What is an adjective for something that is not first but either second, third, fourth, etc? We don't need to know what position it is at; the only thing that matters is that it's not the first one.

EDIT: After reading the comments/answers, I realized I didn't provide much context. Let's say I have a few words preceded by a prefix. The first prefix however is different than the others, so we say there are different prefixes for the first word and the XXX (later) words. What can we use for XXX?

  • "LATER" ? I know "latter" means the second of TWO but there might be more than two in my case Jul 7, 2011 at 15:10
  • 3
    @Hi dominicbri7 and welcome to EL&U. No need to add thanks or your signature to your post - your user card is signature enough, and signatures are actually discouraged and edited out here on Stack Exchange sites since our questions and answers will hopefully be around for many future visitors :)
    – aedia λ
    Jul 7, 2011 at 15:21
  • 1
    would it be Losers ?? More seriously, it's a good question. What about simply "non-winners"?
    – Fattie
    Jul 7, 2011 at 15:46
  • @Joe: that only applies when it's about a contest of some kind. First, second, third can also apply to a simple ordering (or elements in a list, for example). Jul 7, 2011 at 16:03
  • 1
    @joach Quite right, JS. It's an interesting question, there needs to be an English word, something like, "Non-premier" ....
    – Fattie
    Jul 7, 2011 at 17:42

3 Answers 3


It very much depends on context.

In many/most contexts, anything that's "not first" is just subsequent, or later.

In OP's context, the best word might be other. It's hard to say.

  • I supplied more context in the OP. But indeed I think it would be later. Jul 7, 2011 at 15:52
  • @dominicbri7: I've changed my answer, but I still don't really exactly understand your context. Jul 7, 2011 at 15:58
  • That's because it is hard to explain, but later/other/subsequent all work I guess. Jul 7, 2011 at 16:08
  • 1
    @dominicbri7: I think subsequent is best suited to contexts where the complete actual sequence is significant, and later fits better if only the fact of one particular word coming first is relevant. If even the fact of one word coming first isn't important in and of itself, other is probably best. Jul 7, 2011 at 16:13

Depending on context, you might consider subsequent.

His first book was good, but the subsequent ones were bad.

His first wife was old, but the subsequent ones were young.


A term sometimes used in this context is "contender." That denotes someone who is not a winner or "champion," but "close." Perhaps a defeated party who was "up there."

  • 1
    The term "also ran" usually means a horse who was not a win/place/show, so in that sense it means "fourth place or later", not "second or later". In general use it tends to mean "so far behind (or so mediocre, etc.) as to be insignificant", so it's perhaps not the best word for the OP's question.
    – psmears
    Jul 7, 2011 at 16:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.