Adjectives

1. Adjectives

In Blaken, “adjectives” are not a primitive lexical class. They are derived states or relations built by attaching an adjectivizer to any root. The adjectivizer determines whether the meaning is (i) a simple property/relation, (ii) a result state, (iii) a latent potential, or (iv) the negation of any of these.

1.1. Main Adjective Types

Blaken has four productive adjectival patterns.

• * *

1.1.1. -ko Adjectives (ADJ)

The suffix -ko derives a relational or characteristic property. It anchors the root as a salient quality, disposition, or topic of the referent, without encoding completion or modality.

It does not mark tense, aspect, or eventhood.

Examples:

blin-ko

blin-ADJ

loving | affectionate

bɒn-ko

big-ADJ big

num-ko sad-ADJ sad

bla-ko speak-ADJ speech-related | verbal

Proper names may also take -ko to mark referential or social association (often interpreted as kinship or affiliation by discourse convention).

• * *

1.1.2. -blom Adjectives (RES)

The suffix -blom derives a resultative state. It presupposes a completed event whose core is the root. The referent is interpreted as affected and now in the post-event state. External agents are not required; internal events (emotional change, realization) qualify.

Examples:

bla-blom speak-RES spoken

grom-blom eat-RES eaten

blin-blom love-RES loved

num-blom sad-RES made sad | saddened

• * *

1.1.3. -blø Adjectives (POT)

The suffix -blø encodes latent potential / affordance: the referent is compatible with undergoing the root-event. This is patient-oriented potential, not agent ability or intention. It does not imply that the event occurs, only that it is possible in principle or context.

Examples:

grom-blø eat-POT edible

bɒn-blø big-POT capable of growth | growable

blin-blø love-POT lovable

bla-blø speak-POT speakable

Contrast (important to state explicitly): Adjectival -blø ≠ verbal ability or permission. It describes the object’s affordance, not an agent’s capacity.

• * *

1.1.4. -wɨ Negation of States (NEG)

The morpheme -wɨ negates states, not events. It denies the presence of a derived state, property, or existential condition. Canonical order:

ROOT + wɨ + {ko | blom | blø}

Negation of -ko (property absence)

prin-wɨ-ko hate-NEG-ADJ without hatred | hateless

bla-wɨ-ko speak-NEG-ADJ speechless

num-wɨ-ko sad-NEG-ADJ without sorrow

glel-wɨ-ko liquid-NEG-ADJ non-liquid

Negation of -blom (non-result)

bla-wɨ-blom speak-NEG-RES unspoken

grom-wɨ-blom eat-NEG-RES uneaten

blin-wɨ-blom love-NEG-RES unloved

num-wɨ-blom sad-NEG-RES not made sad

Negation of -blø (impossibility)

grom-wɨ-blø eat-NEG-POT inedible

bɒn-wɨ-blø big-NEG-POT incapable of growth

blin-wɨ-blø love-NEG-POT unlovable

bla-wɨ-blø speak-NEG-POT unspeakable

• * *

1.2. Adjective Nominalization (Head Insertion)

Adjectives may be nominalized by inserting a generic head noun that receives the adjectival modification.

This yields the meaning “the one / the thing that is ADJ”.

Minimal examples:

blin-ko ɸøn love-ADJ being the loving one

num-ko ɸøn sad-ADJ being the sad person

bla-blom mon speak-RES thing the spoken thing | the utterance

grom-blø mon eat-POT thing the edible thing

Integrated examples (your originals, cleaned):

gjof-ken ɸwaɲa-ko ɸøn-blum gwo search/find-IPFV.DIR happy-ADJ being-AGT truth The happiness-seeking one searches for truth.

trjom-trjom dom-wɨ-ken num-ko mon-prum tør tin, aχaχ tin tin time-time EXIST-NEG-IPFV.DIR sad-ADJ thing-PAT outside LOC inside LOC LOC Often sadness is not outside, but inside.

1.3. Adjectives and Compounding

Relational adjectives formed with -ko may alternatively be realized as compounds, by omitting the adjectivizer and directly merging the morphemes.

The two strategies encode the same conceptual relation, but differ in grammatical status:

• -ko constructions remain syntactically transparent and descriptive
• Compounds lexicalize the relation as a unified concept

Examples:

blin-ko ɸøn love-ADJ being a loving person

blinɸøn love-being a lover

bla-ko dom speak-ADJ place a speaking-related place

bladom speak-place language space | forum

Compounding is often preferred when:

• the relation is stable or culturally salient
• lexical economy is desired
• the compound does not exceed the four-morpheme limit

It is avoided when:

• the relation is temporary
• the referent is discourse-specific
• ambiguity would arise