are way We can be more specific if we have to later on OK and so in terms of the the relations you know as usual before and ends I should have put an example in of something that isn't an interval relation but in form you might also have a value binding You know you could say that um you know dot t you know number equals you know a plural or something like that There are certain things that are similar to the bindings below but I mean just us usually going to be value value fillers right OK and then again semantic constraints here are just are just bindings There was talk of changing the name of that And Johno and I I you you and I can like fight about that if you like but about changing it to semantic n effects which I thought was a little bit too Well Th semantic bindings which I thought might be too restrictive in case we don't have only bindings And so it was an issue whether constraints um there were some linguists who reacted against constraints saying oh if not used for matching then it shouldn't be called a constraint But I think we want to be uncommitted about whether used for matching or not Right Cuz there are I think we thought of some situations where it would be useful to use whatever the c bindings are for actual you know sort of like modified constraining purposes you definitely want to the formalism from the parsing strategy Yeah Yeah that yeah whether or not used used shouldn't for matter matching right or only for verification I s For sure I mean I don't know what uh term we want to use but we don't Yeah to uh there was one time when when Hans explained why constraints was a misleading word for him Yep I think the reason that he gave was similar to the reason why Johno thought it was a misleading term which was just an interesting coincidence Um but uh And so I was like OK well both of you don't like it Fine g can change gone it But I I starting to like it again So that But why stick with it So Well you know what If Th phrase do you know what the then phrase is called What Con uh a consequent Yeah Yeah but not an I know Anyway but so the other the other strategy you guys could consider is when you don't know what word to put you could put no word just meaning OK Yeah the then let Yeah true So why you put semantic constraints up top and meaning bindings down down here Oh oops No That was just a mistake of cut and paste from when OK was OK with it So sorry I didn't mean that an in unintentional So this should be Sometimes semantic and intentionally inconsistent cuz not sure yet Here I actually it was Th just a mistake this definitely should be semantic constraints down at the bottom Sure Yeah OK Well unless I go with meaning but i I mean I kind Or whatever meaning better than semantic but I think vestiges of Or wh biases Like That b Right Minor min point problem Extremely OK um so I think the middle block doesn't really give you any more information ex than the top block And the bottom block similarly only just illus you know all it does is illustrate that you can drop the subscripts and and that you can drop the um uh that you can give dual types Oh one thing I should mention is about designates I think actually inconsistent across these as well So um strike out the M subscript on the middle block So basically now um this is actually this little change actually goes along with a big linguistic change which is that designates isn't only something for the semantics to worry about now Good we want s designates to actually know one of the constituents which acts like a head in some respects but is sort of um really important for say composition later on So for instance if some other construction says you know are you of type is this part of type whatever um the designates tells you which sort of part is the meaning part OK so if you have like the big red ball you know you wanna know if an object or a noun Well ball is going to be the designated sort Mmm element of that kind of phrase Um there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form useful sometimes to talk about um to talk about there also being a designated object and we think that be the same one right So the ball is the head of the phrase the r the um big red ball and the entity denoted by the word ball is sort of the semantic head in some ways of of this sort of um in interesting and larger element Yeah And uh ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head Yeah And and this enables you to get that if Yeah Right understand you right the right idea Yeah Yeah yeah And uh you might be able to say things like if the head has to go last in a language you can refer to the head as a p the you know the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that Right decision So a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints OK in so that all looks good Let me Oh w Oh I don't know Were you finished Um there was a list of things that isn't included but you you can you can ask a question That might OK it So i if I understand this the aside from uh construed and all that sort of stuff the the differences are mainly that gone to the possibility of having pairs for a type or actually Right gone back to if we go Well far except enough their construction meaning so not clear that uh Well right now a c uh contr construction type and meaning type So I don't know what a form Oh I see type yeah is Yeah right A construction type Uh fine Right But it um A well and a previous um you know version of the notation certainly allowed you to single out the meaning bit by it So you could say construct of type whatever designates something Yeah But that was mostly for reference purposes just to refer to the meaning pole I don't think that it was often used to give an extra meaning const type constraint on the meaning which is really what we want most of the time I think Um