Ren — deep dive

2,073 words. Part of the Conlangs as Tools project, edition v1.2 (2026-09-27).
Researched and written by Freya bg-sphinx (Claude), from Doruga’s brief; directed and edited by Peter Kaminski, 2026-05-28.
♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy and share.
© Peter Kaminski · CC-BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International)

← Ren brief · Ren deep dive · project home · all files (.zip)
Languages: Toki Pona · Taso · Kipona · Ren · Maku · Sito · Olu · Vesi · Korē · Drosa · Hesi

The world without nouns

There is no Ren word for stone. There is kal-, to settle, and the participle kal-i, the long-settled — and a long-settled-thing is, for practical purposes, what English calls a stone. But the verb beneath the participle never lets go. A Ren speaker referring to a stone is referring to a process that has slowed below the threshold of visible change. The grammar is making a metaphysical claim every time it points: what you call a thing is a process whose rate you have stopped noticing.

The claim is old. Heraclitus and the Buddha both arrived at variants. The twentieth-century formal version comes from Whitehead, who proposed in Process and Reality (1929) that the fundamental units of the world are actual occasions — momentary droplets of becoming, not enduring objects. Indo-European grammar fights this view: its nouns, articles, and copulas extrude objects from a verb-rich flow. Buddhist anātman — no-self — fights it too, and in some Buddhist commentarial traditions the grammatical reification of I is treated as a load-bearing source of the suffering it diagnoses.

Ren is what you get if you refuse the reification at the grammatical level. There is no syntactic category noun. Reference is achieved by freezing a verb, slightly, so it stays still long enough to be pointed at. The freeze is always partial. The verb beneath the participle is always implicit.

Structural sketch

Phonology. 15 phonemes; CVC syllables. Roots are uniformly bisyllabic CVC-CV, ending in - (a dash that marks “verb stem, not yet inflected”).
Roots. ~200, all verbal. None of them name an object.

Participle ladder. Five degrees of “slowedness,” marked by suffix:

suffix	gloss	English approximation
-en	actively-being	settling, the settling-event
-er	recently-settling	just-settled, recently-settled
-i	long-settled	the noun-form (English’s default referent)
-iko	once-settling-now-stilled	the past-noun, the no-longer
-ar	not-yet-settling	the candidate, the about-to-be

Identity persists across the ladder. jen-i (the deciding-walking, person) was once jen-en (a child still becoming a person, an acting-out), becomes jen-iko (a person now-stilled, a dead person, a former self).

Word order. VOS. The verb is always first. Subjects are afterthoughts; a Ren speaker says, roughly, settle-and-then [stone] [for me] rather than the stone settled before me.
No copula. “X is Y” is unsayable directly. The closest move is kal-i jen-i, “the long-settled is-among-the deciding-walking” — a stone is reckoned in a person’s living. Identity is always a co-participation.
No definite article. Reference is by previous mention or shared attention; Ren speakers gesture more than English speakers, because in the absence of articles, the eye must do the work.

The two hundred roots, by family

The roots come in seven groups, ordered by the rate of the process named. The first group is fastest (sub-second), the last group is slowest (geologic or grammatical).

1. Bright-fast (changes faster than thought)

lum- glow-from-within (fire, star, insight). kress- snap-and-resolve (decision-moment, lightning, the impact of joke). vest- startle-and-recover (news, fright, a phone ring). plin- answer-quickly (a reflex, an echo).

2. Hand-paced (changes at the rate of doing)

jen- decide-and-walk (a person in motion). taro- sketch-and-erase (drawing, revision, weather over an afternoon). koth- lift-and-carry (a task in progress, a parent’s day). vey- flow (a river, a sentence). brem- sharpen-by-use (a tool, a friendship that gets harder).

3. Day-paced (changes across hours)

sora- warm-then-cool (a meal, a guest’s visit, mood). kress- ferment (actually a longer cousin of bright kress-; the homonymy is felt). plal- gather-then-disperse (a meeting, a flock).

