1

If you find the first thing there's a high chance that you'll also find the other thing.

An example sentence: "Cats have three main properties: They're mammals, they give live births, and the internet loves them. Among house pets those first two are common and even [word-goes-here], but the third one is more rare." (Yes, this is a terrible example sentence. I'm sorry for this. The actual sentence is quite technical and has irrelevant (to the current discussion) details. The process of mapping over to this constructed example has lost some character but I hope you understand which meaning I'm going for)

My instinct is to call them "correlated" but that's not quite right. If the second property was never found in the same places that you find the first property that would also be a correlation.

  • Live birth is a necessary condition for being a mammal (platypuses aside)—in other words, all mammals have live births, though not all creatures with live births are mammals; is that the kind of relationship you intend? – 1006a Feb 14 '18 at 23:20
  • No, that is not what I intend. You're describing a strict subset but I mean something more like a venn diagram with a large middle part. My best answer so far is "often coincident". – num1 Feb 15 '18 at 0:03
  • You might want to adjust your example, then; maybe replace "live both" with something like "predatory". – 1006a Feb 15 '18 at 0:12
1

To answer the question of your title I would say "colocated", but your example is not about things but attributes, nor is it about them being in the same place.

I would say "associated", and in this case "strongly associated" with each other would be appropriate. But to be honest, a statement concerning the connection between mammallia and giving birth to live young is tangential to what you are communicating so would be better left off altogether.

  • Good point, I've changed the question title to better represent what I mean. I agree that the example sentence is terrible. My actual example is quite technical and has lots of detail which isn't relevant; mapping it to something more relevant took something out of it. – num1 Feb 14 '18 at 22:27
0

If you are going to be pedantic, then a negative correlation is still a correlation, but in ordinary, non-technical language if we say something is correlated with something else then, unless stated otherwise, we mean a positive correlation.

In my opinion, however, you will lose your readers if you use a technical term such as correlated, when something much more homely will do the job. (I also have severe doubts about using another technical term "properties" to refer to cats.) And, what is more, apart from duck-billed platypuses, are there any mammals that do not give live births?

So what is is that you want to say that will make your readers sit up? How about "Cats are mammals. They do all the things that mammals do. But only cats are loved by the internet."

  • Sorry, this is a bad example sentence. But I'm a software engineer writing for other software engineers. We are very pedantic and very unafraid of words like "properties" :) – num1 Feb 14 '18 at 23:01
  • You know your audience! – JeremyC Feb 15 '18 at 11:59

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.