Good answer Devin. Ceramic is a general good name.

Inorganic Materials. Ceramics usually refers to policrystalline bulk materials (not powders) after a densification sintering process.

It depends on the way of materials preparation. If it is prepared as ceramic materials i.e. by sintering then the name "ceramics" seems appropriat. If not I woud call them mixture of metal compounds. "Inorganic materials" seems a bit too general and "composites" should include at least two classes of different materials such as metal with ceramics or polymers with metal alloys.

Carbide, sulfide, nitride, oxides are the ceramics ....

Metal + Ceramic = MMC (Metal Matrix Composite)

Ceramic + Ceramic = CMC (Ceramic Matrix composite)

Metal + solid solution of element ( Si, C , N , Cu ......etc....) = alloy

Metal + Metal (Chemical bond) = Intermetallic (second phase separated out from the matrix ...)

I will agree more with the S. Mahanty answer as it seems to be more appropriate.

This is an old, old problem in my experience (BS Ceramic Eng. 1961, PhD Metallurgy 1966). Inorganic compounds (ICs) seems the best place to start for your purposes (describing metal oxides, nitrides, carbides and sulfides). You should then add a descriptor, indicating the form the IC is in: single crystal, polycrystalline, glassy (amorphous). It also makes sense to add a size descriptor: nm range particles, um range particles, bulk solids. Next, naming combinations (more than one metal present and/or more than one anion present) depends on whether there is one phase present (a solid solution) or more (e.g. multiple crystalline phases and/or amorphous phases). I do not think the term "ceramic" is appropriate for your purposes. It carries the connotation (as others have suggested) of the method by which the material is produced. Finally, it is worth mentioning the material nomenclature problem that carbon presents: For example, what is graphite? What is graphene? What is pyrolitic carbon (which sometimes contains Si as an additive)?

In response to Ignacio Tudela: A property such as "hard" or "soft" (by which I guess he means either elastic modulus or yield strength in compression--measured by some means) is, for solid materials. always a result of the following chain:

Chemical constituents + method of production ---> solid structure ---> which has a

set of material properties (chemical, physical, electrical, mechanical, etc.).

So while a high or low elastic modulus or yield strength may be a desirable property it does not seem like a basic or very complete way of describing a material. For example, "hard" particles of various types (compositions and structures) would likely vary widely in their resistance to chemical attack in a given environment.

The most appropriate name would be "metal compounds" which can be used in teh general sense. One can further classify these depending on the context.

You may also consider why these "elemental compounds" are formed. For instance are you referring to them as a class of materials? also are they the bulk materials or are they surface additions or inclusions on or within a base material? further to this are they (surface or inclusion) formed intentionally or are they some type of contaminating phase? This would allow you to make a supporting argument for your choice of term.

Some of these chemicals materials have their mineral equivalent materials. In this case, indicate if it is chemically obtained, synthetic mineral. That is, synthetic pyrite.

If no mineral equivalent, indicate chemical name associated with the formula; for example XnYn compound.

I understand what you are getting at, but the compounds in which a metal is combined solely with oxygen, nitrogen, carbon or silicon are an extremely diverse group in terms of atomic structure and properties. It is akin to coming up with a technical definition for a ceramic. I think you are focused on materials which have high melting points. In that case you might lump these compounds together as

"refractory metal oxides, nitrides, carbides and silicides."