So it uh , uh , a table. You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender. So. Uh , it could be that  I mean , maybe you 'd  maybe not all these  I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most  most things.

No , just to make sure that we  everybody that 's  completely agreed that it  it has nothing to do with , uh , form.

Yeah. OK , that is semantic as opposed to  Yeah. Yeah. That 's right. Um.

Then " predications " makes sense to  to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not.


No , just to make sure that we  everybody that 's  completely agreed that it  it has nothing to do with , uh , form.

Yeah. OK , that is semantic as opposed to  Yeah. Yeah. That 's right. Um.

Then " predications " makes sense to  to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not.


Yeah. OK , that is semantic as opposed to  Yeah. Yeah. That 's right. Um.

Then " predications " makes sense to  to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not.


Then " predications " makes sense to  to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not.

Right. OK , so. Let 's see. 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 ?


Right. OK , so. Let 's see. 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 ?


Right. OK , so. Let 's see. 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 ?

Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic. And just a note , which was that , um  s so when we actually ha so for instance , um , some of them seem more inherently static , OK , like a container or sort of support - ish. And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way or " force " , or something like that. But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that. And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic. So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this.


Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic. And just a note , which was that , um  s so when we actually ha so for instance , um , some of them seem more inherently static , OK , like a container or sort of support - ish. And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way or " force " , or something like that. But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that. And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic. So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this.

And you know , " container " that you can go in and out. All of these things. And so , um , I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day  the " Spaniettes " , as we  called them  um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions. How do you link them up. And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic ". So we definitely need  that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that. 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 ?


Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic. And just a note , which was that , um  s so when we actually ha so for instance , um , some of them seem more inherently static , OK , like a container or sort of support - ish. And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way or " force " , or something like that. But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that. And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic. So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this.

And you know , " container " that you can go in and out. All of these things. And so , um , I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day  the " Spaniettes " , as we  called them  um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions. How do you link them up. And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic ". So we definitely need  that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that. 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 ?

Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?


And you know , " container " that you can go in and out. All of these things. And so , um , I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day  the " Spaniettes " , as we  called them  um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions. How do you link them up. And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic ". So we definitely need  that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that. 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 ?

Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?


Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?


Um , no , it 's like X - sc it 's  it 's like I was thinking of type constraints but X - schema , well it obviously has to be an X - schema. " Agent " , I mean , the  the performer of the X - schema , that s depends on the X - schema. You know , and I  in general it would probably be , you know


Um , no , it 's like X - sc it 's  it 's like I was thinking of type constraints but X - schema , well it obviously has to be an X - schema. " Agent " , I mean , the  the performer of the X - schema , that s depends on the X - schema. You know , and I  in general it would probably be , you know

So the difference is basically whether you thought it was obvious what the possible fillers were.


So the difference is basically whether you thought it was obvious what the possible fillers were.


Um , " aspectual type " probably isn't obvious but I should have  So , I just neglected to stick something in. " Perspective " , " actor " , " undergoer " , " observer " , um ,


Um , " aspectual type " probably isn't obvious but I should have  So , I just neglected to stick something in. " Perspective " , " actor " , " undergoer " , " observer " , um ,

I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser


I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser

Yeah , exactly.  Exactly. Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example  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. And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ? Well , maybe there are other things. You know , now that it 's  subject is more like a topic. And now that , you know  Anyway. So. Sorry. I 'm gonna trail off on that one cuz it 's not that f important right now.


I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser

Yeah , exactly.  Exactly. Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example  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. And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ? Well , maybe there are other things. You know , now that it 's  subject is more like a topic. And now that , you know  Anyway. So. Sorry. I 'm gonna trail off on that one cuz it 's not that f important right now.

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.


Yeah , exactly.  Exactly. Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example  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. And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ? Well , maybe there are other things. You know , now that it 's  subject is more like a topic. And now that , you know  Anyway. So. Sorry. I 'm gonna trail off on that one cuz it 's not that f important right now.

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.


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.

Um , some of these other ones , let 's see. So , uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts.


Um , some of these other ones , let 's see. So , uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts.


Um , some of these other ones , let 's see. So , uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts.

So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance. So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess , you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen. You could imagine that you skip out this  you know , leave off this polarity , you know , not  don't have it here. And then have it part of the speech - act in some way.


So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance. So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess , you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen. You could imagine that you skip out this  you know , leave off this polarity , you know , not  don't have it here. And then have it part of the speech - act in some way.

There 's some negation. 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 , and you 're just talking , you know  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


So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance. So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess , you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen. You could imagine that you skip out this  you know , leave off this polarity , you know , not  don't have it here. And then have it part of the speech - act in some way.

There 's some negation. 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 , and you 're just talking , you know  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

No , I th I think at this lev which is  it should be where you have it.


There 's some negation. 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 , and you 're just talking , you know  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

No , I th I think at this lev which is  it should be where you have it.

OK , it 's  so it 's  it 's  it 's fine where it is.


There 's some negation. 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 , and you 're just talking , you know  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

No , I th I think at this lev which is  it should be where you have it.

OK , it 's  so it 's  it 's  it 's fine where it is.

I mean , how you get it may  may in will often involve the discourse


No , I th I think at this lev which is  it should be where you have it.

OK , it 's  so it 's  it 's  it 's fine where it is.

I mean , how you get it may  may in will often involve the discourse


OK , it 's  so it 's  it 's  it 's fine where it is.

I mean , how you get it may  may in will often involve the discourse

but  but  by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that.


I mean , how you get it may  may in will often involve the discourse

but  but  by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that.


but  but  by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that.

So ,  I 'm still just really not clear on what I 'm looking at. The " scenario " box , like , what does that look like for an example ? Like , not all of these things are gonna be here.


So ,  I 'm still just really not clear on what I 'm looking at. The " scenario " box , like , what does that look like for an example ? Like , not all of these things are gonna be here.


" part of what I 'm going to hand you is a whole bunch of s uh , schemas , image , and X - schemas. Here are some examples of the sorts of things you might have in there ".


" part of what I 'm going to hand you is a whole bunch of s uh , schemas , image , and X - schemas. Here are some examples of the sorts of things you might have in there ".

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.


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.


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.

So you would eventually have instances filled in with various  various values for all the different slots.


So you would eventually have instances filled in with various  various values for all the different slots.

And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and  and  and values.


And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and  and  and values.

OK. Do you have to say about the binding in your  is there a slot in here for  that tells you how the bindings are done ?


And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and  and  and values.

OK. Do you have to say about the binding in your  is there a slot in here for  that tells you how the bindings are done ?

No , no , no. I  let 's see , I think we 're  we 're not  I don't think we have it quite right yet. So , uh , what this is ,


OK. Do you have to say about the binding in your  is there a slot in here for  that tells you how the bindings are done ?

No , no , no. I  let 's see , I think we 're  we 're not  I don't think we have it quite right yet. So , uh , what this is ,


OK. Do you have to say about the binding in your  is there a slot in here for  that tells you how the bindings are done ?

No , no , no. I  let 's see , I think we 're  we 're not  I don't think we have it quite right yet. So , uh , what this is ,

let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete. OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished ,  you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,


No , no , no. I  let 's see , I think we 're  we 're not  I don't think we have it quite right yet. So , uh , what this is ,

let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete. OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished ,  you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,


let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete. OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished ,  you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,

which is made up entirely of these things and , uh , bindings among them. And bindings to ontology items.


which is made up entirely of these things and , uh , bindings among them. And bindings to ontology items.

So that  that the who that this is the tool kit under whi out of which you can make a semantic specification.


So that  that the who that this is the tool kit under whi out of which you can make a semantic specification.

So that 's A. 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.


So that 's A. 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.

So this is an that anything you have , in the party line ,  anything you have as the semantic side of constructions comes , from pieces of this  ignoring li


So this is an that anything you have , in the party line ,  anything you have as the semantic side of constructions comes , from pieces of this  ignoring li

I mean , in general , you ignore lots of it.


I mean , in general , you ignore lots of it.

But it 's got to be pieces of this along with constraints among them.


