What's the best word for denoting "treat as a single item" in the specific context I describe?

Question

Why I'm asking

@Xanne asks "Does this really have to do with the English language?" Yes. I seek an English language verb. If you, dear reader, find it confusing that the following mentions another language, please imagine this other language is Martian and I'm just trying to describe in English a thing that happens on Mars, but is known to also occur on Earth.

There is a particular non-English language (actually a computer programming language), where one can write the instructions:

Basket-One    =  list   loaf, cabbage, pineapple ;
Basket-Two    =  list   Basket-One ;
Basket-Three  =  item   Basket-One ;

The result of writing (and "computing") this that:

• Basket-One contains three items;

• So does Basket-Two;

• Basket-Three contains one item, the item Basket-One.

According to this programming language's documentation explaining this feature, Basket-Three contains just one item because the term item in item Basket-One ('item' in this context is unambiguously a technical term) has the effect of "itemizing" Basket-One.

This usage of "itemizing" occurs in what I consider an English prose context (tutorial documentation describing the programming language feature). But it seems like it has the exact opposite meaning to the English usage I'm familiar with. It's not clear if "itemizing" in this context is being used as a technical term or a regular English term, but either way, the goal of this question is to find a replacement English language word that doesn't have the weird characteristic of potentially/actually meaning the exact opposite of the technical meaning.

What I've found

Consider the two dictionary.com definitions of "itemize":

1. list the individual units or parts of

list as an item or separate part

I'm thinking that, assuming the verb's object is given in a singular form:

• Definition #1 is about immediately individually listing the items within the item that's the object of the verb.

• Definition #2 is about immediately listing only one item, the singular item that's the object off the verb.

Main Question

1. What's the best word for denoting "treat as a single item" in the specific context I describe?

To help clarify what I'm asking, I'll present some more questions. (If someone has time, I'd appreciate answers to some/all of these more detailed questions, but they are subsidiary to my formal question.)

• Do most native English speakers recognize two (or more) meanings for "itemize"? Is one meaning dominant and the other(s) rare? What about non-native speakers?

• Do you think I'm right about the meaning of the second dictionary.com definition? If not, what is the meaning of the second definition?

• Are there yet more definitions of "itemize" beyond the two that dictionary.com lists?

• Am I right that the meaning of dictionary.com's second definition emerged from usage of "itemize" in instructions on US (or UK?) tax forms?

• Does the second definition always imply that the first definition also applies to the composite object, just elsewhere than the immediate listing context?

Non-exhaustive candidate list

Assuming that English definitions of "itemize" contradict the usage I've covered in Why I'm asking, what do you think that better single word might best be:

• itemify

• itemate

• item

• individualize

• singlify (a neologism I just made up)

• scalarize

• some-other-word?

"To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, ________ it".

Thank you in advance for any and all answers or comments. :)

Answer 1

If you're looking for a word that means to treat a collection of items as a single item in a separate collection, there are various options that might be less ambiguous than itemize. However, in a computer science context, some of these words have already been adopted with other technical meanings, so you'd want to consider each option carefully.

All definitions from Oxford English Dictionary:

• Aggregate

v. To gather into one whole or mass; to collect together, assemble; to mass.

The thing to be careful about with aggregate is that it has a somewhat different technical definition in data science, where it can refer to functions such as sum or average.

• Agglomerate

v. To gather (separate particles or elements) together into a single mass or group; to collect in an unassimilated or disorderly way; to cluster, heap, or bind together.

This word would be a fine choice if you don't mind that it's a little clunkier than itemize.

• Coalesce

v. To bring together, merge; to combine (parts or elements) to form one whole.

Coalesce would be an excellent option that clearly expresses the meaning you're looking for. In some cases, it might be confusing in a Computer Science context only if it were mistaken for other uses of the word, such as the coalesce function in SQL.

If you're looking for a term that's concise and clear, any of the following words would fit your needs as well.

