Logic tells us that whenever there are two or more logically independent concepts a superordinate can be formed by disjunctively conjoining them. But if the former are lexicalized in a given language it does not follow that the latter is lexicalized, too. If it is not, there is no problem in principle, since disjunctive paraphrases are always possible. But there is a practical problem, since such paraphrases are considered awkward and therefore avoided. (Note that phrasal coding of non-lexicalized subordinates seems to be much more natural!)
Consider verbs of causing a goal-defined path motion. In German stellen, setzen, legen, stecken are of this kind. They all involve an actor displaying a behaviour that causes an exponent to move into a goal location (Er stellte das Buch ins Regal 'He put the book on the shelf'). But they all include additional information on the orientation or position of the motion exponent in the goal location: upright (stellen), sitting (setzen), horizontal (legen), or (partially) fitting into an aperture (stecken). And it is hard to get rid of this additional information since there is no exact counterpart to the English superordinate put.
We would like to ask the contributors to comment on aspects of this kind of problem from their point of view, with their own choice of language, preferably regarding concepts of 'putting', but other illustrations and discussions of the problem are welcome, too.