But it 's got to be pieces of this along with constraints among them.

Uh , so that the , you know , goal of the , uh uh , " source , path , goal " has to be the landmark of the conta you know , the interior of this container.


Uh , so that the , you know , goal of the , uh uh , " source , path , goal " has to be the landmark of the conta you know , the interior of this container.


So those constraints appear in constructions


So those constraints appear in constructions

but pretty much this is the full range of semantic structures available to you.


but pretty much this is the full range of semantic structures available to you.

Except for " cause " , that I forgot. But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events.


Except for " cause " , that I forgot. But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events.

OK , good. Let 's  let 's mark that. So we need a c


Except for " cause " , that I forgot. But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events.

OK , good. Let 's  let 's mark that. So we need a c

Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny. These are all  so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots. Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames. Right ?


OK , good. Let 's  let 's mark that. So we need a c

Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny. These are all  so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots. Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames. Right ?


Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny. These are all  so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots. Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames. Right ?

So you 'll say , " event one causes event B


So you 'll say , " event one causes event B

And  and  and  and this  this  this again may ge our , um  and we  and  and , of course , worlds.


And  and  and  and this  this  this again may ge our , um  and we  and  and , of course , worlds.

Yeah. So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one  within , uh within one world. Um , even though saying that place takes place , whatever. Uh , if y if I said " time " is , you know , " past " , that would say " set that this world " , you know , " somewhere , before the world that corresponds to our current speech time ".


Yeah. So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one  within , uh within one world. Um , even though saying that place takes place , whatever. Uh , if y if I said " time " is , you know , " past " , that would say " set that this world " , you know , " somewhere , before the world that corresponds to our current speech time ".


Yeah. So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one  within , uh within one world. Um , even though saying that place takes place , whatever. Uh , if y if I said " time " is , you know , " past " , that would say " set that this world " , you know , " somewhere , before the world that corresponds to our current speech time ".

So. But that  that  that 's sort of OK. The  the  within the event it 's st it 's still one world. Um. Yeah , so " cause " and  Other frames that could come in  I mean , unfortunately you could bring in say for instance , um , uh , " desire " or something like that ,


So. But that  that  that 's sort of OK. The  the  within the event it 's st it 's still one world. Um. Yeah , so " cause " and  Other frames that could come in  I mean , unfortunately you could bring in say for instance , um , uh , " desire " or something like that ,

like " want ". And actually there is right now under " discourse segments " , um , " attitude " ?


like " want ". And actually there is right now under " discourse segments " , um , " attitude " ?

" Volition " ? could fill that. So there are a couple things where I like , " oh , I 'm not sure if I wanted to have it there


" Volition " ? could fill that. So there are a couple things where I like , " oh , I 'm not sure if I wanted to have it there

or  " Basically there was a whole list of  of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed. And , like , well , I don't  you know , it was like " hope , wish. desire " ,


or  " Basically there was a whole list of  of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed. And , like , well , I don't  you know , it was like " hope , wish. desire " ,


or  " Basically there was a whole list of  of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed. And , like , well , I don't  you know , it was like " hope , wish. desire " ,

blah - blah - blah. And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning  I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place. So  They 're more lexically marked , right ?


blah - blah - blah. And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning  I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place. So  They 're more lexically marked , right ?


blah - blah - blah. And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning  I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place. So  They 're more lexically marked , right ?

At least in English. So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying , e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ? You know , like " Naomi wants  wants su a certain situation and that situation itself is a state of affairs ".


blah - blah - blah. And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning  I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place. So  They 're more lexically marked , right ?

At least in English. So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying , e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ? You know , like " Naomi wants  wants su a certain situation and that situation itself is a state of affairs ".

S right. So  so , " want " itself can be   i i i i i


At least in English. So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying , e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ? You know , like " Naomi wants  wants su a certain situation and that situation itself is a state of affairs ".

S right. So  so , " want " itself can be   i i i i i

u Can be just another frame that 's part of your


At least in English. So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying , e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ? You know , like " Naomi wants  wants su a certain situation and that situation itself is a state of affairs ".

S right. So  so , " want " itself can be   i i i i i

u Can be just another frame that 's part of your

Well , and it i basically it 's an action. In  in our s in our  in our


S right. So  so , " want " itself can be   i i i i i

u Can be just another frame that 's part of your

Well , and it i basically it 's an action. In  in our s in our  in our


u Can be just another frame that 's part of your

Well , and it i basically it 's an action. In  in our s in our  in our

in  in our  in our s terminology , " want " can be an action and " what you want " is a world.


Well , and it i basically it 's an action. In  in our s in our  in our

in  in our  in our s terminology , " want " can be an action and " what you want " is a world.


in  in our  in our s terminology , " want " can be an action and " what you want " is a world.


in  in our  in our s terminology , " want " can be an action and " what you want " is a world.

So that 's  I mean , it 's certainly one way to do it.


So that 's  I mean , it 's certainly one way to do it.


Causal stuff we absolutely need. Mental space we need.


Causal stuff we absolutely need. Mental space we need.

The context we need. Um , so anyway , Keith  So is this comfortable to you that , uh , once we have this defined , it is your tool kit for building the semantic part of constructions.


The context we need. Um , so anyway , Keith  So is this comfortable to you that , uh , once we have this defined , it is your tool kit for building the semantic part of constructions.

And then when we combine constructions semantically , the goal is going to be to fill out more and more of the bindings needed in order to come up with the final one.


And then when we combine constructions semantically , the goal is going to be to fill out more and more of the bindings needed in order to come up with the final one.

And that 's the wh and  and I mean , that  according to the party line , that 's the whole story.


And then when we combine constructions semantically , the goal is going to be to fill out more and more of the bindings needed in order to come up with the final one.

And that 's the wh and  and I mean , that  according to the party line , that 's the whole story.

Yeah. Mm - hmm. Yeah. Um. y Right. That makes sense. So I mean , there 's this stuff in the  off in the scenario , which just tells you how various  what schemas you 're using and they 're  how they 're bound together. And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff  is that where you would sa


And that 's the wh and  and I mean , that  according to the party line , that 's the whole story.

Yeah. Mm - hmm. Yeah. Um. y Right. That makes sense. So I mean , there 's this stuff in the  off in the scenario , which just tells you how various  what schemas you 're using and they 're  how they 're bound together. And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff  is that where you would sa


And that 's the wh and  and I mean , that  according to the party line , that 's the whole story.

Yeah. Mm - hmm. Yeah. Um. y Right. That makes sense. So I mean , there 's this stuff in the  off in the scenario , which just tells you how various  what schemas you 're using and they 're  how they 're bound together. And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff  is that where you would sa

I mean , that 's  OK , that 's where the information structure is which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this.


Yeah. Mm - hmm. Yeah. Um. y Right. That makes sense. So I mean , there 's this stuff in the  off in the scenario , which just tells you how various  what schemas you 're using and they 're  how they 're bound together. And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff  is that where you would sa

I mean , that 's  OK , that 's where the information structure is which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this.


I mean , that 's  OK , that 's where the information structure is which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this.

I mean , what 's interesting is that the information structure stuff  Hmm. There 's almost  I mean , we keep coming back to how focus is like this  this , uh , trajector - landmark thing.


I mean , what 's interesting is that the information structure stuff  Hmm. There 's almost  I mean , we keep coming back to how focus is like this  this , uh , trajector - landmark thing.

So if I say , um , You know , " In France it 's like this ". You know , great , we 've learned something about France but the fact is that utterances of that sort are generally used to help you draw a conclusion also about some implicit contrast , like " In France it 's like this ". And therefore you 're supposed to say , " Boy , life sure  "


So if I say , um , You know , " In France it 's like this ". You know , great , we 've learned something about France but the fact is that utterances of that sort are generally used to help you draw a conclusion also about some implicit contrast , like " In France it 's like this ". And therefore you 're supposed to say , " Boy , life sure  "

You know , " in France kids are allowed to drink at age three ". And w you 're  that 's not just a fact about France. You also conclude something about how boring it is here in the U S. Right ?


