the + Adj. vs Adj. + people

[BobK]

Basically the title was a reduced form of the question I asked in the first message.
I usually try to be precise with the title of a thread, but I would never imagine that there would be so much attention to it :)

The problem Alex is the distinction between form and function. In form, 'homeless' is an adjective; in 'The homeless' it has the function of a noun. The discussion seems to be creating more heat than light. I wish when people said categorically things like 'homeless is a noun' they took care to add 'in function' - knowing that students will have been taught that the word is an adjective (esp. if their L1 lets them use the form <article> + <adj> in this way, as many do).

Carry on please...

b

[AlexAD]

Thank you, BobK, I take your point.

Not stating I was wright, I just don't want to go deeper into grammar.
It is my personal opinion, but I think a student should master basics of a language before getting into such complicated things as precise rules. So should I.
I feel like I should have never started the discussion about how the title had to be written.
But rather concentrated on the original question, which was the reason that brought me there.
I could see how a question may give rise to a bunch of others many times. Often, subtle ones.

Sorry, if I was being pompous. I didn't mean to.

Here is another question to the subject:

We can't say 'a rich' and need a noun after the adjective (in this case I hope so ).
Is that right?

Coming back to the original question, I have always thought that there's been a difference between 'the British' and 'British people'.
Particularly, I thought 'the British' might sound offending. Really, I don't know why I was thinking so
As far as I can understand from the posts given above I was wrong, wasn't I?
(Just a little confirmation in order for me to disperse my uncertainty).

I have wrote a lot and if you would be kind to read all that, it would be great.
If you would correct any mistakes in the post, that would be much more than great

Thanks, Alex.

[philo2009]

By the way, it seems to be common case in that we can say the British or British people, the rich or rich people, etc. etc.

Do you feel any difference between those two forms?

Virtually none, although the form employing an adjectival noun ('the rich' etc.) is probably rather more common.

Note, however, that the ability to treat an adjective in this way (i.e. as a plural noun of universal reference) is to some extent limited by convention. Although we may commonly hear the foolish, the blind, the brave, or even the uninitiated, we do not, for instance, say, *the important to mean 'important people', or *the interesting to mean ' interesting people'.

The usage is particularly limited with respect to nationalities: while the British, the French and the Chinese all exist as plural nouns, the Belgian, the Israeli and the Greek can only ever be singular (even though, in very formal contexts, they might well serve in the same general sense). In fact, no toponymic adjective ending in -an (easily the majority) can ever be used as a plural noun.

Clear guidance on the above should be available in any good learners' dictionary.

[Tdol]

When referring to a disability, there is a PC tendency to object to the 'the X' form (on the grounds that it objectifies or excludes or pigeon-holes people so affected. Until the '70s or '80s it was quite normal to hear things like 'action to help the autistic' - today it's always 'action to help autistic people'.

b

It does make sense to me- they're people first. However, when someone doesn't follow the formula and is attacked for it, I think it's unnecessary and petty.

[AlexAD]

It does make sense to me- they're people first. However, when someone doesn't follow the formula and is attacked for it, I think it's unnecessary and petty.

It may be the same reason why I have been thinking that 'British people' sounded more polite than 'the British'