with twice n) will not be
considered here, because the spoken language does not allow such a
doubling of sounds, or because in the written language such a doubling of
letters has a different meaning. (This is not to say that Naan
and Anna could not be nice, neutral-inclusivistic proper names.)
The simple morphemes listed above can, at least eventually and, if
necessary, with some minor adjustments, be pronounced fluently by all
persons that have the faculty of speech — one would expect.
But the shortest two of them, namely na and an, have already
acquired a meaning in the present and/or other languages, either as an
independent word or as an affix.
Since they are not even symmetrical, we shall begin our collection of
morphemes with nan and ana.
Figure S.2.3.3.1 shows the elements of
the n-a series with their regular and irregular, potential
pronunciations.
The regular pronunciations given are those with ä and varying
stress positions.
The irregular ones are those with a schwa, an a (an ash
sound) or an ā (the sound for the first letter of the
alphabet), which may be acceptable from a different point of view.
Nan, nana, ana and
anan are very suitable as prefixes or as roots of words in
the language we are communicating in at the moment. Nan is the
only one that, on its own, does not have asymmetrical primary stress. It is
symmetrical both from the angle of stress and from the angle of its letter
composition. This is what makes nan in itself representative of
neutrality.
That is why nan has been selected as a prefix with which the name
of a
neutrality can be derived
from that of a positivity or a
bipolarity.
Thus it has the function of limiting the original subset of attributes.
(Also a positivity usually consists of more than one attribute.)
Its meaning is being the neutral, external limit element of.
This meaning does not correspond with the meaning of the
'un-prefixes' (un-, a-, dis-, il-,
im-, in- and ir-), but it
is in principle compatible with the meaning of non- and not,
albeit much more specific.
For example, nanhappy is not merely not happy but also
not unhappy and not
uncatenal; it pertains to
everything that has the neutral attribute of the happiness
catena.
Similarly, nanhonorable does not merely mean not honorable
but neither honorable nor dishonorable, while solely pertaining to
things which could be honorable or dishonorable.
Because our principles are centered in neutrality, a symbol for
neutral is very helpful where it designates elements of the
neutralistic doctrine, rather than
catenated predicates.
The norm of neutrality, for instance,
can, strictly speaking, not be called "a neutral norm" since norms are
not catenated
primary predicates.
(But for the sake of convenience we do also use neutral in the
sense of neutrally catenal.)
Therefore the sound combination ana, which is symmetrical
apart from stress, has been chosen to indicate the presence of neutrality
without altering the meaning of the base-word.
While nan- refers to what is neutrally catenal, whether
perfective or not, ana-
refers to what is perfection-related but not perfective in itself.
Nana and anan are primarily used as roots of
the adjectives and nouns with -ic and -icity as suffixes.
Hence: nanaic, nanaicity and ananic, ananicity.
(The morphemes -ic and -ity are, of course, only meant as
suffixes for the present language.)
In addition nana- functions as a prefix in nanapolar and
nanapolarity.
Whereas nana is a morpheme of
corrective neutralism,
anan is a morpheme of perfective neutralism.
Nana stands for what is aimed at, or furthers, what is
ananormatively superior; and
anan for having a predicate which is ananormatively superior. The
condition of having a perfective, neutral predicate is ananicity and the
condition of having a corrective, nanapolar predicate is nanaicity.
The opposite of nanaicity is 'unnanaicity'; its neutral
limit element is 'nannanaicity'. Nanaicity is the general
term for having a predicate which is nanapolar, unnanaicity
for having one which is 'unnanapolar', and nannanaicity for
having one which is 'nan-nanapolar'.
The fourth term in the series starting with na is
nanan. This morpheme will be regarded as a noun in itself
and should designate a thing which is nanaic. Due to the
location of the primary stress (on the first syllable), nanan
is asymmetrical in pronunciation, but this is compatible with the
unneutral character of nanaicity.
For the same reason there is little against pronouncing the first a
as a (an ash) and the second one as a schwa in a word like
nanan, or the second a as ā in a word like
nanaic.
Whereas ananaic would not be suitable as a perfective-neutralistic
symbol, nanaic is indeed suitable as a corrective-neutralistic
one.
Finally, there is one term we have not discussed yet.
It is the fourth term in the series starting with an.
Like nanan this term, too, can be treated as a noun.
A remarkable feature of it is that it is or would be symmetrical both in
spelling —on the level of characters, that is— and in
pronunciation —on the level of phonemes, that is— if the
stress is put on the central syllable.
This noun is or would be a perfect, neutral sound and letter combination
and as such the best possible verbal representation of neutral thought.
However, as the very name of the supreme being itself this unique morpheme
is ineffable.
2.3.3.0
THE NAME OF THE SUPREME BEING
The name of the supreme is fundamentally ineffable,
for the supposition that the supreme being exists
only re-presents the end of ananicity.
To serve the end of ananicity
we need not adopt the symbolism of the doctrine.
Where everyone is together,
using this symbol is itself not even inclusive.
It is by not uttering the name of the supreme being
that we realize this.
The name of the supreme is symbolically ineffable,
for the supposition that the supreme being exists
only reflects ananicity in the end.
To serve ananicity in the end
we need not utter the name of the supreme being.
Where everything is perfected,
serving this purpose is itself no longer all-neutral.
It is by not uttering the name of the supreme being
that we realize this.
The name that is in fact easy to pronounce
is ineffable in the Norm.