You know , " in France kids are allowed to drink at age three ". And w you 're  that 's not just a fact about France. You also conclude something about how boring it is here in the U S. Right ?


S so I would prefer not to worry about that for right now


discourse level constructions in a sense , topic  topic - focus constructions that would say , " oh , when you focus something " then


discourse level constructions in a sense , topic  topic - focus constructions that would say , " oh , when you focus something " then

just done the same way  just actually in the same way as the lower level. If you stressed , you know , " John went to the  " , you know , " the bar " whatever , you 're focusing that


just done the same way  just actually in the same way as the lower level. If you stressed , you know , " John went to the  " , you know , " the bar " whatever , you 're focusing that

and a in a possible inference is " in contrast to other things ".


and a in a possible inference is " in contrast to other things ".

So similarly for a whole sentence , you know , " in France such - and - such happens ".


So similarly for a whole sentence , you know , " in France such - and - such happens ".

So the whole thing is sort of like again implicitly as opposed to other things that are possible.


So the whole thing is sort of like again implicitly as opposed to other things that are possible.

Uh , just  just , uh , look  read uh even sem semi formal Mats Rooth.


Uh , just  just , uh , look  read uh even sem semi formal Mats Rooth.


And just pick any paper on alternative semantics.


And just pick any paper on alternative semantics.

So that 's his  that 's the best way of talking about focus , is I think his way.


So that 's his  that 's the best way of talking about focus , is I think his way.


I never know how to pronounce his name because he 's sort of ,


and , um  but very confused background I think.


And sadly enough he also just left the IMS in Stuttgart. So he 's not there anymore.


And sadly enough he also just left the IMS in Stuttgart. So he 's not there anymore.

But , um  I don't know where he is right now but alternative semantics is  if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff.


But , um  I don't know where he is right now but alternative semantics is  if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff.

And what I 'm kind of confused about is  is what the speaker and the hearer is  is sort of doing there.


But , um  I don't know where he is right now but alternative semantics is  if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff.

And what I 'm kind of confused about is  is what the speaker and the hearer is  is sort of doing there.

So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ? So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me.


And what I 'm kind of confused about is  is what the speaker and the hearer is  is sort of doing there.

So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ? So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me.


And what I 'm kind of confused about is  is what the speaker and the hearer is  is sort of doing there.

So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ? So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me.

Um , hearer is a little bit harder. It could be like multiple people. I guess that  that  that  that 's not very clear from here


So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ? So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me.

Um , hearer is a little bit harder. It could be like multiple people. I guess that  that  that  that 's not very clear from here

Yeah , but you  Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,


Um , hearer is a little bit harder. It could be like multiple people. I guess that  that  that  that 's not very clear from here

Yeah , but you  Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,


Um , hearer is a little bit harder. It could be like multiple people. I guess that  that  that  that 's not very clear from here

Yeah , but you  Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,

because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " , you know , " these guys " , all these expressions , nuh , are in  in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there "


Yeah , but you  Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,

because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " , you know , " these guys " , all these expressions , nuh , are in  in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there "


because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " , you know , " these guys " , all these expressions , nuh , are in  in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there "

Now , this is  this is assuming you 've already solved that.


Now , this is  this is assuming you 've already solved that.


Right , so the constructions might  of course will refer , using pronouns or whatever.


Right , so the constructions might  of course will refer , using pronouns or whatever.

In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those. But when you actually say that " he walked into  " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular  You  you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to. Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person  whatever role that person was playing in the event.


In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those. But when you actually say that " he walked into  " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular  You  you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to. Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person  whatever role that person was playing in the event.


In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those. But when you actually say that " he walked into  " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular  You  you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to. Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person  whatever role that person was playing in the event.

And down there in the speaker - hearer part ?


And down there in the speaker - hearer part ?

S so , that 's  I think that 's just  n for instance , Speaker is known from the situation , right ? You 're  when you hear something you 're told who the speaker is  I mean , you know who the speaker is. In fact , that 's kind of constraining how  in some ways you know this before you get to the  you fill in all the rest of it. I think.


S so , that 's  I think that 's just  n for instance , Speaker is known from the situation , right ? You 're  when you hear something you 're told who the speaker is  I mean , you know who the speaker is. In fact , that 's kind of constraining how  in some ways you know this before you get to the  you fill in all the rest of it. I think.

You know , uh , uh , it 's  the speaker may  in English is allowed to say " I. "


You know , uh , uh , it 's  the speaker may  in English is allowed to say " I. "


You know , uh , uh , it 's  the speaker may  in English is allowed to say " I. "

Uh , among the twenty - five percent most used words.


Uh , among the twenty - five percent most used words.

But wouldn't the " I " then set up the  the s s referent  that happens to be the speaker this time


But wouldn't the " I " then set up the  the s s referent  that happens to be the speaker this time


S so  OK , so I would say ref under referent should be something that corresponds to " I ". And maybe each referent should probably have a list of way whatever , the way it was referred to. So that 's " I " but , uh , uh , should we say it  it refers to , what ? Uh , if it were " Harry " it would refer to like some ontology thing. If it were  if it 's " I " it would refer to the current speaker , OK , which is given to be like , you know , whoever it is.


S so  OK , so I would say ref under referent should be something that corresponds to " I ". And maybe each referent should probably have a list of way whatever , the way it was referred to. So that 's " I " but , uh , uh , should we say it  it refers to , what ? Uh , if it were " Harry " it would refer to like some ontology thing. If it were  if it 's " I " it would refer to the current speaker , OK , which is given to be like , you know , whoever it is.

Well , not  not always. I mean , so there 's " and then he said , I w " Uh - huh.


Well , not  not always. I mean , so there 's " and then he said , I w " Uh - huh.


Yeah. That 's right. So  so again , this  uh , this  this is gonna to get us into the mental space stuff


Yeah. That 's right. So  so again , this  uh , this  this is gonna to get us into the mental space stuff

and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said  " , and whatever.


and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said  " , and whatever.


and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said  " , and whatever.

And  and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well.


And  and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well.


And  and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well.

Mm - hmm. So this entire thing is inside a world ,


Mm - hmm. So this entire thing is inside a world ,


Except s it 's  it 's trickier than that because um , the reference for example  So he where it gets really tricky is there 's some things ,


Except s it 's  it 's trickier than that because um , the reference for example  So he where it gets really tricky is there 's some things ,

and this is where blends and all terribl So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't.


and this is where blends and all terribl So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't.

And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that.


and this is where blends and all terribl So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't.

And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that.

Right. So I thought of having like  for each referent , having the list of  of the things t with which it is identified. You know , which  which , uh you know , you  you  you


And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that.

Right. So I thought of having like  for each referent , having the list of  of the things t with which it is identified. You know , which  which , uh you know , you  you  you


And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that.

Right. So I thought of having like  for each referent , having the list of  of the things t with which it is identified. You know , which  which , uh you know , you  you  you

for instance , um  So , I guess , it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing.


Right. So I thought of having like  for each referent , having the list of  of the things t with which it is identified. You know , which  which , uh you know , you  you  you

for instance , um  So , I guess , it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing.


for instance , um  So , I guess , it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing.

If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever. If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ? Or something in ontology.


If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever. If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ? Or something in ontology.

So , there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these.


If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever. If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ? Or something in ontology.

So , there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these.

I just had a  I just had an  an idea that would be very nice if it works.


So , there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these.

I just had a  I just had an  an idea that would be very nice if it works.


So , there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these.

I just had a  I just had an  an idea that would be very nice if it works.

Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet.


I just had a  I just had an  an idea that would be very nice if it works.

Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet.


Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet.


So we 're building a mental space , good.


So we 're building a mental space , good.

Right , it was a space builder. Um , we might be able to handle context in the same way that we handle mental spaces because , uh , you have somewhat the same things going on of , uh , things being accessible or not.


Right , it was a space builder. Um , we might be able to handle context in the same way that we handle mental spaces because , uh , you have somewhat the same things going on of , uh , things being accessible or not.


it c it  it , uh I think if we did it right we might be able to get at least a lot of the same structure.


it c it  it , uh I think if we did it right we might be able to get at least a lot of the same structure.

