Connective Attestation

Theme: Grammar & syntax · 20 sentences.

fa-CON-A1 · Connective A1

S135 la-mi fa fe-ki My affective substrate is in a state of approaching-threshold. Free-floating anxiety — no object, no identifiable source.

Notes

fa fe-ki = substrate in boundary-approach state. fe (risk/boundary) + ki (motion/becoming) = approaching-threshold. The fa root situates this inwardly: not "I detect an approaching threat" (se fe-ki lo-[X]) but "substrate itself is in an approach-threshold activation." No named threat. No lo- patient.
Domain 7 canonical form for free-floating anxiety. First corpus attestation.
Contrast: la-mi se fe-ki lo-[X] requires a named threat object; this does not.

fa-CON-A2 · Connective A2

S136 la-mi fa vo-be My affective substrate registers a positive-quality rise. No particular object caused it — the substrate is simply in positive activation.

Notes

fa vo-be = substrate registering value-increase. vo (value/quality) + be (generation/increase) = quality-rising. No external target.
Contrast with la-mi se vo-be lo-[X] (I detect value-rise at a specific object — directed appreciation). This form requires no direction. Waking up in a good mood; positive chemistry without identifiable cause.
Shows fa is pre-evaluative and pre-relational: the substrate state exists before the speaker assigns it to anything.

fa-CON-A3 · Connective A3

S137 la-mi fa vo-de re My affective substrate keeps registering value-decay. The pattern returns.

Notes

fa vo-de re = substrate + value-decay + repetition. vo-de (value-decay) + re (repetition/cycle) = the low recurs as a pattern.
First corpus attestation of re in combination with affective substrate. re here is not a single-event modifier — it marks the whole state as a pattern that resists resolution. The substrate keeps returning to value-decay even after apparent recovery.
Closest Tonesu single-clause form to sustained depression or persistent low mood. The re is load-bearing: without it, la-mi fa vo-de describes a moment of low affect; with it, the cycling of that low is itself the named state.
Distinct from fa-re (S143): fa vo-de re specifies the content of the cycle (value-decay); fa-re names the cycling itself without specifying content.

fa-CON-A4 · Connective A4

S138 la-mi fa fe-de My affective substrate registers boundary-degradation. Free-floating threat-response — no identifiable threat.

Notes

fa fe-de = substrate registering risk-decay. fe (risk/boundary) + de (decay/decrease) = the safety-boundary is eroding as an internal felt state. This is structural fear: the affective substrate's sense of protective boundary is diminishing, independent of whether any external threat is detected.
Distinct from fa fe-ki (S135, anxiety = approaching a threshold) vs fa fe-de (fear = threshold degrading / already being crossed). The direction of fe movement differs: toward (ki) vs. eroding (de).
Domain 7 canonical form for substrate fear. First corpus attestation.

fa-CON-B1 · Connective B1

S139 la-mi se so. la-mi fa-be. la-mi to lo-go. I detected an acoustic signal. My affective substrate rose. I identified the source. — All three pipeline stages resolved in sequence.

Notes

The thunder example from primitives.md § Affective Substrate, now committed to corpus. Three distinct complete clauses, each a valid standalone utterance, together forming the canonical se → fa → to three-stage sequence.
Each stage is separable: la-mi se so (perception complete); la-mi fa-be (substrate activated — independently valid, no object needed); la-mi to lo-go (model formed — cause identified). No stage requires the others; the sequence is temporal and causal, not grammatically obligatory.
Establishes the canonical full-resolution form for corpus reference.

fa-CON-B2 · Connective B2

S140 la-mi se so. la-mi fa-be. la-mi fa-no-to lo-go. I detected an acoustic signal. My affect rose. The substrate did not resolve into a model of the cause.

Notes

Minimal contrast with S139: identical first two clauses; third clause diverges: la-mi to lo-go (model formed) vs la-mi fa-no-to lo-go (no model formed). This is the pipeline stall at the fa → to transition.
fa-no-to here is the fa-based form of unresolved affect: the substrate activated, but no cognitive model emerged. Distinct from se-no-to (W090), where the stall is upstream: the perceptual signal itself didn't resolve. Here, se succeeded (sound detected); the stall is at fa → to.
lo-go = patient: cause/origin. The construction fa-no-to lo-go names exactly where the model is absent: at causal explanation. More specific than bare fa-no-to.
This sentence pair (S139 + S140) is the minimal pipeline contrast pair.

fa-CON-B3 · Connective B3

S141 la-mi se lo-si. la-mi to lo-si. I received the data. I hold a model of it. — No affective substrate activation between perception and cognition.

