Emotional inflection is provided by adding one of three adverbial modifiers above the verb, like so:
But should it not also be possible to skip the use of an emotional inflection:
This could show up in a bunch of cases. For example, consider this situation:
Should Socrates not have the ability to apply a little emotional pressure with an emotional inflection?
One way to solve this problem would be to give the Subject the opportunity to add an inflection adverb in almost every case, but one of the inflection adverbs is a null adverb, perhaps looking like this:
Or we could permit quantification of the inflection adverb:
I had originally intended to quantify such inflections, but balked because of the workload it imposes on the player. After all, who wants to decide exactly how angrily they want to greet somebody else? Is that much nuance really necessary?
A Second Problem
Suppose that Merida rejects Socrates’ offered deal above. Shouldn’t Socrates have the opportunity to followup with some sort of additional emotional inflection? If so, should he repeat the offer with an adverbial inflection? That seems overdone. What if instead there was a special followup verb that included inflection? It would be the equivalent of “Oh, please, please, please!” or “Trust me, you should do this” or “You’d better do this!” But I cannot just now imagine how such a verb could be represented symbolically. “Think again”? Or just the use of the standard “speak good”, “speak truth”, or “speak power” verbs?
No, I think that, all in all, it’s best to include quantified inflections on every verb that might need them, but include null options. Thus, there would be seven options available for this WordSocket: the three auras, their inverses, and a null aura. If anything but the null aura is chosen, then a quantifier must be added.