Talk:go

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Unthreaded discussion[edit]

I wrote the etymology here, for a class. I haven't had time to polish the article, but the data is quite sound. If anyone would like to deal with stylistic issues in my article, I'd appreciate it (Alexander Yarbrough)

I've moved the essay to Wikipedia, and tried to summarize the OE and ME. I already don't remember why I left out the IE roots. -dmh 04:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea how you can explain the meaning of "go" in such phrases as "how's it going?", "It's going quite well for her" and "His job is going quite badly for him"?



Another usage - to have a go at sb. (as opposed to have a go at sth. -- try it) means to argue with them, or get angry at them. eg. "Don't have a go at me, it's not my fault you're running late." May be Australian English (or British English). w:User:pfctdayelise 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"leave" not "disappear"[edit]

The second definition is currently "To disappear" but I think "to leave" would be more accurate. Think of "I'm going" or "Are you going now?" - "leaving" is the synonym, not "disappearing". Kappa 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "to go away." It’s impossible to know what the person who wrote "disappear" had in mind. —Stephen 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To go means to surf/browse[edit]

I suggest we add the following definition for intransitive use of go: (Computing) To direct a web browser. Every morning I go to Google's main page... KyleWild 06:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I think that someone should add a part that talks about the Asian board game, 'Go,' a board where the primary objective is to use little, circular stone tablets (Go pieces) to surround, and therefore capture, more squares of the board than your opponent does. I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet... Manga_King

  1. It's under "Etymology 2", and I'm not at all surprised you didn't notice it there. Kappa 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

>Thanks. Wow, why the heck did they put it there...?! Manga_King

>Wait a minute...what??? Etymology 2...?? (confused...) Explain... Manga_King

What is it about "Etymology 2" that confuses you. The word "go" has more than one origin. Etymology 1 is the common Anglo-Saxon verb "to go", and etymology 2 is from the Orient. —Stephen 10:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV: disappear[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


To disappear? To disintegrate? To laugh? I'm having trouble thinking of examples of these senses; citations would be nice. Dmcdevit·t 14:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am as well, though I can think of an example for "to disintegrate":
"After years of stress, the bridge finally went."
It's not the most common way to put this, but I think it's valid. --EncycloPetey 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, the bridge is about to go. sewnmouthsecret 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the disintegrate sense is likely an extension of the first sense, as in to leave. I have to go. That ugly shirt must go. The bridge is about to go. So go --> leave --> disappear. Something on that order. So, I think disintegrate is an inappropriate def., but perhaps could be replaced with depart, or something similar. Atelaes 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is tough. MW3 3 has 21 senses for the intransitive verb, most with subsenses (as many as 8), not very many obsolete. "laugh" is the one that doesn't seem to fit with any of theirs. It might be easier to imagine "went" and "going" rather than infinitive. The figurative senses and narrow-context senses are not always obvious. I'd be reluctant to economize on senses for such a basic, multi-functional word. DCDuring 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that related to have a go at someone? As in mock? - TheDaveRoss 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
failed, senses extensions of sense 1 - TheDaveRoss 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Game of Go (or go?)[edit]

It seems there are pages for both go and Go, although Talk:Go redirects to this page. Both go#Etymology_2 and Go describe the same meaning, that of the Chinese board game. Go is there as a (capitalised) proper noun, but it is also listed as a regular noun in go. Since the literature I've found seems unable to make its mind up as to whether this is a proper noun or not, there should be a note to this effect(or preferred usage if someone can find evidence for one) on both pages, since users who only find one of the two pages will be under the impression that the correct usage is that of the page they've stumbled upon. Hope this makes sense! --Yjo 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible missing sense[edit]

"(copula) To become" covers e.g. "go blind", "go crazy", but what about "go large" (upgrade to a bigger fast-food deal) and "go full-screen" (extend the size of an on-screen video etc.)? They are similar, but the person who does the "going" is not the thing that does the becoming. Equinox 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could figure out how to include it in some other sense, though I couldn't in my reading of the verb PoS section. It is certainly not the same as the "become" sense. "To cause something to become" is the idea, right? I'm not sure that it should be called a copula, as the complement does not apply to the subject. I find the examples at w:List of English copulae helpful. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage note[edit]

I don't really understand why the following is a usage note and not listed as a numbered sense:

"Go, along with do, make, and to a lesser extent other English verbs, is often used as a substitute verb for a verb used previously or one that is implied..."

"...is go" (another missing sense of "go")[edit]

How can we classify and describe an idiomatic usage of go implying "ready, available, online" as in "all systems are go" or the Thunderbirds' motto phrase "Thunderbirds are go". Partially it is covered under the usage of go as noun, but this one seems a little different.

