Talk:catch a tan

catch a tan
SOP? catch + a + tan. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * catch = senses of get. Misleading to claim all the uses (rays, Zs, flick, ride, wave, etc) are idiomatic. Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The citation doesn't wow me (songs rarely make very good ones) but perhaps we could move it to the sense at catch. Equinox ◑ 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure. We do have catch a cold. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As is often the case, we have the literal sense of, which is at best a phrasebook entry, and miss the (not too common, but attestable) idiomatic sense. Collins and UD have the idiomatic sense. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We also miss, clearly idiomatic, short for catch one's death of a cold. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Primary mean of catch involves containing a moving object within one's hands. This definition does not pertaining to containing a moving object within one's hands. Pur ple back pack 89   17:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this, though I can work out the meaning pretty easily because it can't really mean anything else. Nevertheless, perhaps keep as a margin case. Remember CFI says 'easily derived from the sum of its parts'. Is this 'easily' derivable? Or just derivable? 95.144.169.113 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think we should have an entry for catch a fish because that's done with a net or rod, not hands? How about catch a crab (literal fishing sense, not existing metaphor), catch a trout? Equinox ◑ 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You wanna know what I think? I think you should stop making slippery-slope/OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments in a vain attempt to reduce my votes to absurdity.  None of the three things you've listed are currently at RfD; please confine your argument to this entry only.  Furthermore, the three things you mention still involve containing a moving object, and you generally have to use your hands to hold the net or rod.  But, since you asked, while I'd never take the time to actually create them, I wouldn't be opposed to somebody else creating them (and therefore, wouldn't nom them for deletion and wouldn't vote delete on them if you did). Pur ple back pack 89   18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Slippery slope" isn't a catch-all that you can shout to ignore every argument of this type. Your only argument to keep this was that it isn't catching with the hands, therefore my response is a reasonable rebuttal. If you have a further reason to keep this, then you need to state that further reason, to make your argument sound. If you don't have a further reason, then your entire argument would entail the creation of catch a trout, etc. and is therefore pretty obviously silly. Equinox ◑ 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Equinox, any argument that says, "well, if we keep X, what are we going to do next? Create or keep Y?" is intrinsically weak, and should be ignored, for the following two reasons:
 * It assumes that two RfDs are connected. Assuming any two RfDs should be connected is a small leap in and of itself, and it's a greater leap to assume that X and Y are.
 * It assumes Y should be deleted. That's never been proven.
 * My argument is that "catch" is ambiguous, and, if anything, you've proven that point. If a word has more than one meaning, as catch does, it can be unclear which meaning is used with certain direct or indirect objects, and certain multi-word definitions containing "catch" should be created to address this ambiguity.  I don't see why there's anything wrong with that argument.  And remember that I have no objections to catch a trout being created. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We know that words are ambiguous: this is polysemy, and is discussed here very often. I will remind you once again (third time, fifth time?) that we hold up "brown leaf" as a prototypical example of a sum of parts; and yet "brown" has many meanings, and "leaf" has many meanings (e.g. page of a book). The polysemy argument is not ON ITS OWN an anti-deletion argument that holds water. Do you get it yet? Equinox ◑ 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You see how you're doing the "if we keep X, what are we going to do next? Create or keep Y?" thing again?  You know perfectly well that brown leaf and catch a tan, or a trout for that matter, are nothing alike.  It is far more intuitive what brown leaf is than it is what catch a tan is.  It is clear to me that there are many examples of polysemy that are worth having in this project.  There are some that I would never bother to create, but I wouldn't delete because I believe it's OK to have entries that are examples of polysemy.  I can understand most of your argument, Equinox; there is no need to act like I can't.  I just don't believe that's the direction we should go in creating and keeping entries. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is far more intuitive what brown leaf is than it is what catch a tan is." Oh! Okay, I didn't realise that. Once you provide your academic sources I'll be happy to concede the debate. Equinox ◑ 00:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We also don't have catch a movie, catch a show, or catch an idea. We are not missing these definitions; we are missing a sense of "catch" that broadly means "to obtain or experience". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you be opposed to me adding such a sense? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean, adding such a sense to catch? I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed to that. There are also many more examples - catch a game, catch some rays, catch a sale. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per DCDuring. Ƿidsiþ 08:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)