Talk:go for

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

Do we have this sense? "I could go for some ice-cream right about now." Equinox 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

additional sense?[edit]

As in, "Which team do you go for?" I think in that context it means "support", ironically the complete opposite of the attack sense. ---> Tooironic 01:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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 for[edit]

RfD-sense X 4:

  1. (transitive) To apply equally to.
  2. (transitive) To go somewhere in order to do or to experience.
  3. (transitive) To cost (a stated price).
  4. (transitive) To endure, sustain, or spend (time).

All of these are encompassed by {{&lit|go|for}} DCDuring TALK 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete all nominated senses as SOP. bd2412 T 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the first one, which can't really be used without ‘for’. Not bothered about the others (although the OED includes 1, 2 and 3). Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is the first one accurate? I have no problem with "goes double for" (meaning "applies twice as much to"), "goes for * to a lesser extent", and other uses where it clearly does not mean "apply equally to". So, I think we need to change that one to just "apply to" before we decide whether to keep or delete it. —RuakhTALK 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    I think that's right, yes. It should be "apply to" or "be valid". Ƿidsiþ 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the first one go (to be valid or accepted), which can occur without for? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just half-asleep, but I can't think of how this can be used without for, except in certain constructions ("anything goes" and "what I say, goes"). What did you have in mind? Ƿidsiþ 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In addition to what you suggested, usage like the following (I had trouble finding search terms that yielded a decent percentage of relevant hits.):
  • 2002, Chris, Morris Edward Opler, Apache odyssey: a journey between two worlds, page 231:
    The old man said, "Look here, that kind of talk doesn't go here. You men should be praying in your hearts. ...."
  • 1905, Harper's magazine, volume 110, page 37: 
    "Prayer," said the doctor, " is a good thing in its place, but it doesn't 'go' here. Come with me."
  • 1953, w:Charles A. Lindbergh, w:The Spirit of St. Louis, page 48:
    "That kind of thing doesn't go here," he says quietly, but with a tenseness that's in keeping with his finger on the trigger.
Doesn't this sense ("to be valid or accepted") cover the usage in the usex formerly shown for this sense: My wife hates football, and that goes for me as well.? DCDuring TALK 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the same thing. I'm not totally sure I agree that it should therefore be removed from go for, but I'm sure you could make that case. Ƿidsiþ 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Collins, at least, among OneLook dictionaries, but not others there, has the sense of go for in question, AFAICT.
It seems that there is an idiomatic construction, at least, though I don't think it conjugates. Is it not mostly colloquial, as in "That goes for him, too.", which could be read as "(I hereby declare that) that (the proposition in question) applies to him, too"? I believe that it could mean either that "him" is a supporter of the proposition or that the proposition applies to "him". It seems to me that it is mostly used in the present indicative, except in reported speech. If so, its possible idiomaticity may lie in its use in some sort of speech act. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep first nominated sense, delete the others. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

kept first sense, deleted the others. -- Liliana 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)