ENThis paper applies a five-facet typology to the problem ofmorphological adaptation of adjectival borrowings in modern Latvian and compares the adaptation strategies employed by Latvian to those adopted by the genetically closely related Lithuanian (Pakerys forth. b). Section 2 presents a general overview of available strategies for adjective adaptation, each of which is then discussed in more detail: zero morphological adaptation (Section 3), addition of inflectional affixes (Section 4), addition of aderivational suffix (Section 5), substitution of the existing derivational suffix (Section 6), truncation of the existing derivational suffix (Section 7).