Comeronymy

If Hansen et al. (1982, 203–204) are correct in including the sense of exclusion, i.e. cohyponymy, among the word‑internal semantic relations[…], then the question arises whether the other form of the exclusion relationship, comeronymy, could not be found among polysemes as well.

Finally, path types are defined as sequences of elementary relations represented by their macro identifier of Table 5, with two specific notations: […] second, two subsequences corresponding to well-known lexical relations are replaced by a specific identifier: h for the subsequence GG⁻¹, which corresponds to the cohyponymy relation and m for the subsequence CC⁻¹, which corresponds to the comeronymy relation.