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 be pronounced fluently in all languages -- one would expect. But the shortest ones 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 [ash] or an â [pronounced as the stressed indefinite article], 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. Nan has therefore been chosen as a prefix with which the name of a neutrality can be derived from that of a positivity or a bipolarity. It has thus 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 selected 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 -icity 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 a as a or a schwa in a word like nanan, or as â in 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 also this term can be treated as a noun. A remarkable feature of it is that it is symmetrical both in spelling and in pronunciation if the stress is put on the central syllable (and if letters are viewed as wholes). This unique noun is a perfect, neutral sound and character combination and as such the symbolic verbal epitome of neutral thought. However, as the name of the supreme being itself it is ineffable.

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 anymore.
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
epitomizes 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 not even all-neutral anymore.
It is by not uttering the name of the supreme being
that we realize this.

The name of the supreme may be easy to pronounce,
it is ineffable in the Norm.