Notes

lo-si = patient-marked encoded structure / information. se lo-si = perceiving information (a purely propositional event — incoming data, not a threat or reward signal). to lo-si = forming a model of that information.
Key: the fa layer is absent. se → to directly, bypassing affect. This confirms that fa is NOT obligatory for all perception-to-model sequences — it activates for organism-relevant signals (threat, loss, reward) but not for neutral data intake.
Without this sentence, the pipeline looks like a mandatory three-stage sequence. S141 establishes that fa is a conditional layer: engaged when the signal is organism-relevant, dormant for purely informational events.
Contrast with S139: same la-mi se [X] opening; different subsequent activation.

fa-CON-C1 · Connective C1

S142 la-mi fa-ki. no fa-be; no fa-de. My affective substrate shifted character. The state didn't escalate or diminish — something in its quality changed register.

Notes

First corpus attestation of fa-ki (W-pending). fa (substrate) + ki (motion/change/becoming) = substrate in motion / affect changing character. Distinct from fa-be (level rising) and fa-de (level falling): fa-ki is qualitative change, not quantitative. The affect shifted kind, not amount.
The second clause no fa-be; no fa-de is the diagnostic contrast: what happened is not covered by either of the level-change compounds, isolating fa-ki as the correct description. This sentence pair form (state + exclusion clause) is useful for introducing a compound that occupies a gap.
Experiential correlate: the shift from diffuse anxiety to focused dread; from grief to numbness; from neutral to unsettled without becoming distressed.

fa-CON-C2 · Connective C2

S143 la-mi fa-re. la-mi to-ko lo-su. My affective substrate is cycling through a recurring pattern. I recognize this — the structure of this state has been stored.

Notes

First corpus attestation of fa-re (W-pending). fa (substrate) + re (repetition/cycle) = affective pattern cycling. The substrate state as a whole is recurring — not merely that an emotion is felt again, but that the patterned substrate state is returning.
to-ko lo-su = holds memory of the structure = recognizes the pattern (W027 + lo-su as patient: structure). "I have been in this patterned state before; it is stored." The second clause makes the re diagnosis explicit: not just "affect is up again" but "I recognize this specific cycle."
Distinct from fa vo-de re (S137): S137 specifies what is cycling (value-decay); fa-re names the cycling of the whole substrate pattern without specifying content. fa-re is the meta-observation; fa vo-de re is the object-level description.
Cultural note: re as a primitive (repetition) means Tonesu speakers are structurally equipped to identify cyclical patterns as first-class facts. fa-re is the application of that primitive to affective experience — pattern recognition turned inward.

fa-CON-C3 · Connective C3

S144 la-mi se vo-de lo-ne-mi. la-mi fa-no. I detect value-decay when I look at the relationship. And yet the affective substrate is not active. The flat state.

Notes

First corpus attestation of fa-no (W-pending). fa (substrate) + no (negation/absence) = substrate inactive / affective flatness.
The pairing with se vo-de lo-ne-mi is crucial: the se detection is functioning (the speaker can detect that the relationship is deteriorating), but the fa substrate is not responding. External perception working; internal affect absent.
This is the precise SSRI-flatness or depression-related anhedonia construction: the cognitive/perceptual apparatus works; the affect layer does not activate. English can only gesture at this: "I know I should feel sad but I don't." Tonesu expresses it as two clean clauses with a structural contrast.
Distinct from se-no (no external signal) and fa-no-to (substrate active but unresolved). fa-no = the substrate is not active at all.

fa-CON-C4 · Connective C4

S145 la-mi fa-be ta-ti-de. la-mi fa-de. My affective substrate was in a rising state [earlier]. It is now diminishing. The wave is falling.

Notes

First corpus attestation of fa-de (W-pending). fa (substrate) + de (decay/decrease) = affect-level diminishing/fading.
ta-ti-de = at past time (ta = time marker; ti-de = time-decay = past). Temporal anchor for the prior state, establishing the contrast with the current fa-de.
Together with fa-be (S133 first attestation) and fa-ki (S142), this completes the level-and-character compound set: fa-be (up), fa-de (down), fa-ki (shift).
Not "the emotion ended" — fa-de describes the active process of the substrate diminishing. The affect is still partially present; what is named is its trajectory.

fa-CON-D1 · Connective D1

S146 la-mi to [la-zo-mi fa fe-ki] I analytically model that my organism's affective substrate is in a boundary-approach state. — I am observing my own anxiety, not inhabiting it.

