 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Furthering on from another thread on this forum and not wanting to continue or hijack that conversation, it got me thinking about the phrase “collective terms” and the example used was LGBT… but there are many others. British, Liberal, Rich, Footballer, the list is endless. But are they collective, insofar as their real use is to bring people under a common umbrella, or is their real use more to highlight who isn’t in the group and thus not part of the community?" Is rich or footballer a collective term or do they just describe a person, just as saying they are tall, short, thin, fat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Furthering on from another thread on this forum and not wanting to continue or hijack that conversation, it got me thinking about the phrase “collective terms” and the example used was LGBT… but there are many others. British, Liberal, Rich, Footballer, the list is endless. But are they collective, insofar as their real use is to bring people under a common umbrella, or is their real use more to highlight who isn’t in the group and thus not part of the community? Is rich or footballer a collective term or do they just describe a person, just as saying they are tall, short, thin, fat?" They can be used as both collective nouns “the rich tend to \insert accusation here\” or “Footballers are overpaid fannies” or they can be simple adjectives. I am talking about the collective nouns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France." FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, collective nouns are words that refer to a group of people, animals, or things. They are typically used to describe a collection as a single entity. Examples include "family," "class," "flock," and "herd" So…… A cruise of gays A clique of rich men A cabal of politicians Etc….. your offerings?" Yes and in the context of most collective nouns, they seen commonly used as instruments of exclusion instead of inclusion. Hence my post. But nice hijack attempt.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. " I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, collective nouns are words that refer to a group of people, animals, or things. They are typically used to describe a collection as a single entity. Examples include "family," "class," "flock," and "herd" So…… A cruise of gays A clique of rich men A cabal of politicians Etc….. your offerings?" I think you'll find that for politicians it's "A bunch of cunts". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. " You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive." That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times." Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. " …now definitely hijacked! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Furthering on from another thread on this forum and not wanting to continue or hijack that conversation, it got me thinking about the phrase “collective terms” and the example used was LGBT… but there are many others. British, Liberal, Rich, Footballer, the list is endless. But are they collective, insofar as their real use is to bring people under a common umbrella, or is their real use more to highlight who isn’t in the group and thus not part of the community?" In my use of the term "LGBT+ Community" on the other post, I intended it merely as a collective term for practical communication, allowing me to address a group without implying a deeper connection between individuals or any further agenda. It's just a way to categorise and communicate with people who share certain characteristics or affiliations, without necessarily implying unity, shared dynamic, or identity beyond that specific context. The use of collective labels seems to be a common human trait in so many areas of society, as in politics, sports, sexuality, and so on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. " You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. …now definitely hijacked!" Yea maybe you need a miserable old man anti cycling thread to argue this one out on.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. " That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. " Are we speaking the same language? I am asking about people’s intent behind the use of collective nouns to describe particular groups, or as an act of omission to talk about who is not in that group. That is exactly what I am asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. " When they start doing so responsibly then yes. when they are pretending they are in a cycle race and block the road for everyone else then No. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the collective term for Transvestites? " You just answered your own question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the collective term for Transvestites? " Don’t know but in and Inspector Morse episode it, they came up with “an anthology on pro’s” for a collective name for a group of working girls 😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the collective term for Transvestites? Don’t know but in and Inspector Morse episode it, they came up with “an anthology on pro’s” for a collective name for a group of working girls 😂" You get me for free  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. " Yes he was a real inconvenience, especially the last time I had to rush over there to his house only to find him dead. Thanks for your lack of understanding on the effects that a bunch of inconsiderates can cause. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the collective term for Transvestites? " The collective noun for transvestites is...err!.. rumoured to be a "Tissy of transvestites!😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. Are we speaking the same language? I am asking about people’s intent behind the use of collective nouns to describe particular groups, or as an act of omission to talk about who is not in that group. That is exactly what I am asking. " I thought the example used above of “clot of cyclists” is a good example of a derogatory implication in the collective term, suggesting that cyclists are stupid or inconsiderate. Likewise using the term “a band of cunts” to describe politicians is offensive and clearly the intention is to denigrate those in political office. In these respects the OP makes a valid point regarding the intention in the use of a collective noun. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the collective term for Transvestites? " A shade? A totter? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. Are we speaking the same language? I am asking about people’s intent behind the use of collective nouns to describe particular groups, or as an act of omission to talk about who is not in that group. That is exactly what I am asking. I thought the example used above of “clot of cyclists” is a good example of a derogatory implication in the collective term, suggesting that cyclists are stupid or inconsiderate. Likewise using the term “a band of cunts” to describe politicians is offensive and clearly the intention is to denigrate those in political office. In these respects the OP makes a valid point regarding the intention in the use of a collective noun." Perhaps your perception is where you are having a problem. Think of a clot of blood in an artery, then think about the effect of cyclists riding 4 abreast on narrow roads and compare the effects of both. Especially when rule 66 of the Highway Code recommends riding no more than 2 abreast or where it would be dangerous riding single file. You need to think of clot in the medical sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. Are we speaking the same language? I am asking about people’s intent behind the use of collective nouns to describe particular groups, or as an act of omission to talk about who is not in that group. That is exactly what I am asking. I thought the example used above of “clot of cyclists” is a good example of a derogatory implication in the collective term, suggesting that cyclists are stupid or inconsiderate. Likewise using the term “a band of cunts” to describe politicians is offensive and clearly the intention is to denigrate those in political office. In these respects the OP makes a valid point regarding the intention in the use of a collective noun. Perhaps your perception is where you are having a problem. Think of a clot of blood in an artery, then think about the effect of cyclists riding 4 abreast on narrow roads and compare the effects of both. Especially when rule 66 of the Highway Code recommends riding no more than 2 abreast or where it would be dangerous riding single file. You need to think of clot in the medical sense." This is rather a post hoc justification. Nice try though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d go for a “clot of cyclists” the way some of them clog the roads while pretending they are doing the Tour de France. FFS, don't drive then if you can't deal with other road users. You try getting past the inconsiderate ***** riding 3 or 4 abreast on country roads, when you are trying to get past them to get to an elderly parent’s house to let an ambulance crew in - happen to me several times. Seems like the elderly parent is the issue here, not cyclists. They are using the road as they entitled to. Yes he was a real inconvenience, especially the last time I had to rush over there to his house only to find him dead. Thanks for your lack of understanding on the effects that a bunch of inconsiderates can cause." So, your father died because of cycling? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not entirely sure if you have a question here, surely a collective term is only to serve as a noun and nothing more? I don't think there's an intention behind a word being a noun. I am talking about the intent of the usage of a collective noun. Inclusive or exclusive. That's the problem, there is no intent, a noun is a function, the same as a label is a function, there is no intent anywhere, just purpose. You are not understanding my question. I know what a noun is, but we use collective nouns for a variety of reasons. I am exploring those reasons. That's why I said it's not even a question in the first place. Individuals can put whatever intent they want behind the word, inclusive or the opposite, but that's not a reason why we use nouns. Are we speaking the same language? I am asking about people’s intent behind the use of collective nouns to describe particular groups, or as an act of omission to talk about who is not in that group. That is exactly what I am asking. I thought the example used above of “clot of cyclists” is a good example of a derogatory implication in the collective term, suggesting that cyclists are stupid or inconsiderate. Likewise using the term “a band of cunts” to describe politicians is offensive and clearly the intention is to denigrate those in political office. In these respects the OP makes a valid point regarding the intention in the use of a collective noun." In local parlance the collective term for politicians is "a bunch of c#nts" ... I have yet to hear the term "a band of c#nts"....mind you, I once heard a band playing very badly and they sounded like c#nts! 😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