• Lump

v. To put altogether in one ‘lump’, mass, sum, or group, without discrimination or regard for particulars or details; to take, consider, or deal with ‘in the lump’.

• Group

v. To bring together as a group, to make a group of; to position (people or things) close together so as to form a collective unity. Also with together.

• Fuse

v. 1.c. fig. Often with the sense: To blend intimately, amalgamate, unite into one whole, as by melting together.

Answer 2

Do most native English speakers recognize two (or more) meanings for "itemize"? Is one meaning dominant and the other(s) rare? What about non-native speakers?

At least here in the U.S., I think most speakers would recognize a sense — call it 'sense A' — whereby the direct object is a singular noun denoting a totality that can be broken down into items, as when we itemize a list or a receipt (or, obviously, a plural noun denoting multiple such totalities).

I also think most U.S. speakers would recognize a sense — call it 'sense B' — whereby the direct object is a plural noun denoting such a totality, as when we itemize our expenses or our tax deductions — not necessarily because this is a distinct sense, but simply because it's perfectly natural in English to use a plural noun to refer to a single totality. (For example, "he shared his M&Ms with her" does not mean that they shared each individual M&M!)

Some U.S. speakers would also recognize a sense — call it 'sense C' — whereby the direct object is a singular noun denoting an item resulting from breaking down such a totality (or, obviously, a plural noun denoting multiple such items), as when we itemize a certain tax deduction. I think this sense originated as a backformation from the second sense; speakers who have this sense would probably be surprised that I felt the need to distinguish it from that one. But personally, I find this sense rather awkward, and Google searches suggest that it's quite rare compared to the others.

---

Do you think I'm right about the meaning of the second dictionary.com definition? If not, what is the meaning of the second definition?

That definition sounds like it's trying to define sense C, but since sense C seems to be quite rare, and the example sentence works perfectly for sense B, my best guess is that it's trying to define sense B in a way that also works for sense C.

In either case, I don't think it covers the usage you give as your motivation, since that usage does not involve breaking down a totality.

---

Are there yet more definitions of "itemize" beyond the two that dictionary.com lists?

Well, you've given a usage that's apparently a different sense: "itemize" meaning "create an 'item' from". :-)

---

Am I right that the meaning of dictionary.com's second definition emerged from usage of "itemize" in instructions on US (or UK?) tax forms?

If their definition refers to my sense B, then I doubt it.

If it refers to sense C, then I don't know, but it would certainly make sense: "itemize" is accounting jargon, and tax forms are most Americans' greatest source of exposure to accounting jargon. It's very common, in all fields, for non-specialists to adopt jargon and use it in related ways that specialists might feel strange about.

---

Does the second definition always imply that the first definition also applies to the composite object, just elsewhere than the immediate listing context?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.

---

[…] what do you think that better single word might best be: ¶ […]

This question is probably too subjective for this site, but personally I think any of your suggestions would be fine. Another option is to introduce a hyphen ("item-ize").

Answer 3

My proposed list, so far:

• singularize

• unitize

• corral

• containerize

I can see how the word, “itemize” can go either direction:

a. to separate a grouping into individual items.

b. to assemble many items into a single unit.

With your objective being to find a word whose meaning is “b” only (and not “a”), the transitive verb that unambiguously means to take all that is at hand and assemble it all into a single item is, "Singularize."

1 to Singularize

to make singular

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/singularize

In your effort to create the perfect word -- for lack of being able to identify one that already exists, you made up the word: "singlify (a neologism I just made up)."

If you believe you've accurately communicated what you are trying to accomplish, that is, to find an English word -- not a programming word -- that communicates to the reader that you want him/her to take what is at hand and to "treat (whatever is there) as a single item," then I propose that the one word that does exactly that -- and nothing else -- is "Singularize."

Your question: "What's the best word for denoting 'treat as a single item' in the specific context I describe?"

Any number of words can be agreed upon to mean what you say you want it to mean, but in addition to meaning what you want it to mean you, more importantly, need for it to instantly communicates what it needs to communicate when it is used in the context you have in mind -- without need for any explanation.

