But why do participles have two meanings? Is it because they take part in two meanings? No, rather these words are participles because what they state is always applied to what is in itself twofold. Blossoming in its meaning as a noun designates a being that is blossoming. Blossoming in its meaning as a verb designates "to be in bloom." ·when the word is used in its nominal meaning, "something blossoming," it is no longer specifically stated that this something is, of course, a being; and no more does the word "to be" find expression when the word "blossoming" is used as a verb. What is the upshot of all this?
The participle ἐόν, being, is not just one more participle among countless others; ἐόν, ens, being is the participle which gathers all other possible participles into itself. The dual meaning of participles stems from the duality of what they tacitly designate. But this dualism in its turn stems from a distinctive duality that is concealed in the word ἐόν, being. One might suppose that participles like blossoming, sounding, flowing, aching are concrete, while the participle ἐόν, being, is always abstract. The opposite is true.
The participle in which all the rest have their roots, in which they grow together (concrescere), and from which they continuously grow, though without specifically expressing it, is that participle which speaks from a unique and therefore distinctive duality. In keeping with that dual nature, a being has its being in Being, and Being persists as the Being of a being. There does not exist another kind of twofoldness that can compare with this.
"Participle" is a grammatical term. What it refers to, fundamentally though not explicitly, is that duality which,. linguistically and grammatically, by way of the words u, ὄν, ens, being, is counted as apparently one among all the other participles. The grammarians of ancient Rome took their terms for the various word forms from the Greek grammarians. The investigations of the Greek grammarians