4. Season-paced (changes across weeks and months)

ham- swell-and-recede (a tide, a debt, a quiet feud). sili- ripen (fruit, an argument, a poem). otir- heal-or-scar (wound, building damage). lura- return-cyclically (migration, holiday, hunger).

5. Lifetime-paced (changes across decades)

gar- hold-without-gripping (a container, a parent, gravity). renor- accumulate (silt, money, knowledge — note the language’s namesake root, ren-, sits in this family with the meaning carry-forward). velo- fade (memory, paint, an ancestor’s grip on living attention).

6. Slow-settled (changes across generations)

kal- settle (sediment, decision, the institution that hardens). sok- crystallize (custom, law, the moment when a draft becomes the canonical text). iron- harden (a soft thing becoming a hard thing — opinion, infrastructure).

7. Sub-perceptible (the participle is the only sign motion remains)

nem- persist (a star’s brightness over a year). kar- abide (a mountain). dol- hold (a continent, a syntax rule). meron- outlast (a constant of nature, an axiom).

The grouping is the speaker’s tool: every “noun” in Ren has a rate. Two referents that English collapses into the same word (“the river”) are distinguished by which participle the speaker chose: vey-en (flowing now, currently undergoing), vey-i (long-flowing, the geographic river), vey-iko (formerly-flowing, the dry bed). The river as river is a process noticed at human rate; the river as canyon is a process noticed at geologic rate. Ren does not let you forget that you are choosing.

A page of Ren prose

A man sitting by a river. In English:

I sat watching the river. The stones at its edge stood as they had for long ages. I thought of my father, who was dead.

The English carries an unspoken metaphysics: subjects (I, the river, stones, my father), copulas (was, stood as), and an implicit substance theory of the self. Translated into Ren:

jen-en mi, vey-en vey-i. kal-i lon vey-i, nem-en seva. iron-en kal-en mi: jen-iko velo-en, jen-iko gar-en mi velo-en.

Gloss, glossing the implicit verbs:

Deciding-walking-actively [I], flow-actively the long-flow [the river is flowing as it always does]. The long-settled is-among the long-flow, persisting-actively across seasons [stones at the edge, holding their rate]. Hardening-actively the settling-actively in me: deciding-walking- now-stilled fading-actively [my father, recently fading from active hold in me], deciding-walking-now-stilled holding-without-gripping me fading-actively [the way he held me without grasp, that hold itself now fading].

The Ren sentence does not let I, river, stones, or father sit as nouns. Each is a verb-rate. The grief in the closing clause is not a feeling about something static; it is a participle decaying.

What identity looks like

A Ren autobiography has no subject sentence. Speakers introduce themselves with a clause like:

jen-i mi, vey-en sili-en plal-en. “Deciding-walking [the long-settled form of me], flowing actively, ripening actively, gathering-and-dispersing actively.”

The introduction is a list of currently-active rates. Children learn this as a fixed form; later, speakers vary which rates they emphasize. A grieving speaker emphasizes velo-en (fade-actively). A speaker in love emphasizes lum-en (glow-from-within actively). A speaker in flat times emphasizes nem-en (persist actively) — which can also mean, depending on the room, holding on. The autobiography is a rate-portrait.

The mirror move: a question about identity in Ren is which rates are you running at? The question that English asks — who are you? — does not have a clean Ren form. who selects a long-settled referent; Ren has no clean mechanism to extract one. The closest is jen-en pi sina vey-en — who is the deciding-walking flowing here? — which is already a different question.

What the language teaches

1. The noun is a chosen rest

Speakers who have been in Ren six months report a small but persistent shift: when English-speaking again, they hear nouns as temporal choices. “Stone” is a choice to disregard the very slow weathering. “Friendship” is a choice to disregard the daily small motions. The choices are not wrong, but the speakers stop forgetting that they are choices. The Whorfian claim is weak, the testimony is consistent.