So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena.


So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena.


So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena.

Uh , I 've  I 've  I 've never seen anybody write that up but maybe they did. I don't know. That may be all over the literature.


Uh , I 've  I 've  I 've never seen anybody write that up but maybe they did. I don't know. That may be all over the literature.


Uh , I 've  I 've  I 've never seen anybody write that up but maybe they did. I don't know. That may be all over the literature.

There 's things like ther you know , there 's all kinds of stuff like , um , in  I think I mentioned last time in Czech if you have a  a verb of saying then


There 's things like ther you know , there 's all kinds of stuff like , um , in  I think I mentioned last time in Czech if you have a  a verb of saying then

um , you know , you say something like  or  or I was thinking you can say something like , " oh , I thought , uh , you are a republican " or something like that. Where as in English you would say , " I thought you were ".


um , you know , you say something like  or  or I was thinking you can say something like , " oh , I thought , uh , you are a republican " or something like that. Where as in English you would say , " I thought you were ".

Um , you know , sort of the past tense being copied onto the lower verb doesn't happen there , so you have to say something about , you know , tense is determined relative to current blah - blah - blah.


Um , you know , sort of the past tense being copied onto the lower verb doesn't happen there , so you have to say something about , you know , tense is determined relative to current blah - blah - blah.


There 's languages where , um , if you have a verb of saying then , ehhh , where  OK , so a situation like " Bob said he was going to the movies " , where that lower subject is the same as the person who was saying or thinking , you 're actually required to have " I " there.


There 's languages where , um , if you have a verb of saying then , ehhh , where  OK , so a situation like " Bob said he was going to the movies " , where that lower subject is the same as the person who was saying or thinking , you 're actually required to have " I " there.

Um , and it 's sort of in an extended function


Um , and it 's sort of in an extended function

So we would have it be in quotes in English.


So we would have it be in quotes in English.

But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction.


But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction.


But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction.

I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun , um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?


I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun , um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?


I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun , um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?

Um , but  uh , that happens to sound like the word for " I " but is actually semantically unrelated to it.


Um , but  uh , that happens to sound like the word for " I " but is actually semantically unrelated to it.


There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption. Uh , Mary Dalrymple , uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff.


There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption. Uh , Mary Dalrymple , uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff.

No , that 's horrible. OK. That 's horrible.  OK.


There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption. Uh , Mary Dalrymple , uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff.

No , that 's horrible. OK. That 's horrible.  OK.

Well , yeah. And then the same thing for ASL where , you know , you 're signing and someone says something. And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift. And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other ".


No , that 's horrible. OK. That 's horrible.  OK.

Well , yeah. And then the same thing for ASL where , you know , you 're signing and someone says something. And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift. And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other ".

And you know , " I did this ". That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I ". And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on. So , I mean , the point is that pronoun references , uh , you know , sort of ties in with all this mental space stuff and so on , and so forth.


Well , yeah. And then the same thing for ASL where , you know , you 're signing and someone says something. And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift. And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other ".

And you know , " I did this ". That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I ". And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on. So , I mean , the point is that pronoun references , uh , you know , sort of ties in with all this mental space stuff and so on , and so forth.


And you know , " I did this ". That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I ". And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on. So , I mean , the point is that pronoun references , uh , you know , sort of ties in with all this mental space stuff and so on , and so forth.


So that  that d that does sound like it 's co consistent with what we 're saying , yeah.


So that  that d that does sound like it 's co consistent with what we 're saying , yeah.

OK , so it 's kind of like the unspecified mental spaces just are occurring in context. And then when you embed them sometimes you have to pop up to the h you know , depending on the construction or the whatever , um , you  you  you 're scope is  m might extend out to the  the base one.


OK , so it 's kind of like the unspecified mental spaces just are occurring in context. And then when you embed them sometimes you have to pop up to the h you know , depending on the construction or the whatever , um , you  you  you 're scope is  m might extend out to the  the base one.


It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism since there are so many cases where you actually need it 'll be one or the other.


It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism since there are so many cases where you actually need it 'll be one or the other.

It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same  same operation.


It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism since there are so many cases where you actually need it 'll be one or the other.

It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same  same operation.

Oh , OK , so this  this is worth some thought.


It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same  same operation.

Oh , OK , so this  this is worth some thought.


It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same  same operation.

Oh , OK , so this  this is worth some thought.

It 's like  it 's like what 's happening  that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?


Oh , OK , so this  this is worth some thought.

It 's like  it 's like what 's happening  that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?


It 's like  it 's like what 's happening  that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?

So that 's  that 's how Fauconnier would talk about it. And it happens diff under different circumstances in different languages.


So that 's  that 's how Fauconnier would talk about it. And it happens diff under different circumstances in different languages.


um , things like pronoun reference and tense which we 're thinking of as being these discourse - y things actually are relative to a Bayes space which can change.


Well , but , uh , this is very good actually


Well , but , uh , this is very good actually

cuz it  it  it  to the extent that it works , it y


cuz it  it  it  to the extent that it works , it y

it  it ties together several of  of these things.


it  it ties together several of  of these things.

Mm - hmm. Mm - hmm. And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one. So. But the , uh ,   But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera. You know , all the pointing is gonna be lost.


Mm - hmm. Mm - hmm. And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one. So. But the , uh ,   But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera. You know , all the pointing is gonna be lost.


Mm - hmm. Mm - hmm. And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one. So. But the , uh ,   But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera. You know , all the pointing is gonna be lost.

Well every time Nancy giggles it means  it means that it 's your job.


Well every time Nancy giggles it means  it means that it 's your job.

Yeah , that 's why I said " point to Robert " ,  when I did it.


Well every time Nancy giggles it means  it means that it 's your job.

Yeah , that 's why I said " point to Robert " ,  when I did it.

Uh. Yeah. Mmm , isn't  I mean , I 'm  I was sort of dubious why  why he even introduces this sort of reality , you know , as your basic mental space and then builds up


Yeah , that 's why I said " point to Robert " ,  when I did it.

Uh. Yeah. Mmm , isn't  I mean , I 'm  I was sort of dubious why  why he even introduces this sort of reality , you know , as your basic mental space and then builds up

d doesn't start with some  because it 's so obvi it should be so obvious , at least it is to me ,  that whenever I say something I could preface that with " I think. " Nuh ?


Uh. Yeah. Mmm , isn't  I mean , I 'm  I was sort of dubious why  why he even introduces this sort of reality , you know , as your basic mental space and then builds up

d doesn't start with some  because it 's so obvi it should be so obvious , at least it is to me ,  that whenever I say something I could preface that with " I think. " Nuh ?


d doesn't start with some  because it 's so obvi it should be so obvious , at least it is to me ,  that whenever I say something I could preface that with " I think. " Nuh ?

So there should be no categorical difference between your base and all the others that ensue.


So there should be no categorical difference between your base and all the others that ensue.

No , but there 's  there 's a Gricean thing going on there , that when you say " I think " you 're actually hedging.


No , but there 's  there 's a Gricean thing going on there , that when you say " I think " you 're actually hedging.


Yeah , it 's an  it 's an evidential. It 's sort of semi - grammaticalized. People have talked about it this way. And you know , you can do sort of special things. You can , th put just the phrase " I think " as a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence and so on , and so forth.


Yeah , it 's an  it 's an evidential. It 's sort of semi - grammaticalized. People have talked about it this way. And you know , you can do sort of special things. You can , th put just the phrase " I think " as a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence and so on , and so forth.

Actually one of the child language researchers who works with T Tomasello studied a bunch of these constructions and it was like it 's not using any kind of interesting embedded ways just to mark , you know , uncertainty or something like that.


Actually one of the child language researchers who works with T Tomasello studied a bunch of these constructions and it was like it 's not using any kind of interesting embedded ways just to mark , you know , uncertainty or something like that.


Actually one of the child language researchers who works with T Tomasello studied a bunch of these constructions and it was like it 's not using any kind of interesting embedded ways just to mark , you know , uncertainty or something like that.

