The grammatical way of using 'deformed' ?

In how it stands, I feel inclined to regard a “He was born blind” type of construction to be structurally of a simple sentence, though its concept is sort of explained by a larger syntactical construction (something like the ones I gave above--"He was born blind" does not grammatically derive from "He was blind when he was born", and the latter explains the sense of the former, not its grammar; yes, the meaning of "blind" helps us fix or determine the grammatical category of this word). And in how they stand in such a sentence (which now I would like to consider as simple), the words “blind”, “deaf” and “deformed”, etc. are adjectives, because these words (though there is some adverb-like sense in them, for example they can be the answers to the question “How they were born?”—blind, deaf, and deformed; however, an adverbial question does not necessarily make its answer adverbial), are more qualitative, they speak about the subjects’ attributes, rather than the manner or mode of the action, their birth--how they were born.

On the other hand, in “He came barehanded”, “barehanded” seems to be more a modifier of how he came. This sentence has more meaning left out of its syntactical bounds—it seems he came to some place where there is something like some physical confrontations or he should mend some machine, and there is the need of some arms or weapons or some tools. However, when a weapon or a tool should have been necessary, he came barehanded. Thus, “barehanded” seems (to me) to be more a modifier of his action “came” (how he came), than a qualifier of “He”, as it would be in the case of “He is barehanded”.

It seems to depend on how one understands the sentences. If one understands “barehanded” as an adverb, the significance of the sentence would be different from that of the same sentence when one understands the word (barehanded) as an adjective. But what matters, it seems to me, is which understanding is more appropriate.