This is the entirety of my series of discussion of Charles Ruhl's (1989) monograph On monosemy.
There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
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.
Generative grammar has moved on from its old theories about syntax. Can we please do the same with their semantic theories, too?
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.
Following up on my post with Greek language papers at SBL, here's a similarly compiled list for ETS. Some of these are from different sessions and actually lover lap with each other, so you'll need to plan accordingly if you're interested.
Herein, we come to the end of our discussion of the semantics of σκύβαλον and how it relates to English taboo words.