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.
Good.
And I think that , um , in general it 'll be unambiguous. Like if you were giving a formal constraint then you 're referring to the formal pole of that. So  so by saying  if I just said " Name one " then that means name one formal and we 're talking about formal struc  Which  which makes sense. Uh , there are certain times when we 'll have an exception to that , in which case you could just indicate " here I mean the meaningful for some reason ". Right ? Or  Actually it 's more often that , only to handle this one special case of , you know , " George and Jerry walk into the room in that order ".
Mm - hmm.