This is a word that is used to describe the quality of a concept being “a priori”. Therefore, it is a noun and it is being used for this illustration to demonstrate that it is necessary for you to internally rotate the femur and flex the hip in order to adduct the leg on an individual who has an anteriorly rotated and forwardly based ipsilateral innominate. It’s a contingent truth in that the “a priori” knowledge used to test this activity out analytically requires a necessary movement of these two bones in a pattern that reflects feed forward passive or active activity (in this case femoral internal rotation, adduction and flexion) as a result of “a priori” argument. I believe that the relationship between “aprioricity”, necessity, and analyticity is not easy to discern but real. There is a metaphysical distinction between the description of an “a priori” concept and the “aprioricity”. A priori is an analytical algorithm based relationship that has to take place prior to the testing in that position that resulted in the outcomes that were predictable. Aprioricity is the actual application of these prior truths and results in an actual position that is supported by prior knowledge of what it would take to adduct and internally rotate a femur that had to be in a flexed state. I analytically and philosophically believe in this metaphysical description and ones inability to metaphysically and linguistically think in this rational process. Presently many of us are influenced by the need for evidence based testing which diminishes our ability to take “a priori” concepts and apply them in an acceptable manner.