An idiosyncratic semantics is found in formations like geraamte skeleton < raam frame and gehemelte palate < hemel heaven, sky. (De Haas and Trommelen 1993: 256) claim the (obsolete) gedoente noise, fuss (< doen to do) and getimmerte wooden structure (timmeren to hammer) are the only cases with a verbal base, but note that doen and timmer room occur as nouns as well, possibly as the result of conversion. They also point at ge-...-te formations without a recognizable synchronous base such as gesternte stars, position of the stars (< obsolete stern star; see Etymologiebank), gehalte content (which is a loan from German; see Etymologiebank) and gevaarte colossus (which is a ge- derivation of the derived noun vaart speed, channel; see Etymologiebank).

(De Haas and Trommelen 1993: 256) analyze ge-...-te as a circumfix, without giving any argumentation (Booij 2002: 119) calls ge-...-te a synnafix, claiming that "[t]he prefix ge- is [...] used in combination with the suffix -te for the derivation of collective nouns." The semantic contribution of -te is left unspecified, whereas it is claimed that "[t]his use of ge- is a reflex of the collective meaning of the prefix ga- in proto-Germanic that is also present in gebroeders brothers; it is from this ga- that the different prefixes ge- derive historically." (Smessaert 2013: 144), on the other hand, argues that ge-...-te should be considered a circumfix or discontinuous morpheme on the basis of the fact that both the combination of the prefix with the free morpheme, and the combination of the suffix with the free morpheme, are ungrammatical: neither *geberg, *gebeen or *geboef nor *bergte, *beente or *boefte are well-formed derivations in Dutch. An analysis in terms of construction morphology(Booij 2010), in which two affixes and a construction-specific semantics would go hand in hand, is an obvious alternative.

A form like gemeente community is not a case of ge...te derivation: the base is the adjective gemeen common combined with the nominalizing affix -te.