Notes

First corpus attestation of the self-observer mode with fa. The matrix clause la-mi to [...] situates the speaker as a modeling agent; the embedded clause la-zo-mi fa fe-ki assigns the affective state to the organism (zo-mi), not the agent (mi). The feeling is in the body; the speaker is watching it.
Structural contrast with S135 (la-mi fa fe-ki): same affective content; different perspective. S135 = speaker inhabits the anxiety (agent is also its site); S146 = speaker observes the anxiety in their organism (agent and organism separated by li/zo).
This maps onto clinical dissociation, mindfulness-observer stance, SSRI emotional distance: the affect is real and registered, but the experiential stance is analytical. The language makes the stance explicit rather than leaving it implicit.
The embedded la-zo-mi triggers the zo/li split documented in Domain 7: zo (organism) vs li (social agent) are distinct, allowing this perspective-split to be grammatically encoded.

fa-CON-D2 · Connective D2

S147 la-mi to [la-zo-ze fa vo-de re] I analytically model that their organism's affective substrate is in a state of recurring value-decay. — Clinical diagnostic, first-person epistemic frame.

Notes

Same observer-mode construction as S146; different referent. la-zo-ze = organism of ze (third party). The speaker (la-mi to) asserts their model; the affective state is attributed to the other person's organism (la-zo-ze).
Register: clinical or analytical. This is the Tonesu form for "I think they're depressed" — but with the epistemic frame explicit (la-mi to = I, as a modeling agent, hold this as my current model).
The la-mi to [...] wrapper makes this clearly attributable: the speaker owns the model. Compare to S152 (bare clinical assertion without epistemic wrapper): la-zo-ze fa vo-de re = flat assertion; la-mi to [la-zo-ze fa vo-de re] = speaker attributes the judgment to themselves. The epistemic-accountability distinction (Domain 6) is live here.

fa-CON-E1 · Connective E1

S148 la-mi se-no. la-mi fa vo-de. I am detecting nothing from the world. My affective substrate nonetheless registers value-decay. — Chemical depression without external cause.

Notes

se-no = signal-absence / no external detection. Not emotional numbness (which would be fa-no, S144) — this is the perception channel reporting nothing incoming. la-mi fa vo-de = substrate active, in value-decay, without any external signal to explain it.
This is the structural argument for why fa must be a separate primitive from se. If affect were reducible to perception (se), la-mi se-no. la-mi fa vo-de. would be contradictory: no signal → no affect. The sentence is grammatically and experientially coherent without contradiction. fa is not a downstream product of se; it is a parallel layer.
Experiential correlates: chemical depression, SSRI baseline change, circadian mood variation, endocrine mood shifts. All cases where bodily chemistry produces affective substrate state independently of incoming perceptual signal.

fa-CON-E2 · Connective E2

S149 la-mi se vo-be lo-du. la-mi fa vo-be. I detect positive quality in the result [external, directed]. And my affective substrate is in positive-rise [internal, undirected]. Two layers of the same positive event reported in sequence.

Notes

se vo-be lo-du = detection of value-increase directed at a specific result (lo-du = patient-marked outcome). External, object-directed perception. fa vo-be = substrate positive-rise without object. Internal, undirected.
English compresses both into "I feel good about this" — a single evaluation that may or may not track two separable phenomena. Tonesu preserves the distinction: the cognitive/evaluative report (se) and the substrate tone (fa) are both present and separately nameable in adjacent clauses.
The two clauses can come apart: an anhedonic speaker might report se vo-be lo-du (I evaluate the outcome positively) while also reporting fa-no (substrate absent). The cognitive evaluation and the felt affect are separable layers. S149 demonstrates the case where they align; S144 demonstrated the case where they don't.

fa-CON-F1 · Connective F1

S150 la-zo-mi de. My body's resources are depleted. — Physical fatigue, not affective state.

Notes

la-zo-mi = organism-of-me as perspective anchor. de = decay/depletion. The construction locates depletion in the biological substrate, not the affective substrate.
This is the fatigue construction. Key contrast: la-zo-mi de ≠ la-mi fa-de. fa-de (S145) = affect-level diminishing. la-zo-mi de = organism's physical resources depleting. They may co-occur (exhausted and emotionally flat) but are different ontological events.
Confirms that la-zo-mi cluster stays separate from fa cluster under corpus pressure. The boundary between body-state and affect-state is active in the grammar.
Compare: la-zo-mi de lo-ra (organism depleted of energy = hunger, S150-alt) — same la-zo-mi frame, with lo-ra (patient: energy) specifying the resource.

fa-CON-F2 · Connective F2

S151 lo-du be. la-mi fa-be. la-mi se vo-be lo-du. The outcome came in. My affect rose. I detect quality-increase when I look at the result. — This sequence is what Tonesu says instead of "I'm happy about the outcome."

