Set-denoting adjectives, such as aardig'nice' and blauw'blue' in (25), denote a property of the modified noun (phrase), and have the syntactic property that they can normally be used both attributively and predicatively. In the (a)-examples of (25), for example, the property of being kind is ascribed to (de) jongen'(the) boy' by means of, respectively, an attributively and a predicatively used adjective. The set-denoting adjectives also express a kind-of relation, which can be informally described as “N has the property A"; see Section 1.3.2 for a detailed discussion.

Relational adjectives differ from set-denoting adjectives in that they do not denote a property. Nevertheless, they do express a kind-of relation between two separate entities. Normally, these adjectives can only be used attributively. Some typical examples are given in (26).

The kind-of relation expressed in (26a) can be paraphrased as “N is about morphology", the one in (26b) as “N belongs to the nobility", the one in (26c) as “N appears everyday", and the one in (26d) as “N is situated in the Netherlands". Observe that the adjectives in (26a-d) are all derived from nouns, and this seems indeed to be a characteristic of this type of adjective. Note also that the expressed kind-of relation is often contextually or culturally determined and may require substantial knowledge of the actual world. This will become clear when we consider the examples in (27).

Example (27a) expresses that we are dealing with a lapsus linguae that is in some relation with the psychologist Sigmund Freud. The precise interpretation, which is culturally determined in this case, is that we are dealing with a slip of the tongue caused by some subconscious mechanism that expresses something about the disposition of the speaker, a topic that has been studied by Freud. In the apparently similar case in (27b), the relation is of a totally different nature: chomskiaanse taalkunde refers to the branch of linguistics developed by (the followers of) the American linguist Noam Chomsky.
      Occasionally, the relation is metaphorical in nature. Een vorstelijk salaris in (28a), for example, refers to a very high salary (a salary that would be appropriate for a monarch), and een vaderlijke terechtwijzing in (28b) need not refer to a reproof given by a father, but by someone who behaves likes a father. In other cases, like (28c&d), we are dealing with more or less fixed combinations, often belonging to a certain jargon. The relational adjectives are more extensively discussed in Section 1.3.3.

Although the evaluative adjectives attribute a positive or negative value to the modified noun, this is generally not done by virtue of their descriptive content, as in the case of the predicative adjectives, but in a more indirect way. Neither do they (synchronically speaking) establish a kind-of relation with another entity. Example (29a) is probably self-explanatory in this respect. Example (29b) shows that evaluative adjectives cannot be used predicatively. See Section 1.3.4 for more discussion.

The three classes discussed in the previous subsections leave us with a residue, which consists of adjectives that are often comparable to adverbial phrases. Modal adjectives, for instance, resemble modal adverbs in the sense that they express a modal meaning. The adjective vermeend'alleged/supposed' in (30a), for instance, expresses that the person we are talking about has been mistaken for or is supposed to be the culprit, and the adjective potentieel'potential' in (30b) expresses that the entity we are talking about may turn out to be a counterexample. Like the relational and evaluative adjectives, the modal adjectives cannot be used predicatively. See Section 1.3.5 for more discussion.