Thank you!

Hi there! It explains a thing in collocations grammar. There are two types of collocations. Free collocations, where you can substitute one of the words with a word of the same class - like a "tall man" can easily be changed into a "tall tree" or a "stupid man" and the word man is full in its meaning (semantically), because you can say things like both "there stood a tall man" and "there stood a man" - the word "man" works on its own. With a set collocation it is harder two substitute one of the words for another and one of the words is not semantically independent, the whole collocation has one meaning and acts more as one word, e.g. in the sentence "I became interested in current affairs" the collocation current affairs is set, and it would make no sense to say "I became interested in affairs" in that context. There's a similar phenomenon in Russian, e.g. пить кофе is a free collocation, and the collocation зелёного цвета in the sentence "У неё глаза зелёного цвета" is set, and it doesn't make sense to say У неё глаза цвета (she has eyes of color :-) So the first of your sentences says that a free collocation saves all the meanings of content or semantic words (знаменательных [слов]). The second sentence says that in a set collocation lexical independence of one of the components or both of them is weakened or lost and it is as a whole closer to a single word in character, has a nominative meaning. Hope this helps! Don't hesitate to PM me if you have more questions like that!

Mi sembra che sia una grafomania pseudolinguistica..