 The metaphors aren’t very good and (68) and (69) are clearly zeugmatic. Given how many parts of speech can be used metaphorically, slavish obedience to the test would postulate massive and unconstrained ambiguity in natural language. (See Camp 2006) The natural answer is to restrict the use of the test to cases in which the words are used literally; but of course the tests are supposed to help us decide when we have literal, semantic difference and when we don’t. To add to the complication, metaphors that are used in similar manners over time tend to become ‘dead’ metaphors – literally ambiguities that took a causal path through metaphor. ‘Deadline’ is a pretty clear case of a metaphor that has died. Since the passing of the non-literal into the standardized literal is not exactly a transition whose time of occurrence is obvious, it will be difficult in some cases to tell what has been lexicalized as a different meaning and what has not (think, again, of ‘deadline’ as a case, which once meant a line the crossing of which would result in your death. Think of that next time you are late with a paper…) 