"Singularize" does that, and only that.

Here are some additional words that can be agreed upon to mean what you say you need the English word to mean. But none of them unambiguously communicates its meaning without need for explanation the way "Singularize" does.

2 to Corral

One of three closely related definitions given by online dictionary, MacMillanDictionary.com for the verb, ”Corral,” is: “to put a person or an animal in a place they cannot leave.”

That is definition number 2 of 3.

a. to move horses, cows, etc. into a corral

b. to put a person or animal in a place they cannot leave: shut in, imprison, confine...

c. to organize a group of people and persuade them to do something We were corralled into helping him.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/corral_1

---

Other verbs that come to mind are:

3 to Unitize

form into a single unit by combining parts into a whole.

(from Online Google Dictionary)

4 to Containerize

to pack in containers

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/containerize

Answer 4

I say there's no need to reinvent the wheel here. English is rich enough that you are going to have too many available options, so you are better off picking one that is actually in current usage by computer scientists.

In Perl jargon, you'd say that item references Basket-one, or that Basket-Three is a reference to Basket-one. You could also use pointer-based jargon: "pointer", "points to", etc.

For starters, see the Wikipedia entry on Indirection or Chapter 8 of the Camel book. But I am sure you will find a large number of candidate English words if you delve into the actual technical literature.

Answer 5

Main Question

I think that bundle, to "tie or roll up (a number of things) together as though into a parcel" might fit the bill.

Regarding the two meanings of "itemize"

1. list the individual units or parts of

2. list as an item or separate part

I agree with your interpretation of the first definition, and if I am right in believing that you are saying that the second definition means to "include (an item) in a list," I agree with the second as well.

As a native English speaker, I think that rather than having a dominant and secondary definition, the meaning of "itemize" is dependent on its direct object. If you used "itemize" with a singular direct object, which typically is comprised of many parts (e.g. a list, collection, or inventory), I would take it to mean that you listed the individual components of it.

She itemized the warehouse inventory.

-> a list of items in the warehouse.

If you said that you itemized multiple objects, which typically are not broken down into parts in a meaningful way (e.g. grocery purchases, warehouse items), I would interpret that usage to mean that you created some sort of list where those objects were the listed items.

He itemized the office supplies.

-> a list of office supplies.

Finally, if you said that you itemized multiple objects, which typically are composed of many things (e.g. receipts), it would be ambiguous. Did you create a list of each time you went shopping, multiple lists that each listed all of the items from a specific shopping trip, or a master list of all of the items you had bought? More context would be needed.

I itemized the receipts.

-> ?

Answer 6

If that has an answer then it’s prolly reached by re-phrasing … denoting "treat as a single item" as … denoting “verb form of noun for things treated a single item"

Near candidates might include group or combine, as … denoting “group”

Remembering that … might best be need not include … might well be, neither itemify nor individualize sound bad and singlify sounds promising.

It’s true that if itemise wasn’t already taken, the structure of any word formed from a noun and ending …ise might fit your bill.

It’s also true that your Why I’m asking makes about as much sense as it might to a Martian and that your specific context is artificial.

In 60 years of listening, I’ve never noticed anyone using either of those dictionary.com definitions, unless units or parts were clearly synonyms of items.

I don’t see where you got, or why you mention immediately, or why it might matter if your list was made tomorrow or next week, nor how things in a list could but be several.

I do think list as an item or separate part means broadly make part of a list; not at all listing only one item, the composite thing.

Since you asked not about English but about a computer language it doesn’t matter, does it? What’s the reason you shouldn’t coin your own verb, such as grouple or combone?

Answer 7

The two (or three) definitions differ primarily in the underlined assumption concerning the ratio of the number of items mentioned to the amount of items belonging to the set or list in question. One member may illustrate the set or being an example, the same is true for any number of items mentioned, as long as their number is less than the size of the set. If the set's size is equal to the number of mentioned items, the items are the definition and the list is an enumeration.

