Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

271The application of the aforementioned criteria revealed that some verb pairs candisplay minor differences but still be considered full equivalents. These differences canrelate to metonymic alternations of one of the core FEs that are admitted in one of thelanguages but not in the other as well as to small differences in the syntactic patterns.For instance, some verbs admit a metonymic alternation of one of the core FEs suchas the alternation between JUDGE and DECISION as well as between COURT and DECISION asmentioned in section 5.2.1.2. The comparison of apply 1 and aplicar 1 revealed this kind ofdifference.apply 1A number of other differences relate to rules that a judge can apply to a youngperson.aplicar 1Ao desconsiderar este aspecto, o tribunal a quo aplicou incorrectamente a lei,nomeadamente o art.º 24.º da Lei do Contrato Individual de Trabalho.Translation:By disregarding this aspect, the court applied the law incorrectly, namely sction 24of the Lei do Contrato Individual de Trabalho.Ao assim não entender, o acórdão recorrido interpreta e aplica mal ao caso dosautos, o disposto nas Bases XXXVI, n.º 2 e XXXVII, n.º 1, anexas ao Dec-lei 294/97,de 24 de Outubro;Translation:As it did not deem it in that way, the appealed decision interprets and appliesincorrectly to the case the Basis XXXVI, s. 2 and e XXXVII, s.1 annexed in theDecree-Law 294/97 of October the 24thWhereas, in the contexts of apply 1 the core FE JUDGE is always instantiated byterms denoting this entity which was described in section 5.2.1.2, in the contexts of aplicar 1it can be instantiated by terms denoting that same entity (context [2]) or by terms denotingthe DECISION reached by the JUDGE (context [3]). We considered this kind of difference