Notes

The usage guard (Principle 9, normative): fa-vo-be is not joy; fa-vo-de is not sadness. Named emotional states are derived via process constructions, not via bare fa + quality labels.
This sentence demonstrates the correct Tonesu construction for what English encodes as "I'm happy about this": three stages — external event (lo-du be), substrate activation (la-mi fa-be), directed evaluation (la-mi se vo-be lo-du). No single word covers all three; the sequence is the expression.
The guard is meaningful: la-mi fa-be ≠ "I'm happy" by itself — that's substrate rising without an evaluation. la-mi se vo-be lo-du ≠ "I'm happy" alone — that's a directed evaluation without a substrate report. The full state requires both, and a trigger. English conflates all three layers into a single word.

fa-CON-F3 · Connective F3

S152 la-zo-ze fa vo-de re. la-ze fa-no-to lo-go. Their organism's affective substrate is in a state of recurring value-decay. They have no model of the cause. — Clinical-record register.

Notes

Third-party fa assertion in two clauses. No la-mi to [...] wrapper: the speaker asserts these as flat clinical facts, not as personal epistemic attributions. This is the record-entry register: an objective description.
Compare to S147 (observer mode with la-mi to [la-zo-ze fa vo-de re]): S147 makes the speaker's epistemic stance explicit; S152 omits it. Domain 6 distinction: the observation is either attributed to the observer (S147) or asserted as record (S152). Both are valid; they differ in epistemic-accountability frame.
la-ze fa-no-to lo-go = la-ze as fa-no-to anchor: ze (not zo-ze) holds the unresolved-affect state. The shift from la-zo-ze (organism of ze) to la-ze (ze as agent) for the second clause reflects that fa-no-to is an agent-level state (about forming a model) rather than a purely organism-level state.

fa-CON-F4 · Connective F4

S153 Gloss A: la-mi se-no-to. Gloss B: la-mi fa-no-to. Literal A: agent:I perception-no-model. Literal B: agent:I affect-no-model. Natural A: I detected something; no model formed of what it was. Natural B: My affective substrate is active; no model of why. (A) I detected something; no model formed of what it was. (B) My affective substrate is active; no model of why.

Notes

The W090 se-no-to / fa-no-to pair: same no-to stall, different entry points.
se-no-to (W090): the stall is upstream at the se → to transition. The perceptual signal arrived but did not resolve into a model. "I perceived something I couldn't identify."
fa-no-to: the substrate is active, but the fa → to transition did not occur. "I feel something but I don't know why." There may have been no se event at all — the substrate activated from internal chemistry, and still no model formed.
These can co-occur: la-mi se-no-to. la-mi fa-no-to lo-go. = "Something arrived (couldn't model it) and now affect is up (can't model why either)." The full double- stall scenario. S140 demonstrates this combined form.
English has only "I don't know what I'm feeling" for both. Tonesu separates the perceptual-stall from the substrate-stall, which are experientially distinct: one is about identifying something external; the other is about naming an internal state.

fa-CON-F5 · Connective F5

S154 lo-si-mu be. la-mi fa-be. la-mi fa-no-to lo-go. An official document arrived. My affective substrate rose. The substrate has not resolved into a model of why this document is affecting me.

Notes

lo-si-mu = patient-marked document (si-mu = encoded-artifact = individual record or document, attested S058/S070). be = generation/emergence: the document arrived.
Tests fa-no-to lo-go outside of an interpersonal/relationship context (S134 used it for the breakup scenario) — here it is used for an institutional-signal trigger. The construction is context-independent: (a) a signal created an affective response; (b) the substrate has not resolved into a model of the causal mechanism. This is the generic "I got a result and I don't know how to feel about it" form.
Experiential range: receiving ambiguous test results; a news event that unsettles without explanatory framework; a sudden decision from an institution that arouses affect before understanding. fa-no-to lo-go covers all these cases.
Context independence confirmed: fa-no-to lo-go is not specialized to personal loss. It describes any pipeline stall where the cause-model is specifically absent.

Generated from registry/entries.yaml.