You ain't gonna get there because there's no there there.
It's a fantastic start for this topic point though Brad.
If you remember frog is as much an attribute as green.
Or better still, frog, in this case is a marker (to use Derridan terminology), or a data point. Better still, in the instance of 'The frog is green', it's a key field to a record. In your statement, 'It's a green frog', frog becomes even more apparent as merely a field, an attribute of 'it'.
But what is it? Really? Or what is the data a record of?
What we prefer to think of as an it, a WHAT, a something, a noun, (and is in this case represented by the information we recognize as frog) is like all 'whats' better understood as an event. Or better said a culmination of events. It, is the culmination of events that we understand to have the attributes associated with a green frog,
As opposed to the entire body of events that might be associated with being any other set of events at any other point in time. Or non-events.
In time, if the what is associated with the set of events we recognize as a chameleon frog, what we recognize as a green frog may become a brown, or red frog. Or yet still a dead frog. Or topsoil.
And, lest we forget HUP, it is the set of events that we understand to have the attributes associated with a green frog, now, that the sets of events known as we, are OBSERVING.
But if there are two frogs, we would, obviously need to add another identifier that would in that context become the key field -- the green frog, the red frog, the big green frog, the little green frog --
And like smells in a room, that we might notice when we walk in, our senses become tired of them quickly -- that is to say our brain ignores the data when there is no differentiation or new data, and we don't 'smell' the smell anymore, but it doesn't mean the smell isn't there... but with no further need to differentiate the data sets as green or frog -- big and little become sufficient...
or if there were ten green frogs we may even resort to proper names -- Fred, Ethel, Ricky, Lucy, Little Ricky...Kermit.
None of which is possible without first having assembled the data, or paradigm, 'frog'. Without the abstraction we cannot recognize Kermit IS a green frog, let alone that he is KERMIT the green frog.
But since WE are observing Kermit there are really two Kermits, KERMIT/Hawke, KERMIT/Brad.
And since all events exist in time and have a beginning and end the culmination of events we associate with Kermit will indeed end, and with the end of events known as we the specific abstractions of Kermit also end -- without ever really understanding the culmination of events KERMIT/n (the abstraction) represented. We may tell people of Kermit and they may have their own abstraction of frog, and Kermit the green frog -- but with our demise KERMIT/Hawke, KERMIT/Brad is gone.
True things must always be in the form of a proposition or statement and in order to do that you require a language or mind.
No language or mind, no true statements.
So, within our own langscape we can 'know' that this specific statement IS 'true';
The culmination of events under observation right now match the data sets retained by Brad and Hawke that define the attributes frog, green, and Kermit and having done so satisfy the greater abstraction of KERMIT/n.
Does anyone begin to see why in Hebrew thought God could have no name but only be described as the great 'I Am'? Is the aversion to idolatry equally understood? Even 'I Am' is somewhat lost in the English langscape because ours is a syntax driven language where Hebrew is given equally to morphology.
Naming God, even the word God, eventizes the IS.
IS is IS and not was or yet.
Therefore it could only be written YHWH -- not even a word -- but the acronym of the words, because even in word an abstraction is formed -- an idol becomes erected in the mind. (By word all (abstractions) are created.)
God becomes a 'What', and not, IS.
The WHAT of God does exist -- as abstraction -- as people alter the WHAT then THAT God may cease to particularly exist.
It is the ISNESS of God that IS but, is not -- 'there'.