There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
Against Monosemy, pt 6: Using Ruhl (1989) in language description
Against monosemy, pt 5: The methodological gap
I fully acknowledge there is certainly an appeal for monosemy as a theoretical construct. The ability to schematize all usages or senses within a single abstract sense does indeed simplified and elegant semantic theory. Such a theory is an attractive prospect for all linguists.
Against monosemy, pt 4: Moving Greek letters
Generative grammar has moved on from its old theories about syntax. Can we please do the same with their semantic theories, too?
Against monosemy, pt 3: The ideal speaker-listener
We're getting over the peak and headed toward the end. The practical take away is coming.
Against monosemy, pt 2: Semantics & pragmatics
Semantic theory: it'll get harder before it gets hardest.
Against monosemy, pt 1: The lexicon’s original sin
Meaning is hard. Unfortunately, I'm not going to make any easier here.
Notes on lexical compounds – draft
Compounds are complicated. They are formally complex, involving wide variation in their morphological/lexical formation. These formal complexities introduce their own series of semantic challenges.
5 Forthcoming Books I’m watching for
Here are 5 forthcoming books related to the study of language and Ancient Greek that I'm looking forward to and perhaps you should be aware of, if you're interested in Ancient Greek grammar.
Conclusion to “Greek Prohibitions” in GVR
I examined the question of Greek prohibitions and the question of the much argued about expressions: stop doing X (imperfective aspect) and do not start X (perfective aspect).
