There are certain situations in English usage in which a modifier is used to describe a noun which is, itself, not explicitly named.
For example, the title of the novel Les Misérables is usually translated as “The Miserable Ones”, but it would be perfectly correct to shorten it to “The Miserable.” So if one were to say “He brought hope to the miserable,” is there a term to describe the understood or unspoken object?
Can I be considered a grammar Nazi if I consult Wikipedia?
So when talking about “the miserable [ones],” miserable is a nominal adjective and ones is elided.
That does, in fact, answer my question. I thank you kindly.
Your avocation as a grammar nazi is granted on the condition that in the future you refrain from saying “Can I” when “May I” would be more appropriate. 
Kiz
The good, the bad and the ugly: How to be chock full of nominal adjectives. 
Welllll…
Let’s split the difference. I’ll just be an Italian fascist instead. 
What!? Why would he say “May I”?
Your avocation as a grammar nazi is granted on the condition that in the future you refrain from saying when “Would I” would be more appropriate.
No, no, I was asking permission. May is correct. But so is can, IMO, so unfortunately I don’t get to wear the flashy hat.
“I” kommt vor “E”!
Only on condition that you make the trains run on time.
For a classic missing substantive with extant modifiers, how about “trip the light fantastic” for “to dance, to kick up one’s heels in celebratory fashion”, the Bard’s original “trip the light fantastic toe” nearly always being forgotten.
Ciao!
He’s saying, “Is it possible for me to be considered…”, not “May I have permission to be considered…” Since the considering is done by others, he can’t ask for permission for it. So “can” is correct.
I agree. Kizarvexius, report to Grammar Nazi Headquarters for reassignment to the Ebonics Front.
From this thread, the term is conversion. The adjective becomes a noun.
Having been the subject of legitimate castigation, one hangs one’s head in abject, contrite woe.
I accidentally the necessary.
Why would it be singular and not plural?
Because, although it is functioning as a noun, it is still an adjective, and hence does not have a plural. (At least in English, in which adjectives don’t agree with the nouns they describe. In French they do.)
What about that baseball team in Ohio, the Reds?
The conerted adjective may be collective, in which case it commands the singular, or individuated, in which case it becomes plural in both form and function.
The Reds are a team of individual baseball players. But none but the Braves deserve the fairs.
Actually, that’s one of the features of nominal adjectives (as opposed to adjectives converted into nouns): they don’t easily take the singular. So while you can say “the meek shall inherit the earth,” you can’t say “that person is a meek.” Just like you can talk about “the French” or “the Dutch” but you can’t say “Jeanne is a French” or “Geert is a Dutch.”