Everyone's use and nonuse of words, as ordinary linguistic symbols, is in the first place dependent on the language of communication. However, within the framework of such a language, the vocabulary of the neutral-inclusivist will or may differ from other vocabularies in the following respects:

• in the use of catenical terms
• in the use of 'paraneutral' verbal symbols
• in the nonuse of lingually exclusivistic terms and of terminological distinctions which are irrelevant in the context concerned
• in the explicitly inclusivistic use of terms which are traditionally lingually exclusivistic
• in the rejection of infralinguistic exclusivism
• in the nonuse of (typically) theodemonist or supernaturalist terms
• in the explicitly inclusivistic and veridicalistic use of terms which are traditionally theodemonistic or supernaturalistic.

Much of what applies to the neutral-inclusivist's choice of words applies to the choice of names as well. But characteristic of the inclusivistic choice of names is of course the rejection of all forms of onomastic exclusivism, whether as an operational manifestation of individual exclusivism or of any other integral exclusivism.

The employment of catenical terms as literal, denotative symbols is inherent in the catenical fundament of neutral thought. Neutralism is unthinkable without some kind of catenical vocabulary. The potential use of catenical terms in names is practically unlimited because of the indefinite number of catenas and because of the many different types of predicate one can refer to in a name. Examples are: ... of the (Three) Catenated Predicates, ... of (Neutral) Catenality, ... of (Catenated) Neutrality and ... of (Happiness and) Nanhappiness. Dependent on the language of communication, on the choice of words and on personal taste, these and similar expressions may sound more or less poetic and be suitable as proper names.

The Ananorm's verbal symbolism comprises the n-a series of neutralistic morphemes. But while symbols such as nan and ana may be almost ideal, 'paraneutral', verbal symbols, they are not the only ones. Also sound or character combinations which are merely symmetrical, for instance, can function as verbal symbols in our denominational doctrine.

The n-a series is not onomatopoeic in that the spoken terms would be vocal imitations of sounds associated with them (like cuckoo or hiss). But it is partially onomatopoeic in a sense in that the sound of each word (and its written image) does suggest its neutral or neutrality-related meaning. (How and why, we shall discuss in the last division of this chapter.) Presentatively speaking, a word like ananorm is a mere synonym of norm of neutrality and as such only a literal, purely denotative symbol. But representatively speaking, the prefix ana- relates the norm of neutrality to all neutral thought, feeling and conduct. It is in this representative sphere that ana- becomes a verbal symbol and acquires a neutralistic quality which reaches far beyond the literal meaning it has in connection with the base-word. This is not only the case for a neologism such as ananorm but also for some old words which are acceptable as part of the neutralistic vocabulary, because they have a prefix such as ana- and because of (one of) their appropriate conventional meaning(s). Thus the word anabasis can very well be used to denote the advance of the neutral-inclusive movement, for advance has always been one of its lexical meanings. Such a word can be made part of the doctrine's vocabulary without having been specifically neutralistic before. It goes without saying that the paraneutral prefixes do not have any fundamental significance in that every word which happened to start with such a prefix would have to be adopted by us with its traditional meaning.

The verbal symbols of the n-a series may be employed to form names in a presentative way; they may also emerge in such names when objects are named after a neutral-inclusivistic thing or notion. Also the potential use of the names of these things or notions is great. Examples are: ... of the Ananorm, ... of Nanhonore (such as The Way of Nanhonore) and The Anabatic Stream. For other names (or initials) it may be their symmetry which symbolizes neutrality or neutral-inclusivity.

The nonuse of lingually exclusivistic terms and of terminological distinctions which are irrelevant in the context concerned needs hardly any further explanation. Such nonuse may even go unnoticed when there is a suitable alternative within the framework of the official or standard language. This will probably be the case when we do not use derogatory words to refer to members of certain groups, or when we use sincere rather than honest. But there may also be a suitable alternative within the framework of the total language which is traditionally not always usual. This could be said of the use of it instead of she to refer to a country, ship or car. The nonuse of irrelevantist terms does become more noticeable in such a case. When a language does not offer any suitable alternative, one is forced to choose new words, new sets of words or new meanings for old words. It is then that the neutral-inclusivistic speaker will most markedly deviate from the traditional speaker. An example is our gender-transcending use of 'e and 'er, since the time-honored variant of the present language does not have any third person pronoun (only a male pronoun and a female pronoun).

