# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/21 "2010-09-30T18:00:18Z")
The title of _Les Misérables_ gets translated? ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/22 "2010-09-30T18:01:33Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > 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. 😉 OK, how about that movie, _The Incredibles_? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/23 "2010-09-30T18:08:00Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@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? Also, note that we say “the blind” and “the deaf” referring to groups of people, not “the blinds” and “the deafs”. It’s a consistent pattern in English. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/24 "2010-09-30T18:13:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > OK, how about that movie, _The Incredibles_? “Incredible” is serving there as family name, based on the dad’s name, Mr. Incredible. It takes a plural, like “The Browns.”😉 ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/25 "2010-09-30T18:18:48Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@Polycarp](#): > > > > 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. 😉 > > OK, how about that movie, _The Incredibles_? That was a straightforward proper noun - their surname when not undercover as the Parrs. ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/26 "2010-09-30T18:22:11Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > OK, how about that movie, _The Incredibles_? > > “Incredible” is serving there as family name, based on the dad’s name, Mr. Incredible. It takes a plural, like “The Browns.”😉 I probably should have watched the movie before I asked the question. (I got that nod about the other football in Ohio. Good one.) ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/27 "2010-09-30T18:25:44Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > (I got that nod about the other football in Ohio. Good one.) Now let’s solve the conundrum of what to call an individual Red Sox player.🙂 ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/28 "2010-09-30T18:34:16Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > (I got that nod about the other football in Ohio. Good one.) > > Now let’s solve the conundrum of what to call an individual Red Sox player.🙂 Also-ran? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/29 "2010-09-30T21:24:57Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > (I got that nod about the other football in Ohio. Good one.) > > Now let’s solve the conundrum of what to call an individual Red Sox player.🙂 A Red Sock? ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/30 "2010-09-30T21:57:22Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Colibri](#): > > > > Now let’s solve the conundrum of what to call an individual Red Sox player.🙂 > > A Red Sock? I Don’t Give A Darn. Well that’s the shortstop, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/31 "2010-09-30T22:17:40Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > OK, how about that movie, _The Incredibles_? > > That was a straightforward proper noun - their surname when not undercover as the Parrs. All right, how about _The Untouchables_? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/32 "2010-09-30T22:29:55Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > That was a straightforward proper noun - their surname when not undercover as the Parrs. > > All right, how about _The Untouchables_? I thought this had already been explained, but perhaps not. That’s an ordinary noun, not a nominative accusative. The way you know this is that you can say ‘an Untouchable’ just like you’d say ‘a car.’ You couldn’t say ‘a miserable’ because it’s a nominal adjective rather than a noun. ‘Miserable’ is an adjective being applied to a larger group, not a noun naming individuals within that group. ‘The Untouchable’ could be used as a nominal adjective, but it would then be referring to the whole group, not the individuals. ---
**Author:** ![drpepper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8baadc/32.png) [@drpepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drpepper)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/33 "2010-09-30T22:59:25Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@scr4](#): > > > > All right, how about _The Untouchables_? > > I thought this had already been explained, but perhaps not. > > That’s an ordinary noun, not a nominative accusative. The way you know this is that you can say ‘an Untouchable’ just like you’d say ‘a car.’ You couldn’t say ‘a miserable’ because it’s a nominal adjective rather than a noun. ‘Miserable’ is an adjective being applied to a larger group, not a noun naming individuals within that group. > > ‘The Untouchable’ could be used as a nominal adjective, but it would then be referring to the whole group, not the individuals. Do you think ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ are similar? I just thought of that one. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/34 "2010-10-01T04:14:03Z")
I also want to point out that conversion seems to happen more often in other languages, and, thus to translate we have to add the word “one” at the end. The example that comes to mind is _les petits_, the little ones. There is no context I can think of where “the little” can be used as a noun in English. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/35 "2010-10-01T04:46:15Z")
Some words are bigger than others. But they are just words, both the big and the little. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/36 "2010-10-01T07:13:53Z")
> [@drpepper](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > I thought this had already been explained, but perhaps not. > > > > That’s an ordinary noun, not a nominative accusative. The way you know this is that you can say ‘an Untouchable’ just like you’d say ‘a car.’ You couldn’t say ‘a miserable’ because it’s a nominal adjective rather than a noun. ‘Miserable’ is an adjective being applied to a larger group, not a noun naming individuals within that group. > > > > ‘The Untouchable’ could be used as a nominal adjective, but it would then be referring to the whole group, not the individuals. > > Do you think ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ are similar? I just thought of that one. Not similar - exactly the same. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Some words are bigger than others. But they are just words, both the big and the little. They’re not nouns, they’re simply nominal adjectives that refer back to an earlier word. However. I speak very little French so don’t know if ‘les petits’ in French is a nominal adjective phrase or a noun phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Sparky812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/37 "2010-10-01T10:44:08Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > 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. OK, that sentence could be read either way, but if you were asking permission, then “could I” is may be more approriate.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/38 "2010-10-01T14:08:45Z")
One of the most famous examples of all: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/39 "2010-10-02T13:03:01Z")
Hijacking this thread back to the OP, I would call such usage “substantive”. The opposite thing, using a noun as a modifier of another noun is called “attributive”. Attributive nouns are normally emphasized, while adjectives usually are not (save when you want to call attention to the them: “the _red_ book” (and not the green one)). Compare “_French_ teacher” with “French _teacher_”. In the second, the teacher is French, an adjective used substantively and it means a teacher who is French. In the first, that same substantive adjective is used attributively and it means a teacher of French. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600/40 "2010-10-02T22:10:33Z")
I know it as an [absolute adjective](http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAbsoluteAdjective.htm), although that term apparently has other meanings too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-grammar-nazis-term-for-a-word-that-is-absent-but-still-posesses-a-modifier/555600.md?page=1)