Talk:strike a bargain

strike a medium
SOP, see strike, sense 11: "to make and ratify" (I would add "to reach" as a gloss): compare, , , , , , , ,. Can also be complemented with adjectives: "strike a great bargain", "strike a delicate balance", "strike an uneasy truce", etc. PUC – 07:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I would say that of all the examples you provide of possible additional words, every one but the first is very rare. To me this reads much like the jump a claim and cut a deal RFD's above.   If we were to delete this entry, how would we indicate to readers that strike a bargain is a common phrase, but strike an appointment is not?  — Soap — 23:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. PUC – 10:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine, but could you answer my question? If there is no strike a bargain entry, how would a  reader understand that strike a bargain is a common phrase, but strike an appointment is not?  Or, even better, how about strike an amendment?  Reading the definition we have, a naive reader could be led to believe that strike an amendment means to create and ratify it, whereas I'm pretty sure if anyone uses the phrase "strike an amendment" they mean it with the exact opposite meaning, namely that the amendment was voted down.  — Soap — 10:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, according to ngrams, is as rare, if not rarer, than many of the combinations I've mentioned, so unless you're suggesting creating entries for all these combinations with higher or comparable frequency as well, going by your argument it should be deleted.
 * Secondly, I don't see how readers would be able to deduce relative frequencies from the fact that we have entries for some and not for the others when we're not consistent in that regard, as has been shown above (given we don't have entries for and, which are clearly much more frequent).
 * Thirdly, there are other ways of indicating relative frequencies, usage notes for example.
 * Fourthly, it seems to me your - unrelated - point about equally applies to, , . Should we create entries for all of these as well? PUC – 10:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase has three cites and that's all it needs. If we want to indicate that it is rare, we have the (rare) label for that, and that by itself addresses your second and third points.  We cannot put a (rare) label on a collocation, unless we are agreeing to clutter the screen even more and effectively pack what should be a separate page into a single line under a collapsible.
 * But you've avoided my question twice now. I'm still waiting for an answer on how we would indicate to a reader that strike a bargain is a common phrase and has a positive meaning, but that the superficially similar strike an amendment is an uncommon phrase and, when used at all, is likely to have a nearly opposite meaning? Sure, this could be packed into yet another collocation under one of the other senses, but why would a reader think to look there?
 * I also think you've made my argument stronger by mentioning the "medium" phrase, which I hadnt really paid attention to. If we delete strike a medium, how would we indicate *that* meaning to a naive reader?  Since strike in that phrase certainly doesn't mean "make and ratify", would we need yet another new definition line for it? And if so, how would we word it?  Thanks, — Soap — 11:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to your fourth point (which wasnt on the screen when i started typing) ... no, we dont need entries for those, because those are true sum-of-parts entries using the normal (negative) meaning of the verb strike. — Soap — 11:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already answered your question - to the extent I've understood it -, but for the sake of clarity, I'll do it again.
 * "how we would indicate to a reader that strike a bargain is a common phrase and has a positive meaning,":
 * regarding the commonness, see my post from 10:37: "there are other ways of indicating relative frequencies, usage notes for example."
 * regarding the meaning, see my very first post in this thread. We have a relevant sense, i.e. sense 11 ("to make and ratify"), which, after my additions, now reads as follows: "To make and ratify; to reach; to find", with a plethora of collocations.
 * "but that the superficially similar strike an amendment is an uncommon phrase and, when used at all, is likely to have a nearly opposite meaning": as I said above, I don't understand this argument/reasoning. How does having an entry for help the reader deduce anything about the meaning or frequency of ?
 * (regarding, , , ) "we dont need entries for those, because those are true sum-of-parts entries using the normal (negative) meaning of the verb strike": I'm sorry, but I again don't follow. How should a "naive" reader know that they should look at when encountering those phrases, but at the same time not be expected to do the same when encountering ,  or ? What is the basis for your distinction between a "normal" and an "abnormal" meaning? And what is, in fact, this normal meaning you're talking about? I would expect something like , , but reading through our  entry, I don't find any sense that quite fits.
 * "If we delete strike a medium, how would we indicate *that* meaning to a naive reader? Since strike in that phrase certainly doesn't mean "make and ratify", would we need yet another new definition line for it?": yes, maybe. If sense 11 is wrong, or should be reworded, or should be split, or if some collocations don't belong there, please suggest improvements, so that the entry can be corrected. In any case, it seems to me this point equally applies to, which our entry for  gives as a synonym.
 * As for the rest:
 * "Sure, this could be packed into yet another collocation under one of the other senses, but why would a reader think to look there?": because that's how dictionaries work? When you don't understand a word, you open up a dictionary, look up the entry that interests you, and look for a plausible sense. And you'll possibly find collocations that confirm your hunch that it is indeed the sense you're looking for.
 * "The phrase has three cites and that's all it needs": Can/should we create entries for every combination I mentioned, then? All of them are attested at least three times, I've checked.
 * "If we want to indicate that it is rare, we have the (rare) label for that, and that by itself addresses your second and third points. We cannot put a (rare) label on a collocation, unless we are agreeing to clutter the screen even more and effectively pack what should be a separate page into a single line under a collapsible": to the extent I've understood it - again -, what you're saying is this: since there's no convenient way of marking a collocation as rare, let's create entries for rare collocations, so that we can put on the definition line.
 * PUC – 12:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for your reply. It's clear we have disagreements that go well beyond the scope of any individual RFD ... we disagree about the core principles of entry layout. This is a collaborative project, and we all need to get along and work together despite disagreements. Perhaps this will come to a head someday and we will end up writing new rules instead of having some entries organized one way and other entries organized a completely different way. For the meantime, though, we only have wide disagreements like these.
 * I'd be happy to address this point-by-point on your talk page if you're interested, but as I said above, this argument is about core principles of layout, and hardly relevant to this individual RFD, where the positions we each staked out at the beginning have so far only grown even further apart.  Were I to respond here, my reply would have to be even longer than yours to address each individual point, and I think this thread has grown long enough already.  Were I to type a shorter reply, I'd either look rude (as if all your words mean nothing to me) or weak (as if I was just bluffing all along).  Hence my offer to continue the discussion somewhere else.  Let me know what you think.  Best wishes, — Soap — 18:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My offer also stands if you'd prefer to discuss it on my talkpage instead, which is used less, or anywhere else besides this page. Thanks, — Soap — 18:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Kept. PUC – 13:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)