Community Forums > General > Off Topic > Word Association

Word Association

 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Posted 15 April 2012 - 1:19 am
circumstantial and dependent aren't related...

circumstantial -> tardiness
Link | Reply | Quote
 borlanged


Join Date: 15 November 2009
Posts:547
Posted 15 April 2012 - 5:49 pm
The usefulness of circumstantial evidence depends on other evidence/facts.
Dependent was the most recent participant word.

Singular

(A matrix is singular iff its rows/columns are linearly dependent)
Link | Reply | Quote
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Edited 15 April 2012 - 8:03 pm by QuackQuackIvI_F
^I think you're skipping a step the same with that guy...

Obviously you're correct in that something circumstantial is dependent on different things but that's step three. Something needs to be circumstantial before we can say the word dependent. I thought about this before I wrote that. I should've wrote directly related above.

Link | Reply | Quote
 borlanged


Join Date: 15 November 2009
Posts:547
Posted 16 April 2012 - 3:41 am
^I think you're skipping a step the same with that guy...

Obviously you're correct in that something circumstantial is dependent on different things but that's step three. Something needs to be circumstantial before we can say the word dependent. I thought about this before I wrote that. I should've wrote directly related above.
I can say the word "dependent" when ever I want. This is word association, the existence of an inference as is guaranteed by something being circumstantial implies a dependence; hence, they may be associated. Note that I give no formulaic rules on what it means to associate a word with another; it is a matter of opinion (ultimately mine or that of any OP using the rules in the first post). But, if you think you can convince me of why "dependent" cannot be associated with "circumstantial", do go on.
Link | Reply | Quote
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Posted 16 April 2012 - 4:02 am
borlanged wrote:
I can say the word "dependent" when ever I want. This is word association, the existence of an inference as is guaranteed by something being circumstantial implies a dependence; hence, they may be associated. Note that I give no formulaic rules on what it means to associate a word with another; it is a matter of opinion (ultimately mine or that of any OP using the rules in the first post). But, if you think you can convince me of why "dependent" cannot be associated with "circumstantial", do go on.

I already stated above that something that's circumstantial is dependent but this is after the fact. First, imo, something that is circumstantial needs to be specified in order for the word dependent to be put into play. And you can't say the word dependent at any time... not if it's been said recently per the rules you made in the original post. I think the main issue I'm having is that they're both adjectives and shouldn't directly lead to each other like I said before.
Link | Reply | Quote
 Is_this_my_name


Join Date: 1 July 2007
Posts:755
Posted 16 April 2012 - 6:46 am
I will again attempt to resolve the conflict by using a word that I think can relate to both possibilities, though if I am wrong on the relativeness (?) then call me on it, as I tend not to be very sure in this game.
particular
Link | Reply | Quote
 ['RB']Nerdy


Join Date: 28 June 2011
Posts:2196
Posted 16 April 2012 - 9:58 am
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Link | Reply | Quote
 borlanged


Join Date: 15 November 2009
Posts:547
Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:51 pm
First, imo, something that is circumstantial needs to be specified in order for the word dependent to be put into play.
I look at it differently. Having studied primarily mathematics, I don't know the conventions in other fields, but in mathematics, if something can be generalized it usually is. For instance, if for all x, P(x), then one would just speak of P without referencing a specific x, since even though it is a predicate it cannot be conceived of not being true.

At any rate, for the sake of keeping this moving, I will accept particular.

Existence
Link | Reply | Quote
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Posted 16 April 2012 - 1:26 pm
Aliens
Link | Reply | Quote
 Is_this_my_name


Join Date: 1 July 2007
Posts:755
Posted 16 April 2012 - 6:27 pm
ROBOTS!
Link | Reply | Quote
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Posted 16 April 2012 - 6:45 pm
Destruction
Link | Reply | Quote
 Is_this_my_name


Join Date: 1 July 2007
Posts:755
Posted 18 April 2012 - 7:29 pm
extinction
Link | Reply | Quote
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Join Date: 9 April 2012
Posts:159
Edited 18 April 2012 - 7:43 pm by QuackQuackIvI_F
Dodo

I'm not sure how this thread will ever end...

I'm used to cause and effect.... not cause, effect, and back to cause.

(e.g. AB -> A + B compared to AB -> A + B -> C ... where C would be another reactant not directly related to A and B other than it being another subject/noun/group/adjective...)
Link | Reply | Quote
 [sT]thunderbird


Join Date: 30 November 2009
Posts:686
Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:43 am
stupid
Link | Reply | Quote
 [Eot_]RedRuM__


Join Date: 11 January 2011
Posts:1819
Posted 20 April 2012 - 2:58 pm
GOOGLE


Link | Reply | Quote
«21222324252627282930[31]32333435363738394041»
Displaying 451 - 465 out of 3379 posts
Forum Jump:
35 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 35 guests

What's popular right now: