I don't want "to be"

Something tickled me today. I always wondered, how necessary are all the distinctions between various types of word? Or sub-categories of word? Some just don’t seem necessary. What if instead of having to introduce your state of being with the verb “to be” (is/are/am), you could just say with a word that you are in that state?

Consider the phrase:

the camel is blue

This ‘is’ (are/am) crops up everywhere. One of its major functions simply being to relate nouns (like “camel”) to adjectives describing their state of being (like “blue”). Would it not be nice to just have a verb form of “blue” that means “to be blue”?

YES IT WOULD. Don’t worry, Esperanto will save us.

The Esperanto word for blue is blua. And we could just translate this sentence like this:

la kamelo estas blua

Which is literally “The camel is blue”.

However, we don’t have to settle for that! If like me, you think the verb “to be” is unjustly popular (like vim or league of legends) then you can change blua into a verb meaning “to be blue” by simply changing the “a” to an “i”: blui.

Now, we whack this into the present tense bluas “is blue”. And voila:

la kamelo bluas