Talk:-лый

I don’t see how cases like блёклый — блёкнуть and тухлый — тухнуть can be separated. They are identical both historically and synchronically. This is a single suffix deriving adjectives from verbs, historically identical to the past tense suffix: -ну- is specifically a present tense marker, therefore not present in the past tense or derivations. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. The distinction I'm trying to make is between more-or-less primary adjectives and clearly derived adjectives. Adjectives of the first type typically have short forms c', c or a', which suggests to me that they're primary, and have typically adjectival meanings, whereas adjectives of the second type are clearly derived and only have short forms a when the short forms exist, and have more of a verbal meaning ("burnt", "faded", etc.). Verbs in -нуть can similarly be both primary and derived; the primary verbs don't (necessarily) have -нуть in the past, whereas the derived verbs do. Note also that some adjectives of the first type cannot be derived from verbs, e.g. кру́глый (no *кру́гнуть). Benwing2 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s the English translation which makes блёклый look ‘more verbal’, there is no real difference. поблёкший is verbal. тухнуть and блёкнуть both normally don’t have -ну- in the past tense. And I don’t see how accent is relevant here. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
I have added the etymology, but it’s only unambiguously correct for the deverbal forms. The -л of denominal forms like must somehow have the same origin, but I cannot prove it. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Seems like you did what you could. I can't think of any improvement. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)