This essay explores the fundamental structure of reality through the lens of linguistics and ontology, proposing that reality is constituted by two basic linguistic categories: nouns and verbs. I argue that all entities are reducible to these two elements, yet each depends on the other for existence and meaning.
A noun requires existence—a process or state, which is itself a verb—and any verb necessitates a subject or object to enact it, which must be a noun. The recursive interdependence between nouns and verbs is analyzed to reveal deeper ontological implications and an interconnected view of existence.
Introduction
Language shapes not just how we communicate but also how we understand the world around us. Linguistics posits that nouns and verbs are the most basic grammatical categories, representing objects and actions respectively. Philosophically, these linguistic structures can be extended to ontology: nouns correspond to things that are, while verbs correspond to processes, changes, or becoming. This raises a profound question—can reality itself be thought of as reducible to these two categories? If so, do these two categories exhibit interdependence, each relying on the other for meaning and existence?
The Linguistic Foundations of Reality: Nouns and Verbs as Ontological Markers
From a linguistic perspective, a noun is traditionally defined as a word used to denote a person, place, thing, or idea, while a verb denotes an action, state, or occurrence. In natural languages, nouns provide stability and identity, while verbs introduce dynamism and change.
In ontology, these linguistic roles map neatly onto philosophical categories. Nouns correspond to beings, things or entities, which maintain a certain identity over time. Verbs correspond to becoming, change, or events, which represent the processes that shape or express existence.
However, the philosophical problem arises when one considers the dependence of nouns on verbs and vice versa. A noun must exist to be anything at all—implying that to be a noun is to enact the verb “to be”. On the other hand, every verb implies a subject or agent—a noun—that is acting, undergoing, or experiencing.
This interdependence suggests a recursive relationship between identity and process, a dynamic which neither noun nor verb can escape.
Existence as a Verb: Ontological Implications
One of the primary arguments in process philosophy is that existence is not static but fundamentally dynamic. To “be” is not to exist as a frozen, unchanging object but to participate in an ongoing process. This notion complicates the idea of nouns as stable referents. If every noun only exists by virtue of the verb “to be,” then nouns are not merely static entities—they are also inherently tied to processes of becoming.
For example, the noun “tree” presupposes the ongoing process of the tree growing, changing, and interacting with its environment. Thus, the being of any noun is enacted through a verb. This line of thought aligns with Martin Heidegger’s concept of Being as an active unfolding, which cannot be reduced to a mere label but involves engagement with the world.
Verbs and Nouns: The Dependence on Agency
While nouns cannot exist without the verb “to be,” the reverse is also true—any verb needs a noun to express itself. Verbs such as “grow,” “move,” or “exist” require a subject, an actor, or an entity through which the action manifests. Even abstract verbs like “think” presuppose a thinker, and “exist” presupposes that which exists.
This dependency suggests that reality is inherently relational, where action and identity are inseparable. In the absence of a noun, a verb cannot manifest meaning. Consider the verb “to fall”—without a falling object, the action is incoherent.
This relational interdependence suggests that being and becoming are two sides of the same coin—identity only becomes meaningful through change, and change can only occur through something that has identity.
Recursive Ontology: A Dance Between Noun and Verb
The recursive nature of nouns and verbs points toward a non-dualistic ontology, where the two categories are not distinct but constantly feed into each other. This resonates with Advaita Vedānta, which emphasizes the unity of being and becoming, and with Daoism, which highlights the interplay between yin and yang—opposites that give rise to one another. There are many other names for it, possibly-
- potentiality and manifestation
- purusha and prakriti
- shiva and shakti
- intentionality and instantiation
In this view, reality is not made up of independent objects or isolated processes but is a dance between identity and action, substance and change. A tree is not merely a noun; it is a verb in process—it is growing, interacting, decaying. Similarly, growth is not just a verb; it implies the existence of an entity—a tree—that undergoes growth. Just as language requires both nouns and verbs to construct meaningful sentences, reality requires both objects and actions to manifest meaningfully. We can come to view reality as a relational, dynamic whole, where identity and process co-arise.