Yeah , but about linguistic hedges , I mean , those  those tend to be , um , funky anyways because they blur


Yeah , but about linguistic hedges , I mean , those  those tend to be , um , funky anyways because they blur

So we don't have that in here either do we ?


So we don't have that in here either do we ?


Hhh ,  I  there used to be a slot for speaker , um , it was something like factivity. I couldn't really remember what it meant


Well we were just talking about this sort of evidentiality and stuff like that , right ?


Well we were just talking about this sort of evidentiality and stuff like that , right ?

we  we were talking about sarcasm too , right ? Oh , oh.


we  we were talking about sarcasm too , right ? Oh , oh.

that 's what I think is , um , sort of telling you what percent reality you should give this


that 's what I think is , um , sort of telling you what percent reality you should give this


Yeah , and the fact that I 'm , you know  the fact maybe if I think it versus he thinks that might , you know , depending on how much you trust the two of us or whatever ,


Yeah , and the fact that I 'm , you know  the fact maybe if I think it versus he thinks that might , you know , depending on how much you trust the two of us or whatever ,

Uh great word in the English language is called " about ".


Uh great word in the English language is called " about ".

If you study how people use that it 's also


If you study how people use that it 's also


Oh , that  in that use of " about " , yeah.


Oh , that  in that use of " about " , yeah.

And I think  And I think  y if you want us to spend a pleasant six or seven hours you could get George started on that.


And I think  And I think  y if you want us to spend a pleasant six or seven hours you could get George started on that.

He wrote a paper about thirty - five years ago on that one.


He wrote a paper about thirty - five years ago on that one.

the hedges paper ? I read some of that paper actually.


the hedges paper ? I read some of that paper actually.


the hedges paper ? I read some of that paper actually.

Would you believe that that paper lead directly to the development of anti - lock brakes ?


Would you believe that that paper lead directly to the development of anti - lock brakes ?


Would you believe that that paper lead directly to the development of anti - lock brakes ?

Ask me about it later I 'll tell you how. When we 're not on tape.


Ask me about it later I 'll tell you how. When we 're not on tape.


Ask me about it later I 'll tell you how. When we 're not on tape.

So , and  and I think , uh , someone had raised like sarcasm as a complication at some point.


So , and  and I think , uh , someone had raised like sarcasm as a complication at some point.

There 's all that stuff. Yeah , let 's  I  I don't  I think


So , and  and I think , uh , someone had raised like sarcasm as a complication at some point.

There 's all that stuff. Yeah , let 's  I  I don't  I think

And we just won't deal with sarcastic people.


There 's all that stuff. Yeah , let 's  I  I don't  I think

And we just won't deal with sarcastic people.

I don't really know what like  We  we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ? Like there 's not so many different  hhh ,  I don't know , m


And we just won't deal with sarcastic people.

I don't really know what like  We  we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ? Like there 's not so many different  hhh ,  I don't know , m

Certainly not as some  Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part.


I don't really know what like  We  we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ? Like there 's not so many different  hhh ,  I don't know , m

Certainly not as some  Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part.


I don't really know what like  We  we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ? Like there 's not so many different  hhh ,  I don't know , m

Certainly not as some  Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part.

I don't know too much about the like grammatical


Certainly not as some  Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part.

I don't know too much about the like grammatical

I just mean  There 's lots of different attitudes that  that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth.


I don't know too much about the like grammatical

I just mean  There 's lots of different attitudes that  that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth.


I don't know too much about the like grammatical

I just mean  There 's lots of different attitudes that  that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth.

But like what are the distinctions among those that we actually care about for our current purposes ?


I just mean  There 's lots of different attitudes that  that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth.

But like what are the distinctions among those that we actually care about for our current purposes ?

Right. Right , so , uh , this  this raises the question of what are our current purposes.


But like what are the distinctions among those that we actually care about for our current purposes ?

Right. Right , so , uh , this  this raises the question of what are our current purposes.


Right. Right , so , uh , this  this raises the question of what are our current purposes.


Uh , so , um , I  I don't know the answer but  but , um , it does seem that , you know , this is  this is coming along. I think it 's  it 's converging. It 's  as far as I can tell there 's this one major thing we have to do which is the mental  the whole s mental space thing. And then there 's some other minor things.


Uh , so , um , I  I don't know the answer but  but , um , it does seem that , you know , this is  this is coming along. I think it 's  it 's converging. It 's  as far as I can tell there 's this one major thing we have to do which is the mental  the whole s mental space thing. And then there 's some other minor things.

Um , and we 're going to have to s sort of bound the complexity. I mean , if we get everything that anybody ever thought about you know , w we 'll go nuts.


Um , and we 're going to have to s sort of bound the complexity. I mean , if we get everything that anybody ever thought about you know , w we 'll go nuts.

So we had started with the idea that the actual , uh , constraint was related to this tourist domain and the kinds of interactions that might occur in the tourist domain , assuming that people were being helpful and weren't trying to d you know , there 's all sorts of  God knows , irony , and stuff like  which you  isn't probably of much use in dealing with a tourist guide.


So we had started with the idea that the actual , uh , constraint was related to this tourist domain and the kinds of interactions that might occur in the tourist domain , assuming that people were being helpful and weren't trying to d you know , there 's all sorts of  God knows , irony , and stuff like  which you  isn't probably of much use in dealing with a tourist guide.


Right. Whatever. So y uh , no end of things th that  that , you know , we don't deal with.


because in terms of the s simspec , it would just mean you put one more set of brack brackets around it , and then just tell it to sort of negate whatever the content of that is in terms of irony


Yeah , in model theory cuz the semantics is always like " speaker believes not - P " , you know ?


Yeah , in model theory cuz the semantics is always like " speaker believes not - P " , you know ?

Like " the speaker says P and believes not - P ".


Yeah , in model theory cuz the semantics is always like " speaker believes not - P " , you know ?

Like " the speaker says P and believes not - P ".

We have a theoretical model of sarcasm now.


Like " the speaker says P and believes not - P ".

We have a theoretical model of sarcasm now.


We have a theoretical model of sarcasm now.


Anyway , so  so , um , I guess uh , let me make a proposal on how to proceed on that , which is that , um , it was Keith 's , uh , sort of job over the summer to come up with this set of constructions. Uh , and my suggestion to Keith is that you , over the next couple weeks , n


Anyway , so  so , um , I guess uh , let me make a proposal on how to proceed on that , which is that , um , it was Keith 's , uh , sort of job over the summer to come up with this set of constructions. Uh , and my suggestion to Keith is that you , over the next couple weeks , n

don't try to do them in detail or formally but just try to describe which ones you think we ought to have.


don't try to do them in detail or formally but just try to describe which ones you think we ought to have.

Uh , and then when Robert gets back we 'll look at the set of them.


Uh , and then when Robert gets back we 'll look at the set of them.

Just  just sort of , you know , define your space.


Just  just sort of , you know , define your space.

And , um , so th these are  this is a set of things that I think we ought to deal with.


And , um , so th these are  this is a set of things that I think we ought to deal with.

And then we 'll  we 'll  we 'll go back over it and w people will  will give feedback on it.


And then we 'll  we 'll  we 'll go back over it and w people will  will give feedback on it.

And then  then we 'll have a  at least initial spec of  of what we 're actually trying to do.


And then  then we 'll have a  at least initial spec of  of what we 're actually trying to do.

And that 'll also be useful for anybody who 's trying to write a parser.


And that 'll also be useful for anybody who 's trying to write a parser.


Right , " who might want " et cetera. So , uh


Right , " who might want " et cetera. So , uh

So a and we get this  this , uh , portals fixed and then we have an idea of the sort of initial range. And then of course Nancy you 're gonna have to , uh , do your set of  but you have to do that anyway.


Right , " who might want " et cetera. So , uh

So a and we get this  this , uh , portals fixed and then we have an idea of the sort of initial range. And then of course Nancy you 're gonna have to , uh , do your set of  but you have to do that anyway.

For the same , yeah , data. Yeah , mm - hmm.


