Some subjects we speak about philosophically have embedded meaning depending on our choice of words. It is a characteristic of English that causation, essense, qualia and such are embedded within the words we choose to use.
Now you may wish to quality this as linguistics, but rather, it *is* philosophy; it is Philosophy of the nature of Language/its influence/its shaping – take your pick but it’s in the realm of Theory, which is the realm of Philosophy.
-ive having the nature of
Consider that within the language itself, -ive ending has a built-in definition where something can be “of its own nature”. Apples are applive because they have the nature of apples. We don’t generally speak that way but we can.
We tend to say “applish” – which would be “having the quality of”
“Nature of” vs “quality of”.
Essence vs appearance.
Impetus or causation would fall under the -ive class.
Emotive. Having the nature of emotions. To emote.
Constructive. Having the nature of construction. To construct.
Interestingly is the word Objective.
Object has several meanings: I’ll use one. You can choose others.
“a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
“disease became the object of investigation”
Objective implies having the “nature of something which directs actions towards people or things”.
From Latin, “ob: In the way of” “jecere: to throw”.
To be objective is to throw AWAY from self
AT something else.
The separation of self and other is necessary for the process of throwing to take place.
It was in in Middle Ages Latin that an object could be “A THING PRESENTED TO THE MIND”. Notice the separation between thing and mind.
The subject is always implied in object:
a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
The self is not examined in objective.
But it is ever-present and oddly dismissed, considering there can be no objective without subject.