So this is what  what it means. But the second one seems to be useful but we might not need a notation for it ? We don't have a notation for it but we might want one. So for example we 've talked about if you 're talking about the lexical item " walk " , you know it 's an action. Well , it also has this idea  it carries along with it the idea of an actor or somebody 's gonna do the walking. Or if you talk about an adjective " red " , it carries along the idea of the thing that has the property of having color red. So we used to use the notation " with " for this
Right.
and I think that 's closest to their second one. So I d don't yet know , I have no commitment , as to whether we need it. It might be  it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require  you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it
N no , no. Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically. Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff.