There is a well-worn saying, often mistakenly attributed to Albert Einstein, suggesting “women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will not.” 1 This statement may or may not be true, but highlights an interesting (and understudied) relationship dynamic: Change plays an important role in relationships. It is natural to wonder how long your relationship will last, whether you will fall out of love, whether you’ll have children and what they’ll be like, how your partner will be as a parent, whether you’ll get a divorce, etc. The common denominator in each of these inquiries is that you and your partner will experience your fair share of change along the way. But is this change good?
In a data model, table relationships can be one-to-one (each passenger has one boarding pass) or one-to-many (each flight has many passengers), but not many-to-many. Many-to-many relationships result in circular dependency errors, such as “A circular dependency was detected.” This error will occur if you make a direct connection between two tables that are many-to-many, or indirect connections (a chain of table relationships that are one-to-many within each relationship, but many-to-many when viewed end to end. Read more about Relationships between tables in a Data Model .
Elliptical Clauses are grammatically incomplete in the sense that they are missing either the relative pronoun (dependent word) that normally introduces such a clause or something from the predicate in the second part of a comparison. The missing parts of the elliptical clause can be guessed from the context and most readers are not aware that anything is missing. In fact, elliptical clauses are regarded as both useful and correct, even in formal prose, because they are often elegant, efficient means of expression. (The omitted words are noted in brackets below).