# Fellow grammar nazis: term for a word that is absent but still posesses a modifier? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 30, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600 "2010-09-30T14:34:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kizarvexius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Kizarvexius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kizarvexius)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/1 "2010-09-30T14:34:55Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/2 "2010-09-30T15:24:42Z")
Can I be considered a grammar Nazi if I consult [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective)? > [@](#): > > Nominal adjectives act almost as nouns. One way this can happen is if a noun is elided and an attributive adjective is left behind. In the sentence, “I read two books to them; he preferred the sad book, but she preferred the happy”, happy is a nominal adjective, short for “happy one” or “happy book”. Another way this can happen is in phrases like “out with the old, in with the new”, where “the old” means, “that which is old” or “all that is old”, and similarly with “the new”. In such cases, the adjective functions either as a mass noun (as in the preceding example) or as a plural count noun, as in “The meek shall inherit the Earth”, where “the meek” means “those who are meek” or “all who are meek”. So when talking about “the miserable [ones],” _miserable_ is a nominal adjective and _ones_ is elided. ---
**Author:** ![Kizarvexius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Kizarvexius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kizarvexius)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/3 "2010-09-30T15:34:57Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/4 "2010-09-30T15:35:07Z")
The good, the bad and the ugly: How to be chock full of nominal adjectives. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/5 "2010-09-30T15:39:39Z")
> [@Kizarvexius](#): > > 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 Welllll… Let’s split the difference. I’ll just be an Italian fascist instead. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Sparky812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/6 "2010-09-30T15:41:14Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Can I be considered a grammar Nazi if I consult [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective)? > [@Kizarvexius](#): > > 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 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.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/7 "2010-09-30T15:48:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kilmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@Kilmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilmore)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/8 "2010-09-30T15:57:48Z")
“I” kommt vor “E”! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/9 "2010-09-30T16:27:30Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > > [@Kizarvexius](#): > > > > 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 > > Welllll… > > Let’s split the difference. I’ll just be an Italian fascist instead. 🆒 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/10 "2010-09-30T16:31:29Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > > [@Kizarvexius](#): > > > > 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 > > Welllll… > > Let’s split the difference. I’ll just be an Italian fascist instead. 🆒 Ciao! ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/11 "2010-09-30T16:34:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/12 "2010-09-30T16:40:06Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/13 "2010-09-30T17:00:46Z")
> [@Kizarvexius](#): > > 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? From this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12507045#post12507045), the term is conversion. The adjective becomes a noun. ---
**Author:** ![Kizarvexius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Kizarvexius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kizarvexius)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/14 "2010-09-30T17:13:28Z")
Having been the subject of legitimate castigation, one hangs one’s head in abject, contrite woe. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/15 "2010-09-30T17:17:04Z")
I accidentally the necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/16 "2010-09-30T17:20:54Z")
> [@Kizarvexius](#): > > 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.” Why would it be singular and not plural? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/17 "2010-09-30T17:47:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/18 "2010-09-30T17:53:39Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > 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. What about that baseball team in Ohio, the Reds? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/19 "2010-09-30T17:58:06Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@Colibri](#): > > > > Because, although it is functioning as a noun, it is still an adjective, and hence does not have a plural. > > 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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/20 "2010-09-30T17:58:34Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > 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. 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.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600.md?page=2)