So a and we get this  this , uh , portals fixed and then we have an idea of the sort of initial range. And then of course Nancy you 're gonna have to , uh , do your set of  but you have to do that anyway.

For the same , yeah , data. Yeah , mm - hmm.

So  so we 're gonna get the w we 're basically dealing with two domains , the tourist domain and the  and the child language learning.


For the same , yeah , data. Yeah , mm - hmm.

So  so we 're gonna get the w we 're basically dealing with two domains , the tourist domain and the  and the child language learning.

And we 'll see what we need for those two. And then my proposal would be to , um , not totally cut off more general discussion but to focus really detailed work on the subset of things that we 've  we really want to get done.


So  so we 're gonna get the w we 're basically dealing with two domains , the tourist domain and the  and the child language learning.

And we 'll see what we need for those two. And then my proposal would be to , um , not totally cut off more general discussion but to focus really detailed work on the subset of things that we 've  we really want to get done.


And we 'll see what we need for those two. And then my proposal would be to , um , not totally cut off more general discussion but to focus really detailed work on the subset of things that we 've  we really want to get done.

And then as a kind of separate thread , think about the more general things and  and all that.


And then as a kind of separate thread , think about the more general things and  and all that.

Well , I also think the detailed discussion will hit  you know , bring us to problems that are of a general nature and maybe even


Well , I also think the detailed discussion will hit  you know , bring us to problems that are of a general nature and maybe even


But what I want to do is  is  is to  to constrain the things that we really feel responsible for.


But what I want to do is  is  is to  to constrain the things that we really feel responsible for.

So that  that we say these are the things we 're really gonna try do by the end of the summer


So that  that we say these are the things we 're really gonna try do by the end of the summer

and other things we 'll put on a list of  of research problems or something , because you can easily get to the point where nothing gets done because every time you start to do something you say , " oh , yeah , but what about this case ? "


and other things we 'll put on a list of  of research problems or something , because you can easily get to the point where nothing gets done because every time you start to do something you say , " oh , yeah , but what about this case ? "

This is  this is called being a linguist.


This is  this is called being a linguist.


There 's that quote in Jurafsky and Martin where  where it goes  where some guy goes , " every time I fire a linguist the performance of the recognizer goes up. "


Right. But anyway. So , is  is that  does that make sense as a , uh  a general way to proceed ?


Right. But anyway. So , is  is that  does that make sense as a , uh  a general way to proceed ?

Yeah , yeah , we 'll start with that , just figuring out what needs to be done then actually the next step is to start trying to do it.


Yeah , yeah , we 'll start with that , just figuring out what needs to be done then actually the next step is to start trying to do it.


We have a little bit of news , uh , just minor stuff. The one big


Can I ask a quick question about this side ?


Can I ask a quick question about this side ?

Is this , uh  was it intentional to leave off things like " inherits " and


Is this , uh  was it intentional to leave off things like " inherits " and


Is this , uh  was it intentional to leave off things like " inherits " and

not really  just on the constructions , right ?


not really  just on the constructions , right ?

Yeah , like constructions can inherit from other things ,


Yeah , like constructions can inherit from other things ,


I didn't want to think too much about that for  for now.


I didn't want to think too much about that for  for now.

So , uh , maybe it was subconsciously intentional.


So , uh , maybe it was subconsciously intentional.


So , uh , maybe it was subconsciously intentional.

Um , yeah , there should be  I  I wanted to s find out someday if there was gonna be some way of dealing with , uh , if this is the right term , multiple inheritance ,


Um , yeah , there should be  I  I wanted to s find out someday if there was gonna be some way of dealing with , uh , if this is the right term , multiple inheritance ,

where one construction is inheriting from , uh from both parents ,


where one construction is inheriting from , uh from both parents ,

uh , or different ones , or three or four different ones.


uh , or different ones , or three or four different ones.

Cuz the problem is that then you have to


Cuz the problem is that then you have to

which of  you know , which are  how they 're getting bound together.


which of  you know , which are  how they 're getting bound together.

Yeah , right , right , right. Yeah , yeah , yeah.


which of  you know , which are  how they 're getting bound together.

Yeah , right , right , right. Yeah , yeah , yeah.

Yeah , and  and there are certainly cases like that. Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples.


Yeah , right , right , right. Yeah , yeah , yeah.

Yeah , and  and there are certainly cases like that. Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples.


Yeah , right , right , right. Yeah , yeah , yeah.

Yeah , and  and there are certainly cases like that. Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples.

So , and we 've been talking a little bit about that anyway.


Yeah , and  and there are certainly cases like that. Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples.

So , and we 've been talking a little bit about that anyway.

Yeah. So what I would like to do is separate that problem out.


So , and we 've been talking a little bit about that anyway.

Yeah. So what I would like to do is separate that problem out.


Yeah. So what I would like to do is separate that problem out.


my argument is there 's nothing you can do with that that you can't do by just having more constructions.


my argument is there 's nothing you can do with that that you can't do by just having more constructions.

It 's uglier and it d doesn't have the deep linguistic insights and stuff.


It 's uglier and it d doesn't have the deep linguistic insights and stuff.


And so I  what I 'd like to do is  is in the short run focus on getting it right.


And so I  what I 'd like to do is  is in the short run focus on getting it right.

And when we think we have it right then saying , " aha ! ,


And when we think we have it right then saying , " aha ! ,


Can  can we , uh  What are the generalizations , and stuff ?


Can  can we , uh  What are the generalizations , and stuff ?

But rather than try to guess a inheritance structure and all that sort of stuff before we know what we 're doing.


But rather than try to guess a inheritance structure and all that sort of stuff before we know what we 're doing.

So I would say in the short run we 're not gonna b


So I would say in the short run we 're not gonna b

First of all , we 're not doing them yet at all. And  and it could be that half way through we say , " aha ! , we  we now see how we want to clean it up. "


First of all , we 're not doing them yet at all. And  and it could be that half way through we say , " aha ! , we  we now see how we want to clean it up. "

Uh , and inheritance is only one  I mean , that 's one way to organize it but there are others. And it may or may not be the best way.


Uh , and inheritance is only one  I mean , that 's one way to organize it but there are others. And it may or may not be the best way.


Oh , just small stuff. Um , thanks to Eva on our web site we can now , if you want to run JavaBayes , uh , you could see  get  download these classes. And then it will enable you  she modified the GUI so it has now a m a m a button menu item for saving it into the embedded JavaBayes format.


And , um and she , a You tested it out. Do you want to say something about that , that it works , right ? With the


And , um and she , a You tested it out. Do you want to say something about that , that it works , right ? With the

I was just checking like , when we wanna , um , get the posterior probability of , like , variables. You know how you asked whether we can , like , just observe all the variables like in the same list ? You can't.


And , um and she , a You tested it out. Do you want to say something about that , that it works , right ? With the

I was just checking like , when we wanna , um , get the posterior probability of , like , variables. You know how you asked whether we can , like , just observe all the variables like in the same list ? You can't.

You have to make separate queries every time.


I was just checking like , when we wanna , um , get the posterior probability of , like , variables. You know how you asked whether we can , like , just observe all the variables like in the same list ? You can't.

You have to make separate queries every time.


You have to make separate queries every time.


You have to make separate queries every time.

but for the time being it 's  it 's  it 's fine to do it


but for the time being it 's  it 's  it 's fine to do it

You just have to have a long list of , you know , all the variables.


You just have to have a long list of , you know , all the variables.

Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately.


Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately.


Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately.

Well that 's  probably maybe in the long term that 's good news because it forces us to think a little bit more carefully how  how we want to get an out output. Um , but that 's a different discussion for a different time. And , um , I don't know. We 're really running late , so I had , uh , an idea yesterday but , uh , I don't know whether we should even start discussing.


Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately.

Well that 's  probably maybe in the long term that 's good news because it forces us to think a little bit more carefully how  how we want to get an out output. Um , but that 's a different discussion for a different time. And , um , I don't know. We 're really running late , so I had , uh , an idea yesterday but , uh , I don't know whether we should even start discussing.

W what  Yeah , sure , tell us what it is.


