Can "inveterate" function as a noun?

RSwordsman · Apr 25, 2014

The sentence is this, with the word in question underlined:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Those barricades had been kept a secret apparently from everybody down below, and Fisher's inveterate still plowed through like it annoyed them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Cursory research shows that it has no entries as a noun, but this page suggests that it may be acceptable anyway. Has anybody used an adjective like this and gotten away with it?

*I know it's probably fine, but I would like to be sure. Thanks for any answers

[/FONT]

Hapax Legomenon · Apr 25, 2014

Considering even after looking up the word I had to read it several times to understand what it meant, I'm not sure it's a good sentence.

alleycat · Apr 25, 2014

I know it's hard to tell about a sentence sometimes when it's taken out of context, but I don't understand your sentence.

RSwordsman · Apr 25, 2014

alleycat said:
I know it's hard to tell about a sentence sometimes when it's taken out of context, but I don't understand your sentence.

That was after a lengthy description of the elite military troops "inveterate" describes (and Fisher is a person), but if it's hard to understand I can always reword it.

cornflake · Apr 25, 2014

It reads like there's a word missing, as I've never seen it as a noun and don't really get it as a noun, though the sentence is confusing regardless.

RSwordsman · Apr 25, 2014

I'm not terribly partial to keeping it that way especially if it's hard to understand, but how else is it confusing? Some context maybe?

The barricades in question are a high-tech sort of trump card for a rebel military force that they thought would help them in combat. In the scenario preceding that sentence, they were found out not to help too much even without the enemies' knowing about them beforehand.

But failing just knowing what I'm talking about, maybe I should simplify the sentence? It does have a pretty complex setup that maybe isn't necessary.

Hapax Legomenon · Apr 25, 2014

It took me a little to compile my thoughts on what's so wrong with this sentence, but this is what I think it is:

In your citation for "adjectives used as nouns", you'll notice that all those nouns actually describe 'people'. The poor -- poor people. The sick -- sick people. The young and the restless -- the young people and the restless people. The word "inveterate" doesn't work the same way.

Look at the definition:

Inveterate:

having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change.
"he was an inveterate gambler"
synonyms:ingrained, deep-seated, deep-rooted, entrenched, congenital, ineradicable, incurable

(of a feeling or habit) long-established and unlikely to change.
synonyms:confirmed, hardened, incorrigible, addicted, habitual, compulsive, obsessive; More

"Inveterate" isn't used to describe people plainly. 'Inveterate people' does not really make any sense because being a person does not imply any particular actions or habits. An "inveterate soldier" makes more sense but that is not what nominalizing that word implies. That's why it's so hard to understand, it doesn't have anything to do with context or build up.

arcan · Apr 25, 2014

The "apparently" is not at the good place for me. As for "inveterate", even though I use that word when needed, I can't make sense of your sentence, sorry. Do you mean "inveterate fisher"? Anyway, you can't use it as a substantive this way.

RSwordsman · Apr 25, 2014

Hapax Legomenon said:
"Inveterate" isn't used to describe people plainly. 'Inveterate people' does not really make any sense because being a person does not imply any particular actions or habits. An "inveterate soldier" makes more sense but that is not what nominalizing that word implies. That's why it's so hard to understand, it doesn't have anything to do with context or build up.

Thank you for this. I sort of understand that it is not a specific enough descriptor to use it by itself. I'll be better off finding a better way to talk about the guys in the story.

^^Arcan, I thought the same thing, but couldn't bring myself to change the "apparently" right away. It'll get a fairly thorough makeover though.

King Neptune · Apr 26, 2014

RSwordsman said:
The sentence is this, with the word in question underlined:
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Cursory research shows that it has no entries as a noun, but this page suggests that it may be acceptable anyway. Has anybody used an adjective like this and gotten away with it?

*I know it's probably fine, but I would like to be sure. Thanks for any answers
[/FONT]

"Inveterate" what? Did he have an inveterate drunk, or what?

No, "inveterate" is an adjective, not a noun.

Rufus Coppertop · Apr 26, 2014

Is Fisher a general and are the 'inveterate' his troops?

Maybe you're looking for the word 'veterans'.

blacbird · Apr 26, 2014

Short answer: No.

Longer, more detailed answer: Nooooooooooooooooooo. Not ever. As in never.

Unless maybe some cretin decides to name a child or a pet dog "Inveterate."

It ain't a noun, and the example sentence is meaningless if you try to use it that way.

caw

RSwordsman · Apr 26, 2014

Rufus Coppertop said:
Is Fisher a general and are the 'inveterate' his troops?

Maybe you're looking for the word 'veterans'.

blacbird said:
Short answer: No.

Longer, more detailed answer: Nooooooooooooooooooo. Not ever. As in never.

Unless maybe some cretin decides to name a child or a pet dog "Inveterate."

It ain't a noun, and the example sentence is meaningless if you try to use it that way.

caw

Rufus: Sort of, yes, but it doesn't quite fit. I'll get it figured out.

and Blacbird, I appreciate your contribution to my writing growth. :/

Can "inveterate" function as a noun?

RSwordsman

Hapax Legomenon

alleycat

Still around

RSwordsman

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

RSwordsman

Hapax Legomenon

arcan

RSwordsman

King Neptune

Rufus Coppertop

blacbird

RSwordsman