input: Text: Grad B: what things to talk about. Grad F: I'm <unk>disfmarker<unk> What? Really? Oh, that's horrible! Disincentive! Grad A: OK, we're recording. Grad F: Hello? Grad B: Check check <unk>pause<unk> check check. Grad D: Uh, yeah. Grad F: Hello? Which am I? Professor C: Oh right. Grad B: Alright. Good. Grad F: Channel fi OK. OK. Are you doing something? OK, then I guess I'm doing something. So, um, So basically the result of m much thinking since the last time we met, um, but not as much writing, um, is a sheet that I have a lot of, like, thoughts and justification of comments on but I 'll just pass out as is right now. So, um, here. If you could pass this around? And there's two things. And so one on one side is <unk>disfmarker<unk> on one side is a sort of the revised sort of updated semantic specification. Grad D: Um <unk>disfmarker<unk> The <unk>disfmarker<unk> wait. Grad F: And the other side is, um, sort of a revised construction formalism. Grad E: This is just one sheet, right? Grad D: Ah! Just one sheet. Grad F: It's just one sheet. Grad D: OK. Grad F: It's just a <unk>disfmarker<unk> Nothing else. Grad D: Front, back. Grad F: Um, Enough to go around? OK. And in some ways it's <unk>disfmarker<unk> it's <unk>disfmarker<unk> it's very similar to <unk>disfmarker<unk> There are very few changes in some ways from what we've, um, uh, b done before but I don't think everyone here has seen all of
  Question: What was concluded on semantic specification?
  Answer:
output: The revised semantic specification and construction formalism are more stable than the previous versions. In the latter, we find both construction types and meaning types along with formal considerations like verb subcategorization, or the ones a "directed motion" construction would dictate.