Well that 's  probably maybe in the long term that 's good news because it forces us to think a little bit more carefully how  how we want to get an out output. Um , but that 's a different discussion for a different time. And , um , I don't know. We 're really running late , so I had , uh , an idea yesterday but , uh , I don't know whether we should even start discussing.

W what  Yeah , sure , tell us what it is.

Um , the construal bit that , um , has been pointed to but hasn't been , um , made precise by any means , um , may w may work as follows. I thought that we would , uh  that the following thing would be in incredibly nice and I have no clue whether it will work at all or nothing. So that 's just a tangent , a couple of mental disclaimers here. Um , imagine you  you write a Bayes - net , um


W what  Yeah , sure , tell us what it is.

Um , the construal bit that , um , has been pointed to but hasn't been , um , made precise by any means , um , may w may work as follows. I thought that we would , uh  that the following thing would be in incredibly nice and I have no clue whether it will work at all or nothing. So that 's just a tangent , a couple of mental disclaimers here. Um , imagine you  you write a Bayes - net , um


Um , the construal bit that , um , has been pointed to but hasn't been , um , made precise by any means , um , may w may work as follows. I thought that we would , uh  that the following thing would be in incredibly nice and I have no clue whether it will work at all or nothing. So that 's just a tangent , a couple of mental disclaimers here. Um , imagine you  you write a Bayes - net , um


um , completely from scratch every time you do construal. So you have nothing. Just a white piece of paper.


um , completely from scratch every time you do construal. So you have nothing. Just a white piece of paper.

You consult  consult your ontology which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh


um , completely from scratch every time you do construal. So you have nothing. Just a white piece of paper.

You consult  consult your ontology which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh

Grout out the things that  that you need.


You consult  consult your ontology which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh

Grout out the things that  that you need.


You consult  consult your ontology which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh

Grout out the things that  that you need.

then y you 'd simply write , uh , these into  onto your  your white piece of paper. And you will get a lot of notes and stuff out of there. You won't get  you won't really get any C P T 's , therefore we need everything that  that configures to what the situation is , IE , the context dependent stuff. So you get whatever comes from discourse but also filtered. Uh , so only the ontology relevant stuff from the discourse plus the situation and the user model.


Grout out the things that  that you need.

then y you 'd simply write , uh , these into  onto your  your white piece of paper. And you will get a lot of notes and stuff out of there. You won't get  you won't really get any C P T 's , therefore we need everything that  that configures to what the situation is , IE , the context dependent stuff. So you get whatever comes from discourse but also filtered. Uh , so only the ontology relevant stuff from the discourse plus the situation and the user model.


then y you 'd simply write , uh , these into  onto your  your white piece of paper. And you will get a lot of notes and stuff out of there. You won't get  you won't really get any C P T 's , therefore we need everything that  that configures to what the situation is , IE , the context dependent stuff. So you get whatever comes from discourse but also filtered. Uh , so only the ontology relevant stuff from the discourse plus the situation and the user model.

And that fills in your CPT 's with which you can then query , um , the  the net that you just wrote and find out how thing X is construed as an utterance U. And the embedded JavaBayes works exactly like that , that once you  we have , you know , precise format in which to write it , so we write it down. You query it. You get the result , and you throw it away. And the  the nice thing about this idea is that you don't ever have to sit down and think about it or write about it. You may have some general rules as to how things can be  can be construed as what , so that will allow you to craft the  the  the initial notes. But it 's  in that respect it 's completely scalable. Because it doesn't have any prior , um , configuration. It 's just you need an ontology of the domain and you need the context dependent modules. And if this can be made to work at all ,  that 'd be kind of funky.


And that fills in your CPT 's with which you can then query , um , the  the net that you just wrote and find out how thing X is construed as an utterance U. And the embedded JavaBayes works exactly like that , that once you  we have , you know , precise format in which to write it , so we write it down. You query it. You get the result , and you throw it away. And the  the nice thing about this idea is that you don't ever have to sit down and think about it or write about it. You may have some general rules as to how things can be  can be construed as what , so that will allow you to craft the  the  the initial notes. But it 's  in that respect it 's completely scalable. Because it doesn't have any prior , um , configuration. It 's just you need an ontology of the domain and you need the context dependent modules. And if this can be made to work at all ,  that 'd be kind of funky.

P R Ms - uh , PRM I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net


And that fills in your CPT 's with which you can then query , um , the  the net that you just wrote and find out how thing X is construed as an utterance U. And the embedded JavaBayes works exactly like that , that once you  we have , you know , precise format in which to write it , so we write it down. You query it. You get the result , and you throw it away. And the  the nice thing about this idea is that you don't ever have to sit down and think about it or write about it. You may have some general rules as to how things can be  can be construed as what , so that will allow you to craft the  the  the initial notes. But it 's  in that respect it 's completely scalable. Because it doesn't have any prior , um , configuration. It 's just you need an ontology of the domain and you need the context dependent modules. And if this can be made to work at all ,  that 'd be kind of funky.

P R Ms - uh , PRM I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net

Beca - because it  b because  No , no , you can't. See the  the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form. So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can  then you can unfold it.


P R Ms - uh , PRM I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net

Beca - because it  b because  No , no , you can't. See the  the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form. So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can  then you can unfold it.

Then you can. Mm - hmm , yeah. No , I was m using it generic. So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models. Whatever you write it. In


P R Ms - uh , PRM I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net

Beca - because it  b because  No , no , you can't. See the  the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form. So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can  then you can unfold it.

Then you can. Mm - hmm , yeah. No , I was m using it generic. So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models. Whatever you write it. In

Well , no , but it matters a lot because you  what you want are these generalized rules about the way things relate , th that you then instantiate in each case.


Beca - because it  b because  No , no , you can't. See the  the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form. So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can  then you can unfold it.

Then you can. Mm - hmm , yeah. No , I was m using it generic. So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models. Whatever you write it. In

Well , no , but it matters a lot because you  what you want are these generalized rules about the way things relate , th that you then instantiate in each case.

And then  then instantiate them. That 's ma maybe the  the way  the only way it works.


Then you can. Mm - hmm , yeah. No , I was m using it generic. So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models. Whatever you write it. In

Well , no , but it matters a lot because you  what you want are these generalized rules about the way things relate , th that you then instantiate in each case.

And then  then instantiate them. That 's ma maybe the  the way  the only way it works.


Well , no , but it matters a lot because you  what you want are these generalized rules about the way things relate , th that you then instantiate in each case.

And then  then instantiate them. That 's ma maybe the  the way  the only way it works.

Yeah , that 's the only way it could work. I  we have a  our local expert on P R uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that. But we 'll  we 'll have to see.


And then  then instantiate them. That 's ma maybe the  the way  the only way it works.

Yeah , that 's the only way it could work. I  we have a  our local expert on P R uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that. But we 'll  we 'll have to see.


Yeah , that 's the only way it could work. I  we have a  our local expert on P R uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that. But we 'll  we 'll have to see.

Uh  Yes. This is  that 's  that would be a good thing to try. It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story in that you th you throw everything into a pot and you try to come up with the , uh


Yeah , that 's the only way it could work. I  we have a  our local expert on P R uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that. But we 'll  we 'll have to see.

Uh  Yes. This is  that 's  that would be a good thing to try. It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story in that you th you throw everything into a pot and you try to come up with the , uh

Except there 's no  no theorem prover involved.


Uh  Yes. This is  that 's  that would be a good thing to try. It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story in that you th you throw everything into a pot and you try to come up with the , uh

Except there 's no  no theorem prover involved.


Uh  Yes. This is  that 's  that would be a good thing to try. It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story in that you th you throw everything into a pot and you try to come up with the , uh

Except there 's no  no theorem prover involved.

No , there isn't a theorem prover but there  but  but the , um , The cove the  the P R Ms are like rules of inference and you 're  you 're coupling a bunch of them together.


Except there 's no  no theorem prover involved.

No , there isn't a theorem prover but there  but  but the , um , The cove the  the P R Ms are like rules of inference and you 're  you 're coupling a bunch of them together.


