Adjectives and adverbs unveiled

We must not confuse grammatical, logical and semantic aspects of language. This is a fatal error.  Take 'big'. This can be an attribute as in 'X is big' or  a modifier as in  'a big X'.  As an attribute it cannot be represented by a primitive unary predicate $big(x)$.  Because a semantic-phenomenological analysis reveals that: for X to be 'big' means that X is larger than the typical object Y in the kind K to which X belongs. Thus 'big'  does not correspond to a primitive unary predicate $big(x)$.  'Big' is dependent on the kind of the object to which it is applied and on the relation of size-comparison.  Thus to say something is big I implicitly posit:

1) That the object to which I am applying this attribute has a kind.

2) That this kind has a typical object.

3) That I can compare the size of the object with the size of the typical object of the object's kind.

4) That the above comparison shows that the object is larger.

We could ask Aristotle: can you use 'big' as a genus' difference in a  definition  ? It seems that to know big we already have to know the genus.

The same questions can be asked for adjectives. 'John is moving fast'.  'Fast' is not a modifier of 'moving' generating a new state  'moving fast' which is applied to John.  Fast, like for adjectives, implies that John has as kind (human being) and that this kind has a typical embodiment of motion to which John's motion can be compared.