In a small problem area meanings conveyed by some general linguistic (lexical or grammatical) means often appear as lacking their usual sense. These means though may acquire some new special employment and sense. Here are several examples.
From the viewpoint of computational models supporting problem solving with moving objects some motion characteristics such as the moving object, the correlation between the present time and that of the motion as well as the modality of the statement informing about the motion are not essential. Nevertheless in the texts involved both moving object and tense as well as a modality are expressed. The two latter categories are expressed not only due to linguistic necessity. Sometimes they are introduced with a specific intention to dissociate two motions (the one having been performed already, the one going to be performed and and one that could be performed in a different situation, etc.) Thus the ultimate (and deliberately used) function of modality and tense is prevention of merging referents during semantic interpretation.
A reference to a moving object serves similar purpose but not only this one. A moving object which on the pragmatic level of the domain is ignored completely may play an active role on the semantic level controlling attempts to merge actions and also transferring attributes of one motion to other motions unless there exists an explicit prohibition.
And the last thing being left is the fact that all the diverse names of moving objects preserve the only detail of their "semantics", viz., stating that the respective objects are distinct.
Another example of the sort is the role of topic-focus relation in rigorous mathematical statements. Mathematical rigor rests on ignoring all subjective aspects, hence the impossibility of employing topic-focus relation in its direct meaning. It is used to express quantification, viz., the topic is taken for external universal quantifier and focus - for internal existence quantifier, unless otherwise specified.