OBS. 2.—­The noun, or substantive, is a name, which makes sense of itself.  The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun.  It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of.  Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished from nouns by their relation to them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things:  so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective.  Again:  English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable.  When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns.  To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns.  Thus, in grammar, we often speak of nominatives, possessives, or objectives, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of positives, comparatives, or superlatives, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of infinitives, subjunctives, or imperatives, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of singulars, plurals, and many other such things, in the same way.  So a man’s superiors or inferiors are persons superior or inferior to himself.  His betters are persons better than he. Others are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, “If you want enemies, excel others; if you want friends, let others excel you.”—­Lacon.  All adjectives thus taken substantively, become nouns, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word others is to be made an exception, and called a “pronoun.”

   “Th’ event is fear’d; should we again provoke
    Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find.”
        —­Milton, P. L., B. ii, l. 82.

OBS. 3.—­Murray says, “Perhaps the words former and latter may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, especially in many of their applications.  The following sentence may serve as an example:  ’It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius:  the former’s phlegm was a check upon the latter’s vivacity.’”—­Gram., 8vo, p. 57.  This I take to be bad English. Former and latter ought to be adjectives only; except when former means maker.  And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence.  If it were said, “The deliberation of the former was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper of the latter” the words former and latter would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun commander understood after it.