There is a tv series on Channel 4 called "The Undatables" which I have just started watching.
The title keeps me wondering why it's not just called "the undatable" like the poor or the rich?
Last time I checked my grammar book, you only need an adjective after "the" to refer to a certain type of people.
Can you at least tell me why do you think the producer decided to make it plural by putting the "s" at the end?
Thanks
The "invincible" would be a general reference to anyone deemed invincible.
The "invincible seven" would mean seven particular persons or entities who are described as invincible.
The "invincibles" would be the appropriate proper name of a group, presumably of people, who wish to project themselves as being invincible.
The "undateable" is a general reference to anyone who is undateable.
The "undateables" would be an appropriate proper name/noun of a particular group, but not all, who are undateable.
BTW, the TV show is "undateables" not "undatables".
"Undatable" would mean being incapable of dealing with "data".
Undateable is an adjective used here as a noun.
However, poor and rich, in addition to being adjectives, are also mass nouns.
As mass nouns, they are treated as singular parts of speech even when they are inherently plural.
As such, you normally say, 'the blues', 'the untouchables', but because 'poor' and 'rich' are also mass nouns, you say 'the poor', 'the rich'.
