Word Association

 QuackQuackIvI_F


Escrito 15 de abril de 2012 - 01:19
circumstantial and dependent aren't related...

circumstantial -> tardiness
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 borlanged


Escrito 15 de abril de 2012 - 17:49
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)
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Editado 15 de abril de 2012 - 20:03 por 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.

Enlace | Responder | Citar
 borlanged


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 03:41
^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.
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 04:02
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.
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 Is_this_my_name


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 06:46
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
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 ['RB']Nerdy


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 09:58
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 borlanged


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 12:51
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
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 13:26
Aliens
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 Is_this_my_name


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 18:27
ROBOTS!
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Escrito 16 de abril de 2012 - 18:45
Destruction
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 Is_this_my_name


Escrito 18 de abril de 2012 - 19:29
extinction
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Editado 18 de abril de 2012 - 19:43 por 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...)
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 [sT]thunderbird


Escrito 20 de abril de 2012 - 11:43
stupid
Enlace | Responder | Citar
 [Eot_]RedRuM__


Escrito 20 de abril de 2012 - 14:58
GOOGLE


Enlace | Responder | Citar
«21222324252627282930[31]32333435363738394041»
Mostrando 451 - 465 de 3393 mensajes
Saltar a Foro:
59 Usuario(s) están leyendo este tema (en los últimos 30 minutos)
0 miembros, 59 invitados