It goes without saying that it is not appropriate to criticize a general dictionary for having a semasiological focus; in other words, for the fact that it was written with the aim of offering the user a list of defi nitions from which to select the one that will make it possible to understand the meaning of the term in a given text. This has been the traditional focus of lexicography. Therefore, we cannot ask works of this type to tell us about how a term or a given meaning is used. For example, information about the meaning of the words does not tell us why in Spanish, statues are ecuestres ‘equestrian (statue)’, races are hípicas ‘horse (race)’ and livestock is equino ‘equine (livestock)’, if all three adjectives mean ‘of or relating to horses.’ (Would this mean that the three adjectives are also synonyms?)1 In fact, no general Spanish dictionary explains (or even includes adverbs ending in-mente as headwords) why in Spanish we can steal something limpiamente ‘cleanly’ but we cannot sweep in the same way; or why religiosamente ‘religiously’ is not how we pray or meditate, but is rather limited to describing the fashion or manner in which we meet deadlines or pay taxes.