RFD (2012)[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


Sense number 34, "To be pregnant (with)". This appears only to occur in combination with "with" and some synonym for an unborn child (go with child, go with fruit, go with a bun in the oven). This is no different from the use of "go" meaning "to be". To go with child is the same as to be with child or to walk around with child or to paraglide with child; it does not convert the word "go" into a word meaning "to be pregnant". bd2412 T 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, delete. Ƿidsiþ 18:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


"go online"[edit]

I'm not certain that any of our senses cover "go" in "go online" (i.e. get on the Internet). It's a sort of metaphorical use of the basic movement sense. Equinox 14:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RFV: take up a profession[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


Rfv-sense: "To take up a profession." In "go to be a teacher", surely it literally means to "depart in order to be a teacher"? I don't see how this is a separate sense. This, that and the other (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 03:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 02:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2013–February 2014[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


go

Rfd-sense: sense 42: (intransitive, archaic) To walk.

This doesn't seem to be any different from sense 1, (obsolete, intransitive) To walk; to fare on one's feet., and should probably be merged with it. -- Liliana 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge per nom. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need a nomination for this? It seems so uncontroversial that nobody could object. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Merged. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Way too many senses[edit]

Having 50+ senses makes this entry practically unusable. Many of these senses double-up, like 55 and 56. Other senses are extremely questionable, like 31. Others are, at the least, very similar and should be grouped together as sub-senses, like 22-24. I'm not someone who likes to just go in and start messing with things without asking first, but something definitely has to be done to fix this entry. D4g0thur (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August–September 2012[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


go

There are 50+ senses, many of which are too specific to their context and can be generalized and merged with other senses. As it is now, anyone looking for a definition of go or for a specific sense will be overwhelmed by the unnecessary senses. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot in that word "unnecessary". MWOnline has 63 definitions, 49 intransitive and 14 transitive. They do a better job of organizing and, of course, maintaining them than we do. They have the advantages of having a consistent intellectual point of view and full-time employees, which show up the most on such basic polysemic words.
Make, have, take, set, let, run, put, give, and do are similar.
Do you think that organizing the senses into groups would help? Is it more important to group them semantically or syntactically (transitive/intransitive) or by general vs specific? Or should the senses be ordered by frequency of use or by date the sense came into use? Should some senses be concealed until the user clicks on something to display them, using something like {{trans-top}} or {{rel-top}}? DCDuring TALK 20:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Organizing them into groups is an excellent idea that I have been thinking about. Most dictionaries I've seen use subdivisions somewhat like the following:
  1. def1
  2. a. def2a
    b. def2b
  3. def3
I think it would be a great idea to use subdivisions like that for all entries where it makes sense (not only the long ones).
--WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention that I think semantic grouping is much better than syntactic grouping. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The combined number-letter scheme is not available to us, but number-number is:
  1. def1
  2. def2
    1. def2a
    2. def2b
    3. def3a
    4. def3b
This is more restrictive than the scheme used by MWOnline which does not require that a subsense have a parent sense. Note how we handle defs 3a and 3b. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
To group senses without a parent sense, you could use (and on de.Wikt I have seen) a format like:
  1. first sense
  2. [empty line, just a # and nothing after it]
    1. sense that's in a group with the next one
    2. sense that's in a group with the previous one
  3. another sense
You can also use (and I like) a format that has some grammatical or syntactic info rather than just blankess:
  1. first sense
  2. transitive, with a place as the object:
    1. sense that's in a group with the next one
    2. sense that's in a group with the previous one
  3. another sense
- -sche (discuss) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If anyone is going to tackle this entry, I think the labelling of certain senses as "transitive" also needs looking at. I mentioned it somewhere else a while ago, but I don't remember where now. IMO, senses like "Let's go this way for a while" and "We've only gone twenty miles today" are not truly transitive. In fact, I wonder if there are any truly transitive senses of "go". 86.169.36.11 03:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    There is at least one truly transitive sense: the Australian sense of "to attack". --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Tea Room discussion August 2014[edit]

Teacup clipart.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


I've overhauled go, adding missing senses and deploying subsenses per this RFC. There are still some senses we are missing:

  1. The sense of "go" that's used in "go to Google and type in 'foo'". The absence of this sense was noted on the talk page as early as 2006 and as recently as last year. It seems like a figurative derivative of sense 1.2 (the entry's main workhorse sense), but I'm not sure how to word it. (added)
  2. The sense used in "he went (over my head and) straight to the CEO", "they were prepared to go to the President with the plan". It seems similar to the sense that's used in "I'll go to court if I have to", which we define as "resort to".
  3. The sense used in "going through the usual channels would take too long". (Compare go through.) Or does one of our existing senses cover this? It seems similar to the sense used in "Word went to Friends in Maryland, that we were drowned" (from the Journal of William Edmundson), which in turn seems similar to the sense used in "Telegrams [...] went by wire to Halifax", which is sense 1.2.
  4. Random House and Merriam-Webster have a sense which they word as "endure or tolerate" and "put up with : tolerate", respectively. Their usage examples are "I can't go his preaching" and "couldn't go the noise", but I can't find anything like that on Google Books.
  5. Merriam-Webster has a sense "come to be determined", with the usex "dreams go by contraries". That seems to be an idiom and hence not a reliable indication that "go" has this sense by itself, but I can find several uses like this — but I can't tell if "come to be determined" is what they mean.

