I think Hume would say that "Humeian" makes no sense. I KNOW Quine did.
For Quine, "Pegasus" becomes "pegasizes". And there are no such things as what Duns called 'haecceitas,' i.e. properties that refer to an individual.
It MIGHT be different for Grice.
Harold Bloom, of Yale, was referring to the 'perfect Emersonian,' and this got me into thinking. Was Grice the perfect Griceian?
Does "Griceian" have _sense_.
It's not like 'pathetic', which is an adjective which we might characterise as 'common'.
"Griceian" stems from a proper name, and using "Griceian" IMPLICATES that we assume not just, 'related to Grice,' as a boring dictionary might tell us ("I care a hoot what the dictionary says," Grice said), but that there is a property, Griceianity, or Griceianness, such that if Grice is Griceian, this should be MORE than analytic a priori and thus vacuous and otiose.
There are two bands: neo-Griceians, who follow Grice, but are not necessarily Griceians; and post-Griceians, who think they have superseded, if only chronologically, Grice.
I prefer to lean every now and then to the best palaeo-Griceian of all time: i.e. Grice!