Mm - hmm.
And then uh , you might know something much more specific depending on what construction you 're talking about , about what meaning  what specific meaning you want. So the example again at the bottom , which is directed motion , you might need a nominal expression to take the place of , you know , um , " the big th " , you you know , " the big  the tall dark man " , you know , " walked into the room ".
Mm - hmm.
But because of the nature of this particular construction you know not just that it 's nominal of some kind but in particular , that it 's some kind of animate nominal , and which will apply just as well to like , you know , a per you know , a simple proper noun or to some complicated expression. Um , so I don't know if the syntax will hold but something that gives you a way to do both constructional and meaning types. So. OK , then I don't think the ,  um  at least  Yeah.  None of these examples have anything different for formal constraints ? But you can refer to any of the , um , sort of available elements and scope , right ? which here are the constructs ,  to say something about the relation. And I think i if you not if you compare like the top block and the textual block , um , we dropped like the little F subscript. The F subscripts refer to the " form " piece of the construct.