- -sche (discuss) 04:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • As many a parent have asked their toddler, "Do you have to go?" Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    We have that sense as the last one: "To urinate or defecate." Although I think that definition is too explicit. --WikiTiki89 12:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm, I can see how a lot of uses would be covered by a less explicit definition like "use the toilet" (or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'the definition too explicit'), but then I have also seen usage like this, where it does just mean "urinate", not "use the toilet". - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    I think more often than not, it means urinate, but it can mean anything at all that "go to the bathroom" can mean (although our current definition does not include all the possibilities: you can "go to the bathroom" in the middle of the woods with no toilet around, and you can "go to the bathroom" when you're already in the bathroom, etc., and this may also apply to go to the toilet). --WikiTiki89 12:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    Some time ago I added a citation at go to the bathroom where it says a dog started to "go to the bathroom" on the carpet, showing that the expression does not necessarily imply walking to a room with a toilet in it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I was just trying to say. The only question is what is the best way to define it? --WikiTiki89 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a sense to cover "go to Google"-type usage. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Another missing sense is an informal/colloquial/non-standard one meaning "visit", like in the phrase "I want to go London". Also possibly one to fit "once you go black you never go back" --ElisaVan (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    I've found one citation for "go London", Citations:go#transitive:_.27visit.27.3F. I also see at least one citation for "go Paris", and there is a series of travel books titled "let's go [place]". Can anyone confirm that "visit" is the sense these are using?
    "Once you go black" might be sense 33 or 40. We do have an entry once you go black, you never go back, but it's worth noting that the phrase is not limited to the second person or to the present tense: see e.g. google books:"went black" "never went back".
    - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

From WT:FEED:

For some reason I cannot edit the section at [1], but I still dispute some of these supposedly transitive examples.
We've only gone twenty miles today. -- "twenty miles" is adverbial
Let's go this way for a while. -- "this way" is adverbial
She was going that way anyway. -- "that way" is adverbial
Cats go "meow". -- doubtful that this is transitive
Let's go halves on this. -- "halves" is probably adverbial
That's as high as I can go. -- definitely not transitive

Agreed. All these uses are pseudo-transitive. There similar descriptions of pseudo-transitivity in a known work of Andrey Zaliznyak for Russian verbs. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Right next to the "twenty miles" usex is the usex "this car can go circles around that one"; is it also intransitive / adverbial? (I'm asking; I'm not sure of the answer.)
The sense that has the "let's go this way", "she was going that way" usexes also has a citation saying "go this path up to its end", so the sense itself does seem to be transitive — but perhaps the "this way"/"that way" usexes belong under a different sense?
"Cats go meow" is transitive just like sense 1 of "say".
The same sense used in "that's as high as I can go" is also used in "I can go two fifty", so it seems to be both transitive and intransitive (like bid); I'll emend the context label accordingly.
- -sche (discuss) 19:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusions.
I think the sense you are uncertain about is also transitive by a normal analysis. Consider:
The car went a short distance, only three blocks, before stalling again. and relatedly:
The car went the entire first week of May without a problem.
One can substitute many nominal expressions into the slot that an object of go in this sense would fill. It seems a bit of a strain to call them adverbials grammatically, whatever their semantics. What undisputed adverbs could be inserted into that slot?
One might say that both sentences "really" have a missing preposition for preceding the nominal, but I've never been satisfied with such approached. The preposition/particle can be inserted for clarification, but does not seem essential to convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point about "went a short distance"; I've inserted a citation showing that usage. "The car went the entire first week of May without a problem" looks like sense 25 — and that highlights the fact that that sense, too, is ambitransitive. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am not convinced that "go circles", "go a short distance", "go twenty miles" etc. are properly transitive. It is not feasible, for example, to ask "What did the car go?" and expect an answer "circles" or "a short distance", or "twenty miles". Neither is it possible to substitute a pronoun such as "it" and say, for example, "The car went it". Neither are passive forms such as "a short distance was gone by the car" possible in natural English. While not individually conclusive, all these points provide evidence against transitivity and in favour of the argument that these so-called objects are actually adverbial. 86.128.3.186 03:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Similar diagnostics may also indicate that there is a difference between "go" in "Cats go 'meow'" and "say" in, for example, "She said 'hello'", which are equated above.
What did she say? / She said 'hello'. -- OK
What do cats go? / Cats go 'meow'. -- Feels faulty
She said it. -- OK
Cats go it. -- Not possible
'hello' was said by her. -- Not common but feasible
'meow' is gone by cats. -- Not possible
86.128.3.186 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV discussion: August 2014–January 2015[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


go

RFV-sense "To be known or considered." This seems to be limited to the collocation go by (as in his name is Samuel but he goes by Sam), which we (for better or worse) have a separate entry for. Notably, both Random House and Merriam-Webster have a comparable sense under go rather than under go by, but their only usage examples are of "go by". - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have heard usage like this and this, but I'm not sure "be known or considered" is a good gloss of that — and I'm not sure if it belongs at go or at go under. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)