F: Right .
F: So I so for now I thought , well maybe I 'll just have in this list the things that are relevant to this particular utterance , right ?
F: Everything else here is utterance - specific .
F: Um , and I left the slot , " predications " , open
F: because you can have , um , things like " the guy I know from school " .
F: Or , you know , like your referring expression might be constrained by certain like unbounded na amounts of prep you know , predications that you might make .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: And it 's unclear whether F: I mean , you could just have in your scenario , " here are some extra few things that are true " , right ?
E: Mm - hmm .
F: And then you could just sort of not have this slot here . Right ?
F: You 're but but it 's used for identification purposes .
F: So it 's it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance " .
E: Yeah .
C: Right .
E: Yeah .
F: Um .
E: Right , " this guy I know from school came for dinner " does not mean , um , " there 's a guy , I know him from school ,
E: and he came over for dinner " .
E: That 's not the same effect .
F: Yeah , it 's a little bit it 's a little bit different .
F: Right ? So F: Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive F: you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for E: Yeah .
F: um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence .
F: So you might imagine that the information you pass to , you know in identifying a particular referent would be , " oh , some " you know , " it 's a guy
E: Mm - hmm .
F: and it 's someone I know from school " .
F: So maybe that would , you know , be some intermediate structure that you would pass into the disc to the , whatever , construal engine or whatever , discourse context , to find you know , either create this reference ,
E: Yeah .
F: in which case it 'd be created here ,
E: Mm - hmm .
F: and F: you know , so so you could imagine that this might not F: So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things .
A: But to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise .
F: Um .
A: So " house " is gender neuter ?
F: Um , it could be in A: In reality
A: or in C: Semantically .
F: semantically , yeah . Yeah .
A: semantically .
A: So F: So it uh , uh , a table .
F: You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender .
F: So . Uh , it could be that I mean ,
F: maybe you 'd maybe not all these F: I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most most things .
A: No , just to make sure that we everybody that 's completely agreed that it it has nothing to do with , uh , form .
F: Yeah .
F: OK , that is semantic as opposed to F: Yeah . Yeah . That 's right .
F: Um .
F: S so again A: Then " predications " makes sense to to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not .
F: Open to various things .
A: Yeah .
F: Right .
F: OK , so . Let 's see .
F: So maybe having made that big sca sort of like large scale comment , should I just go through each of these slots uh , each of these blocks , um , a little bit ?
E: Sure .
F: Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic .
F: And just a note ,
F: which was that , um F: s so when we actually ha
F: so for instance , um ,
F: some of them seem more inherently static , OK ,
F: like a container or sort of support - ish .
F: And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic
F: like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way
F: or " force " , or something like that .
F: But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that .
F: And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic .
F: So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this .
E: Mmm .
F: And you know , " container " that you can go in and out .
F: All of these things .
F: And so , um ,
F: I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day F: the " Spaniettes " , as we called them F: um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions .
F: How do you link them up .
F: And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic " .
F: So we definitely need that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that .
F: Um , that , you know , is it , uh , a state or is it a change of state , or is it a , um , action of some kind ?
A: Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?
F: Uh .
F: Yeah .
A: Just means F: Oh , oh ! You mean , in the slot ?
A: Mm - hmm .
F: Um , no , it 's like X - sc it 's it 's like I was thinking of type constraints
F: but X - schema , well it obviously has to be an X - schema .
F: " Agent " , I mean , the the performer of the X - schema ,
F: that s depends on the X - schema .
F: You know , and I in general it would probably be , you know E: So the difference is basically whether you thought it was obvious what the possible fillers were .
F: Yeah , basically .
A: Mm - hmm .
E: OK .
F: Um , " aspectual type " probably isn't obvious
F: but I should have So , I just neglected to stick something in . " Perspective " , " actor " , " undergoer " , " observer " , um ,
B: Mmm .
F: I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser
E: " Whee ! "
E: That 's that one , right ?
F: Yeah , exactly . Exactly .
F: Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example <comment> of like , if you have a passive construction then one thing it does is ch you know definitely , it is one way to for you to , you know , specifically take the perspective of the undergoing kind of object .
F: And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ?
F: Well , maybe there are other things .
F: You know , now that it 's subject is more like a topic .
F: And now that , you know F: Anyway . So .
F: Sorry . I 'm gonna trail off on that one
F: cuz it 's not that f important right now .
F: Um ,
C: N now , for the moment we just need the ability to l l write it down if if somebody figured out what the rules were .
F: To know how F: Yeah . Yeah . Exactly .
C: Yeah .
F: Um ,
F: some of these other ones ,
F: let 's see .
F: So ,
F: uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts .
F: So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance .
C: Mm - hmm .
F: So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess ,
F: you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen .
F: You could imagine that you skip out this you know , leave off this polarity ,
F: you know , not don't have it here .
F: And then have it part of the speech - act in some way .
C: Mm - hmm .
F: There 's some negation .
F: But the reason why I left it in is cuz you might have a change of state , let 's say , where some state holds and then some state doesn't hold ,
F: and you 're just talking , you know F: if you 're trying to have the nuts and bolts of simulation you need to know that , you know , whatever , the holder doesn't and C: No , I th I think at this lev which is it should be where you have it .
F: OK , it 's so it 's it 's it 's fine where it is .
F: So ,
C: I mean , how you get it may may in will often involve the discourse
F: OK .
F: May come from a few places .
C: but but by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that .
F: Right .
F: Right .
E: So , I 'm still just really not clear on what I 'm looking at .
E: The " scenario " box ,
E: like , what does that look like for an example ?
F: Yeah .
E: Like , not all of these things are gonna be here .
F: Mm - hmm .
C: Correct .
E: This is just basically says
F: It 's a grab bag of E: " part of what I 'm going to hand you is a whole bunch of s uh , schemas , image , and X - schemas .
E: Here are some examples of the sorts of things you might have in there " .
F: So that 's exactly what it is .
E: OK .
F: And for a particular instance which I will , you know , make an example of something , is that you might have an instance of container and path , let 's say , as part of your , you know , " into " you know , definition .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: So you would eventually have instances filled in with various various values for all the different slots .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and and and values .
E: OK .
C: W it c
E: Do you have to say about the binding in your E: is there a slot in here for that tells you how the bindings are done ?
C: No , no , no .
C: I let 's see , I think we 're we 're not C: I don't think we have it quite right yet .
E: OK .
C: So , uh , what this is ,
C: let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete .
E: OK .
C: OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished , <comment> you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,
E: Mm - hmm .
C: which is made up entirely of these things and , uh , bindings among them .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: And bindings to ontology items .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: So that that the who that this is the tool kit under whi out of which you can make a semantic specification .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: So that 's A .
E: OK .
C: But B , which is more relevant to your life , is this is also the tool kit that is used in the semantic side of constructions .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: So this is an that anything you have , in the party line , <comment> anything you have as the semantic side of constructions comes , from pieces of this ignoring li
E: OK .
C: I mean , in general , you ignore lots of it .