As soon as you itemize your income sources for the tax calculation, you define the set by itemizing each source. The same is done on the other side, assuming the list you created is not just illustrative, but complete. No difference means no problem.

In fact the only difference of interest is wether a list has to be assumed to be complete or being only of illustrative value. Everything else depends on the perspective. The task of itemizing is the same in either case. The number of cases may differ, as well as the size of the sets, the only relevant fact is, whether or not the list is complete.

If you want to be on the safe side, let the people understand what you mean, rather than to proof that they should have had the chance to realize what you're intention might have been, once later on.

Answer 8

It's not clear if "itemizing" in this context is being used as a technical term or a regular English term

In the given context, it should be a technical term that describes 'something processed using the item operator'. This is not a receipt that you're itemizing for individual price details - if the keyword was delete then you'd use deleting instead. So it comes down to the definition of item which is clearly a technical one as you said.

What's the best word for denoting “treat as a single item”

Among the answers so far, and especially as it relates to the English meaning of itemize; RaceAnyTime's suggestion of the word group is simple, well-known and a very clear choice imho.

... in this specific context?

Well, your meaning is actually 'processing using the item keyword' which is a technical operation itself. You have commented elsewhere that I seek a word for treating something as a single item regardless of whether it's actually a single or plural thing.

A group(n.) can refer to a single item too as an English word, but usually does imply multiple members at some point - e.g. he was the only one left of their group in the neighborhood.

In conclusion, I don't think there is a suitable non-technical single word that fully conveys your intended meaning.

Answer 9

To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, consolidate it.

Consolidate

1: to join together into one whole : unite consolidate several small school districts
2: to make firm or secure : strengthen consolidate their hold on first place He consolidated his position as head of the political party.
3: to form into a compact mass

"Consolidate." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2017.

Consolidate focuses on the action, and avoids really saying anything about how you are going to treat the result in future. You are free to treat the result as a mass, or as an assemblage of identifiable bits. And you are free to reverse the process.

Answer 10

As English is not my mother tongue, I might not be the best reference, however, from a programmer's perspective - yes, guilty, I am one of them - the difference between the semantics mentioned is not that relevant as supposed.

To itemize might have something in focus, but to itemize clears the situation anyway (or neither nor), as it defines the set on one hand and the affiliation on the other. The result may be interpreted one or the other way, but to itemize seems - to me at least - to segregate items of the set in question, from the items not belonging to the set. For me it looks more like the difference between singular and plural; somehow principal, while the options are not on the opposite of each other.

To explicitly include or exclude an item in or from a list may change the meaning of the statement, but not the semantics of the word itemize. When the task is to itemize, then the result is an incomplete list of items sharing a set of properties of the same values. From the perspective of an item, it means affiliation or exclusion, furthermore, it is the result of the set's definition or otherwise a part of it. Either itemization is a part of an enumeration (i.e part of the definition) or of a segregation, while not necessarily being complete, neither as a definition of a set nor as a characterization of the set's items.

I don't know a better word, but it might help to find one, if you point out the context, rather than what it is not. There might be other interpretations, the ones I am aware of are... Segregation, explanation, and definition, as well as everything in between.

In my view, itemizing seems to be located somewhere between answering, telling and explaining, depending on the context.

Alternatives, depending on the context are: segregation, separation, classification, explanation, definition, enumeration and falsification (as a special case of not being part of a set). There might be others and I may be on the wrong side.

In German, the equivalent term is 'aufzählen'. It means to mention members of a set, but not necessarily all of them. If the list is complete, then the members are most often part of the set's definition, an enumeration so. Otherwise, the mentioned members characterize the items mentioned or they are examples of the items that are part of the set.

Answer 11

I would suggest the terms to enumerate and to illustrate as more precise variants, as they both recommend a common implication to be applied. An enumeration is complete by definition, whereas an illustrative itemization is not.

Answer 12

To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, adjunct to it".

To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, identify it".

To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, represent it".