Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

To expand on the title slightly: all of the groups to which an item belongs directly or indirectly? That seems to make "parent groups," my first choice, ill-fitting.

The key concept here is membership, but that term generally refers to the items in the group, not the groups themselves.

A bit more explanation:

An item's relationship to a group may be direct or indirect because groups are hierarchical. The term would describe all of the relevant groups in the hierarchy.

An example:

Fuji is an apple. Apples are fruit. Fuji belongs to apples and fruit.

The phrase I need to construct is along the lines of: Fuji and "the groups to which it belongs."

Edit

As Barrie pointed out, my example involves categorical relationship, but that won't necessarily be the type of membership I'm referring to. The membership is arbitrary and changeable.

Edit 2

My example caused more confusion than good. The best metaphor for what I'd like to express is: a child has parents and grandparents, who are collectively his ancestors. I want to say: a user has groups and (super?) groups, which are collectively _?_.

share|improve this question
    
Perhaps roles? –  rems Oct 20 '11 at 19:40
    
That makes me think of "responsibilities," not necessarily membership. In that sense, it seems like an alternative to "groups," not a narrowing of its definition. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 19:42
    
The fact that some categorisation schemas are hierarchical doesn't mean membership of any given higher-level category is "indirect". I'm English, but it's nonsense to suggest I'm only indirectly British. –  FumbleFingers Oct 20 '11 at 20:10
    
@FumbleFingers: In some cases this is a relevant distinction: the difference between parent and grandparent, for example. Incidentally, I already mentioned the membership is not categorical. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 20:36
    
Category/supercategory? Some idea of the context would be helpful, since there may be specific terms that would help (species/genus, for example). –  JeffSahol Oct 20 '11 at 20:41
show 3 more comments

11 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

For parent-child relationships, ancestor works, or ancestor groups if you need to be explicit. An ancestor is a parent or parent of an ancestor. You could also use containing, inclusive, or maybe superordinate.

share|improve this answer
    
And then descendents, being the flip side. –  Sam Oct 20 '11 at 23:36
    
Containing group may be the best we can do. Super-group is another one, although it reminds me of Cream. Ancestor feels too specific for my use. –  Daniel Oct 21 '11 at 14:28
add comment

Another good one is domain. Fuji is within the domain of fruit.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The question reminds me of junior high math — sets and subsets.

share|improve this answer
    
This is really a comment, not an answer to the question. You can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post. –  tchrist Aug 18 '12 at 12:10
add comment

The closest you’re going to get is probably supersets.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 - This is a good suggestion. –  Daniel Oct 21 '11 at 14:31
add comment

"Associations" seems to fit nicely.

share|improve this answer
    
Ooh, I like it. Associated groups is nice and general, and leaves open the exact closeness of the relationship. –  Daniel Oct 21 '11 at 22:27
add comment

Collection, category, set, and group all seem to capture "bucket with non-exclusive members and no assumptions about hierarchy". Programmers would say class, as noted by others, but I don't know how widespread that is in the general population.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Hypernyms.

Fuji is a hyponym of apple. Apple is a hyponym of fruit. But Fuji is also a hyponym of fruit. And fruit and apple are both hypernyms of Fuji.

share|improve this answer
    
I considered suggesting this, but it didn’t seem to fit the question. –  Jon Purdy Oct 20 '11 at 23:39
    
This was my first thought, too. By hypernym refers to the relationship between words, while the question is about the relationship between the objects that the words represent. –  Jim Aug 10 '13 at 18:16
add comment

You could refer to all broader categories containing the item as classifications of the item.

When sorting/labeling items, you would classify each based on certain characteristics relative to the sorting. Using the term classifications, therefore, would be relevant to any level of the heirarchy being discussed at the time.

Edit:
Based on the comments on this answer, I see no reason why the word groups would be insufficient.

share|improve this answer
    
As I've noted in comments and in the Edit portion of my answer, the relationships are not categorical. In retrospect, I chose a poor example as it seems to be gaining more attention than the question and subsequent clarifications. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 21:30
    
Could you provide an example of some of these arbitrary memberships? –  Jim Oct 20 '11 at 21:35
    
Yes. Security groups. A user may belong to any number of groups, which themselves may belong to other groups, and so on. The term would refer to all the groups to which a user belongs, directly or indirectly. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 21:37
    
In that case, I think roles would be a good candidate. It's essentially the purpose it serves in computer user permissions. –  Jim Oct 20 '11 at 21:38
    
Either that or you would have to provide a name for each of these groups independently of members, and simply refer to them as that. –  Jim Oct 20 '11 at 21:40
show 4 more comments

Programmers, and perhaps some mathematicians, would use the word class. "Apples" constitute a class. "Fuji" would be a member of the "Apple" class. "Apple" would be a member of the "Fruit" class. "Fruit" may be referred to as the parent class or the superclass of "Apple". "Fuji" is a subclass of "Apple". Members of a class automatically belong to that class's superclass.

share|improve this answer
add comment

A group (or kind or concept or class) that belongs to another group is a subgroup or child group and the larger including group is the supergroup or parent group. Extending this to more and more inclusive groups, one then calls them all:

ancestors.

share|improve this answer
    
Perhaps ancestors is the right word. Is there a related word that implies a more temporal (or configurable) relationship? I think of ancestor as being fixed. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 19:58
add comment

I'm not sure what context you have in mind, but in some cases set might be the word you need.

share|improve this answer
    
Perhaps I need to elaborate on this in the question, but groups sometimes belong to other groups, therefore the item belongs to some groups directly, and other groups indirectly. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 19:44
    
Are you perhaps thinking of hyponymy, in which ‘fruit’ is the superordinate of ‘apples’ and ‘apples’ is the superordinate of ‘Fuji’. Looked at in the other direction, ‘Fuji’ is a hyponym of ‘apples’, and ‘apples’ is a hyponym of ‘fruit’. –  Barrie England Oct 20 '11 at 19:59
    
No. That's an idiosyncrasy of my example. The key idea is membership, but not necessarily categorical. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 20:02
    
Can you elaborate on that, Daniel? Maybe by giving an example. –  MετάEd Oct 20 '11 at 21:47
    
I edited my question to include a better example. –  Daniel Oct 20 '11 at 21:49
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.