It’s stupid to use stupid as a noun.
No.[/quote]
It is. Saying “bring out the stupid in someone” is stupid. The word “stupid” is an adjective. The appropriate word should be “stupidity” because that is the noun form. It’s not even like an adjectival form didn’t exist. Maybe these “foolish” need to study (or should I replace that verb with an adjective also?) the English “linguistic” a bit more in “scholastic” so they can become better “journalistic”. Indeed, it’s a shame that we can’t also replace every other part of speech with an adjective. Then we could have a sentence entirely composed of inappropriate adjectives.
No.[/quote]
It is. Saying “bring out the stupid in someone” is stupid. The word “stupid” is an adjective. The appropriate word should be “stupidity” because that is the noun form. It’s not even like an adjectival form didn’t exist. Maybe these “foolish” need to “studious” the English “linguistic” a bit more in “scholastic” so they can become better “journalistic”.[/quote]
It’s really not. I don’t care if it’s an adjective. It can be used however you want to use it, so long as others understand your meaning. Plenty of authors break grammar rules all the time. Language is not static. Your little example of stupid writing doesn’t work, because it’s a lot harder to understand your meaning at first glance. Plenty of people use stupid as a noun. “Stupid is as stupid does.” “Hey stupid, come over here.” “The stupid shall be punished.” Saying bringing out the stupid is perfectly fine.
No, it’s not. It makes someone sound like a snaggle-toothed hillbilly. People understand the meaning of incorrectly used language because they gloss over the fact that the person speaking incorrectly is probably married to his sister and it’s a faux pas to point this out, though I’m not entirely sure why. I could go through life speaking entirely in the present tense (indeed, plenty of foreigners here do this when speaking to Taiwanese people) and people would figure out what I meant, but I’d still sound like an idiot. I could go around saying “the cap has long whiskers and likes to eat fish” and everyone would know what I meant, but I’d still sound like an idiot. Sure though, anyone can use the language however they like, so long as they’re understood. What, are we all speaking pidgin here? Me no likey likey.
It’s also disingenuous for you to suggest than the egregious example we are talking about is any more comprehensible than those I offered. If it is, it’s probably quite ironic that such fools don’t know that “foolish” pertains to fools. Likewise, the additional examples you used are either highly idiomatic or correct only because they omit (and imply) other words. Again, when both a noun and an adjective exist it is stupid to use the incorrect form.
The stupid… it hurts!
Actually it can be a noun:
[color=#000080]2stupid noun
Definition of STUPID
: a stupid person
Examples of STUPID
<a genius at math, but a total stupid when it came to his love life>[/color]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid
So perhaps you are a stupid at talking about stupid? (JUST BEING FUNNY!!! not meant offensive at all :roflmao: )
[quote=“Confuzius”]Actually it can be a noun:
[color=#000080]2stupid noun
Definition of STUPID
: a stupid person
Examples of STUPID
<a genius at math, but a total stupid when it came to his love life>[/color]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid
So perhaps you are a stupid at talking about stupid? (JUST BEING FUNNY!!! not meant offensive at all :roflmao: )[/quote]
almost as bad as using own as a noun, as in this post is some major pwnage!
It’s the economy.
It does not make someone sound like a snaggle-toothed hillbilly. If anything it makes them sound like they’ve read too much King James Bible. Educated religious people (I know that sounds like an oxymoron) do this all the time. But of course, we must all use the same exact wording to express ourselves and we must all use formal speech on message boards. We also can’t have any fun with language at all.
Here’s an example from Ecclesiastes, those darn hillbilly monks:
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
I’m stealing from George Orwell here, but this really makes a great example. He puts it into modern speech, after the manner of pseudo-intellectuals.
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
Swift-adjective
strong-adjective
wise-adjective
All of them have been nominalized. And it’s perfectly acceptable. Happens all the time, and it doesn’t make one appear stupid.
Also, an example of stupid used as a noun from way back in 1712.
“Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the Mirth of Stupids, who know nothing of thy Merit, for thy Maintenance”
To add to shengou’s example:
[quote]The crime is traced to the hero JACK,
Notwithstanding the stupids know
Deceased was thrown by the Villain black
To the property rocks below![/quote]–“Phantasma-Gore-ia!” Punch, February 18, 1893
[quote]Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around,
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground.[/quote]–Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord, Paice (i. e., Deep Purple), “Smoke on the Water” (1973)
Speaking of Deep Purple:
People who can’t use language in a creative and innovative way, and instead go down the grammar pedantry route are the stupid ones in my book. But then again, I’m not trying to teach English.
stoopid is as stoopid does.
As much fun as this thread has been, it culda been avoided by simply googling “stupid as a noun” or the like (thats what i did)
But surely poking sticks at a doofus is more fun, right?
But surely poking sticks at a doofus is more fun, right?[/quote]
Wait, can doofus be an adjective?
We need an island for the closed minded grammar nazis. They can all argue among themselves over meaningless trivial grammar points. It will be like paradise island for them.
Meanwhile the rest of us with open minds, can enjoy the richness of using a living language in all its glory. I personally enjoy learning new words, or words that have suddenly found a new life in a different form or context.
Language is a tool. The smart people use it as a tool. The stupids are controlled and limited by this very same tool. Speaking of [quote]tool[/quote]… <---- there’s a prime example of living language that broke away from the boxheads or rather the tools.
I am not buying this argument at all. Why not just use any word however you like? Let’s use “and” as a noun. It’s creative.
I take chagrin at those who would use the plural form ‘stupids’ as a noun when obviously the singular is correct. Example: ‘The stupid can never be helped because their stupidity degenerates their puerile theories to mere pedantry’.
The Oxford Dictionary online lists “stupid” as a noun in an informal context and only gives one example. A searches for “bring out the stupid” and “brings out the stupid” return no results.