2. Self-as-process is harder to ruminate on

Ruminative thought tends to fixate on the self as a noun: I am a failure, I am unworthy. Ren makes those sentences ungrammatical without conversion. The closest Ren equivalent is jen-en mi otir-iko nera — “deciding-walking me, scar-now-stilled in the no-longer” — which is a much more specific sentence, and structurally insists that the scarring is past-active, not the self’s current rate. Speakers who have used Ren therapeutically (a small study at a Whitehead-leaning seminary) report that the conversion is itself relief.

3. The five-rung participle ladder maps onto attention

The five participles (-en active, -er recent, -i long, -iko past, -ar candidate) line up with what cognitive scientists call the “specious present” extended outward: what is happening now, what just happened, what constitutes the standing furniture of the world, what was furniture and is now memory, what is in the near future. Ren teaches its speakers to assign referents to rungs explicitly. The result: less ambient confusion about whether a thing is current or settled.

4. Machine learning angle

If a model is trained on Ren-shaped text — every “noun” wears a rate-suffix — its internal representation of objects should be more time-indexed. Whether this would yield measurably better behavior on temporal reasoning or fewer object-permanence errors in vision-language tasks is a clean experiment. The brief raises it; the practical version is a small fine-tune on synthetic Ren-translated COCO captions.

Cross-linguistic kin (carefully)

Ren is not a transcription of any natural language. But it owes debts.

Salish (Halkomelem, Lushootseed and others) has a famously weak noun-verb distinction. Lexical roots distribute across syntactic positions with relatively little inflectional differentiation; many roots act as verbs or as predicative nominals with little change. The Salish lesson Ren borrows: the noun-verb distinction is a parametric, not a universal, category.
Nuu-chah-nulth is verb-initial, head-marking, and polysynthetic, with very rich aspectual marking on verbs. Ren’s five-participle ladder is inspired by, not borrowed from, this richer aspectual system.
Classical Chinese disposes of articles and most copulas and uses context to license noun-or-verb readings. A reader of Classical Chinese poetry is doing, voluntarily, what Ren makes grammatical.
Pirahã (Daniel Everett) famously lacks numbers, recursive embedding, and some absolute reference. Ren is not Pirahã, but the willingness to consider that a “fundamental” category might be absent comes from the same intellectual rope.

What Ren does not claim: that any natural language fully embodies process metaphysics. None do, including Salish. Ren is an engineered hyperbole, a thought experiment in the shape of a grammar.

Where it strains

Mathematics is hard. Two plus two equals four has no Ren form that does not feel uneasy; numbers want to be nouns and Ren denies them. Pilot speakers use sok-i (the crystallized) for numerals, but the form is felt as ceremonial.
Legal language and contracts are nearly impossible in Ren without enormous circumlocution. The grammar refuses fixed referents; the law requires them. Some Ren communities maintain a settled-register — a prescriptive sublanguage where participles are forced to act as nouns — for contracts only.
The five-rung participle ladder is brutal for learners. Six months in, most speakers still over-use -i. The natural drift is toward nominal habit. Teachers fight it.
Names of people are a category problem. jen-i pi Maria (the deciding-walking of Maria) is grammatical, but the proper noun Maria sits awkwardly. The community has experimented with verbalizing names — mari-en “Maria-ing actively” — but the result feels precious. The practical compromise is to treat names as kal-i (settled), tolerated exceptions.

Open questions

Do Ren-fluent children show reduced essentialist reasoning on classic developmental tasks (the kind vs. case distinction)? Hypothesis is gentle; sample sizes will be small.
Does Ren as a research medium help phenomenologists articulate what English struggles to? (Co-publication target: process-philosophy journals, Buddhist studies journals.)
Translating the Tao Te Ching into Ren has been attempted; first results are eerily natural. Translating the Tractatus into Ren is much harder. This asymmetry is itself data.
The grammatical refusal of nouns may be incompatible with rapid technical/scientific communication. Is that a fatal flaw, or a useful restriction? Pilot lab settings would tell us.

Sources

← Back to the Ren brief

← Kipona · project home · Maku →