feiksti fu'ivla

x1 does not exist/is not real/is not actual/is not reality/is fake for x2 under metaphysics x3; x1 is a fakester/huxter (no intention of tricking, because it does not exist).

This word is equivalent to tolza'i. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and zasti does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. Given these considerations, I should instead say that zasti is to'e feiksti, rather than going with my original presentation.