Talk:Go (verb)

message: Who was the idiot that created the principal region in go...whoever he is he needs to die  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaver57 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: principal regioin

message: Went was originally the preterit of wend (Old English wendan), from *wand-, the preterit stem of windan (the source of the modern verb wind).  Wendan was the causative of windan (meaning "to cause to wind", or "to cause to become wound").
The Oxford English Dictionary's entry ...
</blockquote></blockquote>
:: (... Going on to the rest of the etymology, all in one section.)
::-- Damezi 20:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of ''went'' 

message: The verb 'go' alludes to defecation as a slang application, and is therefore related to the words 'goo', 'good', and 'God'.  The Swedish variants mentioned in one previous article attest to the allusory uses of the verb 'to go'.  Beadtot10/18/2005  04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go is derived from a PIE root *ghe-, good from *ghedh- and God from *gheu-.   In other words, there is no attestable relationship, though of course we can speculate about whether two PIE words have a common ancestor even further back, but that's too hypothetical for me.  At any rate, you would have to explain to me how the defecation link supports the thesis of a relationship: the point eludes me.  --Doric Loon 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that particular meaning has probably originated from the movement of the feces... @_@ Btw, I'm not sure if this is original research, trolling or just a marijuana-affected midframe... 81.232.72.148 13:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh I see!  But no, surely not.  Go in the sense of visiting the toilet is surely a contraction of euphemistic phrases like I have to go a place.  It is an attempt to be delicate, not an attempt to be crude.  And it is a fairly recent historical development from the common meaning of the verb.  --Doric Loon 14:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant to write "mindframe" earlier, not midframe, and also, of course it's a fairly recent historical development deriving from the original meaning, and we have given this poor troll enough attention, already... @_@ 81.232.72.148 18:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  slang meanings 

message: I just want to highlight "wound" as in "I meant to go to the shop, but took a wrong turning and wound up at the police station." I wonder if this is a past historic form of wend (I don't think its related to "wrap up" since I think that is cinematographic jargon - hence "that's a wrap").
:No, probably from "wind up" (although it doesn't seem impossible that the verbs "wind" and "wend" themselves are related (akin to sit/set, rise/raise, lie/lay etc)). 惑乱 分からん 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wound up 

message: Anyone who is reading this, I have a request: make a Wiki entry on the board game 'Go.' Someone made a couple different entries on 'Go,' but for some reason, they were all deleted, and you can access ONE of the entries, but it won't let you edit it, and when you click on another link to open up that very same article, it says that its been deleted, and Wikipedia can't access it???... It's all very strange. Please, someone out there, hear my plea, and make a Wiki entry on 'Go,' the board     . Manga_King
:You will find the article you are looking for at Go (board game); and if you just enter go you get to a disambiguation page which takes you there.  --Doric Loon 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the entry about 'Go,' the Asian-origin board     ?

message: I think you may have a case of vandalism: last sentence of "Origins of windan" paragraph. (I'd fix it myself, but I've never done that before, and am not sure if I shoulñd or not!) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism?

message: how is it possible to have an article this long, & learned, (& i am a fan of historical linguistics), that manages, in all that massed verbiage, not to provide a simple, clear definition of the actual meaning of the word under discussion!?
i know about the wiktionary/wikipedia split, but this is absurd.
unless somebody can come up with a really good, really convincing reason why the wikip article about the verb "go" shouldn't actually have a definition of that word, at least as a line in the intro, i'm going to write something, brief & to the point, & insert it in said intro
will return tomorrow to check for comments.
with respect to all contributors, i have to think of this as a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees!  
what is somebody going to think, who comes on wikip looking for "go", & reads this?
Lx 121 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In general this article is shockingly difficult to read. Can we make it more concise? I don't mind adding extra words to aids understanding, but this article has verbiage that is too contorted to read. Donama (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I just removed the definition of go (which was "to move, to start, etc.") among many other changes. Go is so common and so general that it would be perhaps too difficultly and too inadequately defined in a parenthesis in the introduction with one or two synonyms. But maybe in the body of the article a separate section on the use or meaning of go could be made. 70.225.72.66 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  go: the actual meaning of the word 

message: I reworded the article, removing the first person and the wordy, pretentious phrasings that horrified me when I first happened on this article. This article really needs sources and for the current sources to be referenced properly. Additionally, I am not acquainted enough with the subject to be confident that I have not reworded some things into wrong information. My touch-up may need some touching up.70.225.72.66 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs help 

message: This is an interesting article about the word "go", with lots of good material about etymology etc.  This is exactly the sort of strong, full dictionary article that it would be great to see on wiktionary.  I wish all wiktionary articles had this level of historical and etymological detail.  --macrakis (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to wiktionary?

message: The lead states that go and be are the only English verbs with a suppletive past tense. What about must (had to)? I am aware that must can be viewed as having no past, but operatively, it is had to. Leasnam (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppletive verb in lead 

message: Um, there's a section on the "origin of ēode" but no explanatino of why we're suddenly reading about this word.  NickelShoe (Talk) 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the origin of ēode exists to explain where our original past tense for go disappeared to. Go being one of the only two suppletive English verbs, this is notable a notable quirk of our language. I added a citation for the etymology leading to yode, and added a more easily recognized modern word, followed, as well to make the article more relevant to the layman (not everyone's a linguist after all). I think the article is still a wee bit overly technical and some parts like explaining the asterisks read more like a primer on linguistics than an encyclopedic article on the word "go". Also there's some disparity among the references and how they're cited. I'd clean them up but it's already well after midnight and I'm fading fast, any volunteers? :) KrisWood (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ēode

message: Treating "follow" in the section on ēode is misleading, I think, and seems to be based on a misinterpretation of Skeat.  "A.S. ful-gangan, (pt. t. ful-ēode)" is simply what one would expect for a compound based on gangan, past ēode.  Skeat isn't citing both forms to assert that both are continued; he's rather contrasting with the modern circumstance where "follow" does not behave like a compound of "go", but as a regular weak verb.  Indeed modern English "follow" is what one would expect from an older fulg-; this vocalisation of OE [ɣ] is regular.  None of my sources mention anything unusual about the modern past, and Occam says it's just a regular weak past replacing the older one, however the older one might've turned out. 4pq1injbok (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The evolution from *lg* or *rg* to *llow or *rrow seems fairly common, cf. also borrow, swallow (bird), billow, fallow, gallow, -morrow, sorrow, with commonly have cognates with *lg* or *rg* in other Germanic languages. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  follow