Collective Nouns

[bluemoon1]

I'm trying to explain to a non English speaker the term "only children" the plural of "only child", would I be correct in saying it's a collective noun?

[bluemoon1]

I meant of course a person learning the English language.

[dannyk13]

Not really a collective noun refers to such things as a herd of cattle, a parliament of owls etc, herd and parliament being collecctive nouns.

[The Builder]

Blue, I think "only" is just being used as an adjective here.
Perhaps it's simply an adjectival phrase.

[drmorgans]

The collective noun would be something like a group of only children

[calda49]

You would not use the word "only", in this context. The phrase "only child " is used to mean a person only has one child, you would then say "the children" to mean a person has several children. "Child" is a singular noun, whereas "children" is a plural noun.
As Dannyk13 says a collective noun refers to ,a group, You might say "a class of children", or "a gang of children". In that case "class" and "gang" are the collective nouns. Hope this makes it clearer.

[drmorgans]

But in this context (I think) "only children" means children with no siblings

[Jonathan-Joe]

It's difficult to see (1) that a need for this phrase would arise naturally and (2) that it could be used without confusion. You'd be better to say "children with no sibling".

[bhg481]

Perhaps a better comparison would be "Grandchild" or "grandparent", written as one word in English but 2 in French.

[davebro]

"It's difficult to see (1) that a need for this phrase would arise naturally"

Only children generally do better at school than those with siblings.

(for an example)

[bluemoon1]

It's a language learning course forum, the sentence is:-

"Only children are not always selfish"

The learner explains that they know "only child" is a noun and then goes on to say how they would re-write the sentence, using "only childs". In what other way could I explain their error?

[davebro]

Surely explain by pointing out that childs is not a word - the plural of child is children. Not all plurals are formed by adding an S.

[bluemoon1]

Yes and then would I be correct in my first question or leading them astray?

[davebro]

It's not a collective noun.

[dannyk13]

You are incorrect in your first question as explained in the above answers.

[bluemoon1]

Okay, thanks for your replies.

[Canary42]

The sentence "Only children are not always selfish" is a misleading sentence to use as an example because it can have more than one meaning. It could imply adults are always selfish, for example, because it is solely [only] children who are not.

Sheep is another word where adding an S for plural is incorrect, it is both singular and plural. "I saw a sheep in one field and 12 sheep in the adjoining field".

These minor quirks are what makes the English language so rich, but also difficult to learn. Some cases have to be learnt individually, not by a hard and fast rule (its and it's for example).

Here's a little rhyme for your pupil :-

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through.
Well done and now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard, and sounds like bird.
And dead: it's said like bed, not bead;
For goodness' sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.)
A moth is not a moth in mother
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.

And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear, for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose
Just look them up - and goose and choose.
And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword
And do and go, then thwart and cart –
Come, come! I've hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Why man alive!
I’d mastered it when I was five !
And yet to write it, the more I try,
I’ll not learn how ‘til the day I die.

[woofgang]

surely "only child" is a phrase and not a noun? the noun is child and "only" in this context is an adjective?

[Prudie]

I agree, only here is just an adjective, also agree with Canary, that sentence has more than one meaning:
Children without siblings are not always selfish
or
However children (ie all children) are not always selfish

Whatever only here is not a collective nouns as mentioned one could say
I saw a herd of cows
I swam with a school of fish
I fed a gaggles of geese
I played with only children?? err no

[Hopkirk]

I think it is a very poor choice to use when teaching English.

It is mighty confusing and needs explaining to someone whose mother tongue is English, let alone a student learning the language.

[JimF]

I must admit that I'm struggling to see why this is confusing, or even hard to understand.

Child A - "I'm an only child."
Child B - "So am I".
Child C - "Me too! So we're all only children - what are the odds?"

Child is a noun. Its plural is children. The plural form is irregular in that it is not formed by adding an 's' to the noun - is that what's causing the confusion?

Substitute "fast" for "only" and "runner" for "child" in the above example - that's all there is to it.