How such an undertaking gets carried out and to what extent it is valid clearly depends on the fundamental conception of Being that guides it.
The determination of the essence of language, and even the act of asking about it, regulates itself in each case according to what has become the prevailing preconception about the essence of beings and about how we comprehend essence. But essence and Being speak in language. The reference to this connection is important here, because we are asking about the word “Being.” If we make use of the traditional grammar and its forms in this grammatical designation of the word, as is at first unavoidable, then in this particular case, we must do so with the fundamental reservation that these grammatical forms are insufficient for what we are striving toward. In the course of our study we will show that this is so in regard to one essential grammatical form.
But this demonstration will soon dispel the impression that what is at issue is just an improvement in grammar. What is really at issue is an essential clarification of the essence of Being as regards its essential involvement with the essence of language. We should keep this in mind in what follows, so that we do not mistake the linguistic and grammatical investigations for a barren and irrelevant game. We will ask 1) about the grammar, and 2) about the etymology of the word “Being.” [42|58]
I. The Grammar of the Word “Being”
What sort of word is this, “Being,” as regards its form as a word? “Being” <das Sein> corresponds to “going,” “falling,” “dreaming” <das Gehen, das Fallen, das Träumen>, etc. These linguistic forms behave like the words “bread,” “house,” “grass,” “thing.”