>>>There should be a default but omitted noun, just like we say Češka, Poljska and Turska for Czech, Poland and Turkey - all of them adjectives, but with an assumed noun (country) to them. Somehow I expect "the military" to be a plural, just like "the poor".
>>>
>>>Soldiers?
>>
>>There is no plural of soldier. There are only troops, remember? Soldiers is not politically correct (don't ask me why).
>>
>
>Soldiers is not a plural of soldier? You've lost me there.

Count the newspaper reports from the current wars for the last ten years where they were deployed or died as such. I have only seen "8 troops", never "8 soldiers". One soldier, two troops, three troops... and of course, they didn't even have the time to update the dictionaries, where a troop is still defined only as a group of several members - military or theatrical or dancing.

>>>I don't actually have a problem with "the military" as a collective noun there.
>>
>>Neither have I, with using an adjective as a subject, as long as there is an implied noun. In this case, it's a military... what?
>
>"The military" can be a noun. I am sure many more people think of it as a noun than as an adjective.
>You wouldn't be obstinate with us, would you? ;-)

Nope, this is just when my Latin becomes an obstacle. To me, it's an adjective, like medical, practical, educational etc - an adjective with clear traces of derivation from a noun (miles/militis, medicus, praxis, educatio). And in English, when you use an adjective with the definite article, it means plural (the unwashed, the dispossessed). So it still does not feel like a noun to me. I know it is used as one (just like "musical" is - nobody know what was the noun behind it - musical what, cheese? - but it is a de facto noun now), it just goes against my grain a bit.

BTW, you may like this: http://ndragan.com/lange/apearls.html . It's still in diapers, but just as other lists I make, it will grow over the years.