Proto-Tallic had no adjectives, but rather abstract measurable nouns that could receive an intensive suffix *-mne or a mollitive suffix *-we which denoted an abstract notion of strength or intensity. For example, *tra ’size’ could become *tra-mne ’large size’, *tra-we ’small size’. Nouns of this kind in Talmit became states, a new part of speech; but Kymna developed adjectives out of them.
After r, l the intensive suffix *-mne became -me, merging with collective *-mai > -me and was resubstituted by analogy after vowels where historically *-mne would have been retained. From *-mne, two adjectival suffixes originated. After a vowel, by influence of the attributive verb ending *-una, words like *twi-m(ne)-na > tymna ’lively’, *pwi-m(ne)-na > pymna ’full’ have developed and were reinterpreted as adjectival formations with -na of the abstract nouns tyme, pyme. Since *mn gave m after r, l, this new adjectival ending -na has a positional variant -ma (itself having merged with the genitive -ma < *mo) after these consonants. Thus the following correspondence can be found:
Where the original root had a signum distinction, -Vna is used instead of -Vmna, probably because *-mne was not very frequent with these roots. Thus √tle > K. talena ’warm’ (T. taléwe ’warm state’, talémne ’hot state’, but talé is enough to indicate a not further quantified warmness), √pla *a-pla-na > ālana ’good’ (T. palá ’state of being liked’).
The mollitive ending *-we would have given *-y/*-i in Kymna, but it mostly disappeared. Small values on the scale are therefore derived from different roots, sometimes unrecorded in Talmit or loaned from other languages. For example, √tra ’size’ becomes K. tramna ’large’, while tysta ’small’ seems to be from the same root √twets as T. twésta ’berry’. The root √tle ’temperature’ yields K. talena ’warm’, but sosolma ’cold’ < √khodl, whence T. hódol ’ice’. Thus the intensive/mollitive pattern dissolves, making way for purely lexical differences.
The positive signum marker a- was more often a prefix than an infix in Kymna. Because of the arising lexical differences it often became superfluous, and was reinterpreted as an intensive prefix in the usual sense. For example, √phril yields K. frīma ’open’, afrīma ’very open’ (T. ϕrίl or ϕarίl ’degree of openness’). By analogy, it expanded beyond the original usage and so a word like atalena ’very warm’ actually has the same signum morpheme twice, first as an infix -a- (√tle > talena ’warm’), lexically fixed and no longer regarded as a morpheme; then as an analogical intensive prefix a-.
Similarly, the negative signum marker i- became a simple negative prefix ’un-, dis-’: √klun > klunna ’clothed’, ychlunna ’naked, unclothed’ (T. kalún ’clothed state’, kilún ’naked state’).
The comparative in Kymna has become analytical and is formed with the modifiers emne ’more’ and evi ’less’ < *e-wə.
Adverbs are formed by replacing final -a of adjectives by -eidze (grodzumeidze ’strongly’, taleneidze ’warmly’). This is a reflex of the Proto-Tallic comitative ending *jesə (jésse in Talmit). Since the proto-language had only abstract nouns, adverbs were formed by the comitative: ’warmly = with warmth’ and so on.