No , there isn't a theorem prover but there  but  but the , um , The cove the  the P R Ms are like rules of inference and you 're  you 're coupling a bunch of them together.

And then ins instead of proving you 're trying to , you know , compute the most likely. Uh  Tricky. But you  yeah , it 's a good  it 's a  it 's a good thing to put in your thesis proposal.


And then ins instead of proving you 're trying to , you know , compute the most likely. Uh  Tricky. But you  yeah , it 's a good  it 's a  it 's a good thing to put in your thesis proposal.

So are you gonna write something for us before you go ?


So are you gonna write something for us before you go ?


OK. So , what 's  what  when are we gonna meet again ?


So  I would suggest as soon as possible. Do you mean by we , the whole ben gang ?


So  I would suggest as soon as possible. Do you mean by we , the whole ben gang ?

N no , I didn't mean y just the two of us. We  obviously we can  we can do this. But the question is do you want to , for example , send the little group , uh , a draft of your thesis proposal and get , uh , another session on feedback on that ? Or


So  I would suggest as soon as possible. Do you mean by we , the whole ben gang ?

N no , I didn't mean y just the two of us. We  obviously we can  we can do this. But the question is do you want to , for example , send the little group , uh , a draft of your thesis proposal and get , uh , another session on feedback on that ? Or

Fine with me. Should we do the one PM time for Thursday since we were on that before or  ?


N no , I didn't mean y just the two of us. We  obviously we can  we can do this. But the question is do you want to , for example , send the little group , uh , a draft of your thesis proposal and get , uh , another session on feedback on that ? Or

Fine with me. Should we do the one PM time for Thursday since we were on that before or  ?


Fine with me. Should we do the one PM time for Thursday since we were on that before or  ?


Thursday at one ? I can also maybe then sort of run through the , uh  the talk I have to give at EML which highlights all of our work.


Thursday at one ? I can also maybe then sort of run through the , uh  the talk I have to give at EML which highlights all of our work.

And we can make some last minute changes on that.


And we can make some last minute changes on that.

You can just give him the abstract that we wrote for the paper.


And we can make some last minute changes on that.

You can just give him the abstract that we wrote for the paper.

That - that 'll tell him exactly what 's going on. Yeah , that  Alright.


You can just give him the abstract that we wrote for the paper.

That - that 'll tell him exactly what 's going on. Yeah , that  Alright.


That - that 'll tell him exactly what 's going on. Yeah , that  Alright.


One , OK , it 's fine. I can do one. It 's fine. It 's fine.


One , OK , it 's fine. I can do one. It 's fine. It 's fine.

If it 's equal for all ? What should we do ?


If it 's equal for all ? What should we do ?


If it 's equal for all ? What should we do ?

Fine. Yeah  no , no , no , uh , I don't care. It 's fine.


Fine. Yeah  no , no , no , uh , I don't care. It 's fine.

It 's equal to all of us , so you can decide one or four.


Fine. Yeah  no , no , no , uh , I don't care. It 's fine.

It 's equal to all of us , so you can decide one or four.

Liz actually said she likes four because it forces the Meeting Recorder people to cut , you know  the discussions short.


It 's equal to all of us , so you can decide one or four.

Liz actually said she likes four because it forces the Meeting Recorder people to cut , you know  the discussions short.


Liz actually said she likes four because it forces the Meeting Recorder people to cut , you know  the discussions short.


Right well. Welcome to the  what should be the last of these meetings and uh it looks like we've uh done a good job here and uh we'll just go through the the final uh the final details. Um okay , oh the um th the the minutes of the last meeting uh I think we'll take those as read , um  Okay

the um th the the next uh thing we we we'll have a look at the uh th have a look at the prototypes and uh look at the uh evaluation criteria and finance and then uh uh just tidy up with production and um and then we can close. Um So f if if you'd like to uh present your your proposals.

Uh okay we basically have the same kinda lay-out here it's just um you hold it like this and it gets kinda moulded to the to the shape of your hand , basically. Um on the left we've got the scroll for the volume , on the right we have buttons for the channels up and down and that kinda  so you can hold it and scroll , or you can hold it and and push.


the um th the the next uh thing we we we'll have a look at the uh th have a look at the prototypes and uh look at the uh evaluation criteria and finance and then uh uh just tidy up with production and um and then we can close. Um So f if if you'd like to uh present your your proposals.

Uh okay we basically have the same kinda lay-out here it's just um you hold it like this and it gets kinda moulded to the to the shape of your hand , basically. Um on the left we've got the scroll for the volume , on the right we have buttons for the channels up and down and that kinda  so you can hold it and scroll , or you can hold it and and push.

Uh this is the power key , um it's kinda like the biggest so you know how to turn on.


Uh okay we basically have the same kinda lay-out here it's just um you hold it like this and it gets kinda moulded to the to the shape of your hand , basically. Um on the left we've got the scroll for the volume , on the right we have buttons for the channels up and down and that kinda  so you can hold it and scroll , or you can hold it and and push.

Uh this is the power key , um it's kinda like the biggest so you know how to turn on.

Uh that's the little menu key. This is the infra-red section so you g it'll be sending rays and if you're you know pointing it like that it can send it ,


Uh this is the power key , um it's kinda like the biggest so you know how to turn on.

Uh that's the little menu key. This is the infra-red section so you g it'll be sending rays and if you're you know pointing it like that it can send it ,


Uh that's the little menu key. This is the infra-red section so you g it'll be sending rays and if you're you know pointing it like that it can send it ,

or if you hold it up like that it'll send it.


or if you hold it up like that it'll send it.

Uh we got a microphone there which for all the voice commands


Uh we got a microphone there which for all the voice commands

so you can you know talk to it like that


so you can you know talk to it like that


and you can see like it just kinda goes  the red bit's the cover and it kinda goes over everything


and you can see like it just kinda goes  the red bit's the cover and it kinda goes over everything

and then there's holes for the buttons to come through. Um.


and then there's holes for the buttons to come through. Um.

And so we figured it would be kind of you know a light weight plastic ,


And so we figured it would be kind of you know a light weight plastic ,


and then the covers will be that sort of rubbery material like they make iPod covers ,


I don't know what i c iPod covers are like.


I don't know what i c iPod covers are like.

I I didn't know that but yeah they're kind of  it's just kind of a rubbery


I I didn't know that but yeah they're kind of  it's just kind of a rubbery


spongy like is something that people wanted


and that way I think probably helps protect it a little bit too as well


and that way I think probably helps protect it a little bit too as well

But it's also e e easier to put on versus like mobile covers


But it's also e e easier to put on versus like mobile covers

you actually have to screw them on and stuff and you kinda sometimes have to get someone to do that for you. This is very much you should be able to stretch it over yourself


you actually have to screw them on and stuff and you kinda sometimes have to get someone to do that for you. This is very much you should be able to stretch it over yourself


and then the buttons come through and so  and then the  each one of 'em on the very end will have the logo with the yellow circle and the R_R_.


and then the buttons come through and so  and then the  each one of 'em on the very end will have the logo with the yellow circle and the R_R_.

Li that'll be  the covers as well , yeah yeah.


Li that'll be  the covers as well , yeah yeah.


Li that'll be  the covers as well , yeah yeah.

I mean tha it's it's a detailed point , I just wondered  I mean h how will people put these down I wonder ?


I mean tha it's it's a detailed point , I just wondered  I mean h how will people put these down I wonder ?


I mean tha it's it's a detailed point , I just wondered  I mean h how will people put these down I wonder ?

Right. Okay  for some strange re reason I had it in my mind that they'd put them down vertically


Right. Okay  for some strange re reason I had it in my mind that they'd put them down vertically


Well we could broaden the  broaden it out a bit


Well we could broaden the  broaden it out a bit

because  particularly if they've dif if they're gonna have it as a you know as a fashion item


because  particularly if they've dif if they're gonna have it as a you know as a fashion item


because  particularly if they've dif if they're gonna have it as a you know as a fashion item

uh I mean it it's uh it it's just I mean it's just a minor detailed point , but um as you say you can just make the base a little bit bigger and uh