is there a word which means 'collective noun' ?

Your query is a little unclear, David. Do you mean a word that groups collective nouns together?
E.g: A lexicon of collective nouns. <grin>
A collective noun (i.e. a noun that denotes a collection things) otherwise acts as a way of what I would call unitary grouping. That's just me.
Incidentally, there are plenty of other threads on collective nouns waiting behind the 'Search' button in the top right.

My query is whether there is a word which has, as its DEFINITION, a collective noun (not one particular collective noun, but all of them).

This would be analogous to "eponym", which refers to ALL places/diseases etc derived from a person's name.

I have already checked the listings of collective nouns on this site, but it was no help with this question.

Welcome, David--delighted to have another Aussie!
We had another medical student from Australia a couple of months ago, but I can't recall the screen name.

I couldn't find anything re: your question, but tsuwm will know.

well guys, not every concept absolutely has to have a single word to describe it. this particular concept falls into a *class of common nouns which are all identified, quite adequately perhaps, by a set of adjectives; thus, collective nouns, abstract nouns, material nouns.

in other words, I know of no such word....

BTW, here is the usage note from the AHD:
In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection
considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is
suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group
considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The
enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In
British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The
government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test
matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in
the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim.

Since there is no official word for "collective nouns" how about some of our Latin and Greek scholars trying to outdo each other in coining one? Just to be a good sport, anticipating ridicule, I suggest "sortcohort".

Incidentally, I always thought the collective noun pastime originated in the late seventeen hundreds. But I found a site claiming to have a list of ones current in the fifteenth century.
http://lonestar.texas.net/~rferrell/collects2.html

Wow, thank you, Dr. Bill. That is worth looking at, esp. the names for groups of humans, notably: A nonpatience of wives and An abominable sight of monks.

I second that thanks, Dr. Bill! Print copied it! Especially liked "a worship of writers." I guess that's what we all are here on AWADtalk...a worship of writers!

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar has a cross reference from collective noun to plurale tantum .

A plurale tantum is a word which is always plural such as binoculars or clothes. Some people also classify words such as arms (where the singular does exist but with a different meaning (upper limb versus weapons)) as pluralia tantum (the plural of plurale tantum in case you were wondering).

Bingley

/me ridicules "sortcohort"

I thought about this when it first appeared and couldn't come up with anything, not that that means much given my brain raddled with port and age: the term in linguistics is collective noun.

However, if we want an onym (an onymonym?) for it, let's go for ochlonym, from ochlos 'crowd'. (Already present in another fun word, ochlocracy = mob-rule.)

All hail NicholasW for his masterful achievement: "ochlonym" says it very well. I see no way it could be bettered.

and what about word, that are normally plural, say pajamas, alway worn, and bought in the plural, but if you are a teen age girl, you have a pajama party.. when you want to express the plural (lots of pajamas, at a party) the word become singular...

or am i wrong, did pajamas come to us from the hindu with the s as part of the word?--I think not, because pajama is also used for half a pajamas-- (she wore his pajama top as a nightshirt...)

Notice that pyjama in pyjama party or pyjama top is being used as an adjective to describe the party or top, rather than as a noun in its own right. Adjectives in English not having singular and plural forms, the s is dropped.

As to whether its etymon had an s or not, perhaps Avy can help.

Bingley

The British usage annoys me to no end. I attribute it to an incapacity for abstraction.

The British usage annoys me to no end. I attribute it to an incapacity for abstraction.

Welcome to the board, deanjens. I have just noticed a couple of posts from you today.

I presume you mean the aforementioned treatment of collective nouns as plural. Firstly let me say that, in my experience, we Brits treat them as plural or singular depending on context. That is if the collective noun is shorthand for "members of the group" then it is plural; if it is shorthand for "the group, acting as one", then it is singular. This difference is more obvious in some contexts than others. In both the examples given (and without any other context) I would have used the singular. Any other Brits care to comment?

As such I think we abstract fairly well

Rod

'Y' the difference???

pyjamas is British spelling, pajamas US. Wha do aou ysk?
Rod

Wha do aou ysk?


Pajymys?

The use of, "annoys me to no end" , irritates me limitlessly, deanjens (by way of a welcome )
If your annoyance is without destination or an object that you hope to achieve, then why allow it to annoy you?

Fairly obviously, you cannot mean that your annoyance is going to "no end", because that is clearly impossible - you can, I suppose, travel toward "no end" but you can never get to it.

The use of, "annoys me to no end" , irritates Rhuby limitlessly

Swedish Mama, Rhuby! Who you been taking curmudgeon lessons from?

isn't this an example that AnnaS should be commenting about? -since "annoys me to no end is really just a transposed (there is) no end to my (being) annoyed?--? isn't it an example of anastrophism-- a turn around a phrase for rhetorical effect..

That what Rhu's turn of phrase is about..

Faldage, can RhubarbCommando not put a tongue-in-cheek post without someone causing a rhubarb over it? You usedn't to do this, dear!

Rhuby said,
Fairly obviously, you cannot mean that your annoyance is going to "no end", because that is clearly impossible - you can, I suppose, travel toward "no end" but you can never get to it.
Oh, my dear, but there is a "no end" place: it's
called Kansas.

Thanks, but just as with the poorly-conceived, offensively inappropriate 'rectal suppository' sub-thread, I'm staying away from this (at least I know what our newcomer's intentions really were).

[beatific smile]

Faldage, FWIW, your equally tongue-in-cheek post wasn't lost on moi

>but there is a "no end" place: it's called Kansas.

and here I've been thinkin' Kansas was no place....[/end]

>pyjama
Hi Bingley,
Sorry I came in on this late.
The original is pyjama, with no s. We never use Pyjama it in an adjectival form. The word we have for Pyjama top is Kurta. (We have no word for pyjama parties)
Max, I have known other people confused with the words Hindi and Hindu.

Kansas

Are we back to the Rhuby Red Slippers?

pajamas

Do Brits use 'jamas or 'jammies like you often hear in the US, especially when talking to the youngest children?

collective noun

Commune.