What's wrong with this sentence

"military" is being treated as an uncountable noun, which isn't possible. You need to say:

"The military is still needed..." (this use of military as a noun is disliked by some but accepted by many)

"Military forces are still needed..."

The original would be OK in "telegraphic" English (as a heading or headline, for example).

What is the SDI?

Could you mean for the sentence to read "The military still needs SDI" instead?

Mr Wordy"military" is being treated as an uncountable noun, which isn't possible. You need to say:

"The military is still needed..."

If it isn't possible to treat "military" as an uncountable noun, then it has to be treated as a countable noun, right? One military, two militaries, three militaries?

Does countability really have anythi

CalifJim
Does countability really have anything to do with this?

Something seems not quite right here, or maybe I'm just "losing it".

No, I think you're right. It seems my explanation wasn't very coherent.

The problem is that I can't see what the coherent explanation is (for the fact that the article is required). Maybe military is countable, and that's the reason for the article. But it's more of an adjective. Maybe all adjectives promoted to nouns require the article?

*This section of town is where rich live.
This section of town is where the rich live.

CJ

CalifJimThe problem is that I can't see what the coherent explanation is (for the fact that the article is required).

Is it perhaps just because it's viewed as an institution, of which there is only one -- like "the law" or "the government"?

Hmm. That could be.

CJ