I am looking for the word that expresses the relevancy of an event as it follows the next in a series. But the relevancy is NOT from one event to another (especially no causality); the events follow each other in a manner that is chronologically relevant to another situation. All the "synchro" words denote simultaneity (e.g. "synchronicity"). I want to denote sequence.

  • Please specify whether you want a noun or something else. Also, you didn't give any context. – Earthliŋ Feb 16 '16 at 21:00
  • 2
    I don't understand the question. Are you saying the events have no inherent chronological relationship to one another, and that they only have relevance to "another situation" if they occur in some specific sequence? Or that whichever sequence they occur in, it's actually the sequence itself that's relevant to something? – FumbleFingers Feb 16 '16 at 21:04
  • The events are only related by the fact that they follow one another in time. They have no causal link. But their sequence is relevant to another situation. I came up with "timely" but suspect there might be a more specific word. – sylvie Feb 16 '16 at 21:37
  • Developments N, O, P ... reflect the sequentiality of events A, B, C.... – Edwin Ashworth Feb 16 '16 at 22:52

Subsequent - following in time, order, or place

Successive - following each other without interruption


Consider temporally.


In a certain order, with regards to time. The term describes how things are related to each other in terms of time.

  • I thought the two events that I wanted to attend were at the same time, but I later found out they were temporally arranged, which meant that I could attend one and then the other without missing anything.

  • The organization of the processes was temporally planned and executed which reaped dividends for the departmental production this new year.


Maybe not the exact answers, however based on the question, I think such events can be described as time-ordered, time-related or order-related events.


The correct word I was looking for is "synchronicity" but in the meaning intended by Carl Jung rather than the Webster definition... The meanings are quite different: Jung's meaning applies to events that appear to be related but without any temporal, nor any cause and effect relationships; Webster's definition focuses on the temporal (i.e. simultaneity). Oh well, the wonders of language. What a great site. Now I have something to go to when baffled. Thank you for the input!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.