I do not understand the question. What's the missing verb?

Are you asking did korzybski write anywhere that ... ?

A nice example of how non-standard usage requires extra transactions before understanding occurs.

I had no difficulty inferring that he was using "word" as a synonym for "write". - easy to say after the fact.

When one uses 'word' as a verb, it requires an antecedent or an object (to be changed or altered in some way). We "word" something in some way. It's structure necessitates both a territory and a map where the territory (antecedent or object) gets an altered or a particular structure. Using 'word' as a synonym for 'write' violates this structure, because write only implies the creation of something.

How did Ben "word" (map) his inquiry (territory)? He "worded" (map) it (territory) in a way that differed significantly from the these paradigm case examples of this particular use of 'word'.

In this usage 'word' implies a way of saying or writing something while 'reword' implies a way of saying or writing something already said or written.

"Normal" 'word' use differs structurally from 'write' use in the context of "ever said" or exist.

Example: Did Korzybski ever word the so-called "law of identity" differently from "whatever is, is."?


In response to the "intent" of the original question, a search revealed that there are no instances of "action exists" or "actions exist" in the collected works CD, and by personal inspection, all instances of "action is" and "actions are" do not meet your context criteria. That would include all the stuff that others wrote that is included in the Collected Works CD.