Lingual inclusivity can be rendered explicit not just by using the neuter gender where a nonneuter gender has been normal before but also by purposefully breaking thru the exclusivist connotations of words which by themselves do not denote exclusivists or their notions, attitudes or actions. We can do this by using terms which are traditionally exclusivistic in an explicitly inclusivistic way. To illustrate this let us consider the facet of physical laterality-neutral inclusivity (with writing-related handedness-neutral inclusivity as discussed in F.2.3.4). In a laterality-neutral terminology the words sinister and gauche will have no unfavorable connotations as in abnegational sinistral exclusivism; and the word dexter will have no favorable connotation as in aggrandizemental dextral exclusivism. Sinister and dexter are then purely synonymous to left and right, and neither pair of words indicates anything else than the side which is used or on which something is located. So long as the use of left and right is free and unbiased too, calling the left side of a building, for instance, "the sinister side" and the right side "the dexter side" will symbolically underline the lateral neutrality of our inclusivistic doctrine.

The rejection of infralinguistic exclusivism --the fifth point on our list-- is more in the nature of a fundamental than of a symbolic issue. Moreover, infralinguistic inclusivity does not lead to a uniform, written or spoken, vocabulary. On the contrary, it makes diversity in the neutral-inclusivistic vocabulary possible. One of the two or more variants may even be equal to a (more) traditional variant which is not typically neutral-inclusivistic. Infralinguistic inclusivity is not something which characterizes one speaker or writer in one work. (There is a difference between infralinguistic inclusivity and inconsistence.) Infralinguistic inclusivity is something which characterizes a group of language users, or one language user under different circumstances. Whether the neutral-inclusivistic vocabulary will actually show the diversity infralinguistic inclusivity allows for, cannot be foreseen. Whatever may occur, such diversity is not something to strive for in itself.

Naturally, our disbelief in the ultimate authority of exclusivist gods and demons and our disbelief in supernatural constructs implies the nonuse of theodemonist and supernaturalist terms, except when referring to theodemonist or supernaturalist beliefs or believers themselves. This also means that the practising adherent of the DNI shall not curse by employing theodemonist or supernaturalist names or words for emphasis. Any person doing so in spite of these considerations will, while flying in the face of the Norm, only show a damnable weakness of character.

It is not always easy to determine whether a word or name is inherently theodemonistic or supernaturalistic, or whether it merely happens to be used by theodemonists or supernaturalists. Some notions, like god and sacred, clearly belong to the former category, whereas other notions, like being and supreme, clearly belong to the latter. Between these two epistemic categories there is a third class of notions for which the choice to make is completely or largely stipulative. An example is holy or holiness. Is holy an inherently supernaturalistic notion? From the etymological standpoint it can be argued that it is a 'holistic' notion and therefore suitable for inclusivistic usage. Yet, it might be argued instead that holiness is so tainted by its historical connection with supernaturalist tale-telling and idolatry that it is better to 'wholly' dissociate ourselves from this term.

Perhaps, some will argue the same with regard to the notion of 'dharma'. This concept is historically not just connected with a custom or law regarded as a duty but with a particular set of customs and laws with a highly supernaturalistic and extremely exclusivistic content. But such a content is also here not inherent in the etymology of dharma which derives from dharayati meaning (h)e holds and akin to firm. Nor is that content inherent in dharma when it is defined as basic principles of cosmic or individual existence or nature in a sense which is more normative than descriptive. (Also the content of what was customarily called "morality" has been very exclusivistic, especially sexualistic. Yet, this is no reason either not to use the word moral at all anymore, altho it is a reason to use it much more sparingly than before.) Therefore, it is very well possible to call the set of basic principles of the DNI "the dharma" too. The Dharma is then the literary reference to the entire Norm itself. Since the use of terms such as holy and dharma or Dharma may be controversial, it should be made clear, if they are used, that they have an explicitly inclusivistic and veridicalistic content in the case of the DNI.

We use an upper case instead of a lower case letter to show that a linguistic symbol is a name and not a literal word symbol. The Norm, for instance, is not a norm, because the Norm itself is not a single interpreted principle. Conversely, when a linguistic symbol literally presents a certain thing or notion, there is no need to (always) capitalize it, at least not if there is only one such thing or notion. That is why we spell "supreme being", for the supreme being is indeed the sole being that is supreme, that is, of a supreme normative value. On the neutral-inclusive model a Supreme Being is no supreme being.