Talk:Go (verb)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 24 June 2013 (UTC), see discussion. keep, 25 May 2005, see discussion.

Go (verb) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Etymology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Calling all linguists -- comment on this article!

All useful information of course, but it does have a rather idiosyncratic style at present.

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)[reply]

The corresponding word in SANSKRIT is GACHCHA (also starting with GA). Based upon the AXIOM/HYPOTHESIS that RELIGION AND LANGUAGE were the DRIVING FORCES initially - thus all ACTIONS were to be acts of sacrifice, penance, charity as a GOAL. See ISKCON publication BHAGWAT GITA (chapter 18..)

1. Based upon the AXIOM/HYPOTHESIS that SOUND generated by MECHANICS of MOUTH/TONGUE/THROAT organs was the DRIVING FORCE initially
2. Bases upon the DIVISION of the MOUTH CHAMBER into a 5x5 matrix of NODES/POINTS ASSOCIATED with the VARIOUS SOUNDS generated ( ref: PHONETIC LAYOUT/LAYOUT of SANSKRIT alphabet).
3. Based upon the PHYSICAL ASSOCIATION of these NODES with the MAJOR IDEAS/THOUGHTS and subsequent extensions with other MATRIX NODES/POINTS of the SOUND ORGANS.
4. Based upon the AXIOM/HYPOTHESIS that ALL ACTIVITY OF HUMANS was intended to be GO PROCESS toward THAT END - little i going to Big I within us - the Big I being a part of the ONE SUPER I residing in each of us (SPIRITUAL metaphor).

Examples:

1. YA associated with the NOTION OF "GOD" - yeshua, YAMA, MAYA, YEMAN
2. RA next NODE to YA associated with RA (SUN), RAMA, kaRta, kaRma, kaRana, adhikaRAna

---

I think the connection between wind and wend, is similar to "sit"-"set", "fall"-"fell", "lie"-"lay", whereas the first is intransitive, and the second transitive. In Swedish, there are several verbs are causative to other verb like sjunka(sink, non-causative)-sänka(sink, causative) brinna(burn, non-causative)-bränna(burn-causative) rinna(run,water)-ränna(run,person) etc. There's more of this in German, I think. It's an old Germanic feature. Also cf. English drink-drench. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wend&searchmode=none

---

I thought about the sentence: "I'm wending my way home", in Swedish, there is a similar sentence: "Jag vänder hemåt" (I'm returning home.) Hemåt is a compound of hem(home) and åt(toward, cognate with english at and Latin ad). Just interesting. Generally, "vända" in Swedish means "turn".

As the author of the original article, I believe that the style of this article needs to be changed -- as it is, it sounds like an undergrad paper, not like an encyclopedia article.Zantastik 10:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article sounds too much like an 'undergrad paper' (and I can have a go at it up, if you like :-) ), but I also have a couple of questions:

• Regarding the statement: "The original form from which we get went is windan, which had wendan as a preterit stem, which in turn gave us went." — The form "wendan" is a full verb, not a stem, and you then go on to contradict yourself by saying that the original preterit of "windan" was *wand-, and that "wendan" was the causative of "windan". Which is it?

• You jump from *wand- being related to the idea of turning to talking about the PIE root *wer-2. Yet, aside from the meaning, there doesn't seem to be a connection between the forms — only the first consonant is the same. Is this a guess or do you have some other reason? If so, you should explain it (though I'm not sure this kind of supposition belongs in an encyclopedia anyway).

-- Damezi 10:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to a question on my talk page:

Basically, the problem is the sentence I quoted above, especially the part "windan ... had wendan as a preterit stem"". But wendan — as you then say — is the causative of windan. I guess you must have gotten confused, as the rest of the paragraph is OK.

So, how about this:

Etymology of went

[edit]

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 ...

(... Going on to the rest of the etymology, all in one section.)

-- Damezi 20:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised how little the article mentions the German word "wenden" (to turn), the Swedish "vända" (not to mention other Germanic languages) and the relationship with the Scandinavian "gå" (to walk). It seems like the latter would be especially worth mentioning in the section where "gang" is discussed.

Also, of the five OED hypotheses for the origin of the past participle, why is the most unlikely the one that gets mentioned? I mean, I don't know what these hypotheses are, but to me it just seems that it was taken directly from "gan" (in the same way the past participle of "run" is "run") with the infinitive losing its coda. Any thoughts?

There are many of these pairs of verbs in Germanic languages, the original strong, the derived one weak, the weak verb usually having an original causative sense, as we can still see from examples like to fall → to fell (= "cause to fall"). I think it would be good to have an article on this phenomenon. I would be happy to make a first draft, which no doubt you will all then tear to shreds and turn into something rather good. But I don't know what title to give such an article. "Derived weak verbs in Germanic" would be a possibility, but it seems a bit hefty. Any suggestions? --Doric Loon 1 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and I felt it needed to pointed that under the current article title this is merely an expanded dictionary definition. I would vote to delete and/or redirect if it was AfD:ed. You should move it to a title along the lines of the verb "go" in Indo-European languages or something like it. Creating articles on verbs in an encyclopedia, no matter how interesting and important they are, is not appropriate.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is entirely appropriate, if there is more to say about it than a dictionary would. This article is mostly about the etymology, and normal dictionaries only give superficial sketches of etymologies. This links to other articles to give a picture of the Germanic verb system which a dictionary cannot. --Doric Loon 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a verb is a dictionary definition no matter how bloated the etymology section is. If you write an article about a verb and use only dictionaries as references, you've only written a much larger dicdef. Calling it something else won't change its status unless you try redifining the very concept of the term "dictionary". I don't know if that amounts to original research, POV or just delusions of grandure, but it sure isn't what an encyclopedia is intended for.

If you want to write about Indo-European linguistics, then do it in an article on Indo-European linguistics with a proper title. Don't hide it in an article which doens't belong in any kind of encyclopedia. Not even a non-normal one.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole complex of articles on Indo-European linguistics. This is part of it. It would be very cumbersome and unhelpful to say so in the title of every article in the field. The title of this article seems fine to me, but I don't mind you making a proposal to move, provided you are going to get involved in work on the topic and are not just a fly-by-night troublemaker. But really, I think you could find more constructive things to do than arguing for the deletion of good material. Encyclopedias and dictionaries overlap a great deal. Who does that hurt? I've read your views on "deletionism" on your user-page, and it looks to me like you are just spoiling for unnecessary fights. If you are not interested in an article, don't read it. Live and let live, OK? --Doric Loon 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they most definetly don't overlap in this extreme way. Only on Wikipedia do these things occur and only on Wikipedia is the occurance itself used as a self-supporting argument. If you're not actually going to respect my opinion or input, don't pretend like you do by topping it off with an empty, hypocritical cliché.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry if I misjudged you but maybe you should have another think about what you put on your user page; it is pretty aggressive and confrontational - or struck me that way at any rate. There are many kinds of dictionaries, and there are many works called dictionaries which you or I may think are not. Ditto encyclopedias. I think you misunderstand the dictionary definition rule if you are suggesting Wikipedia should contain nothing which might belong in any work called "dictionary". The point is, we Wikipedians have our own dictionary, Wiktionary, and we don't put material here if it would be better put there. However, there should be no serious material which doesn't have its place in any of the Wikimedia projects. So if you are suggesting deletion on the grounds of dictionary definition, you must be suggesting that this article should be moved to Wiktionary. Now, Wiktionary already has an article on "go", and if you compare it with this article, it seems obvious to me that they are doing very different things, and that it would not be helpful to merge them. --Doric Loon 08:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) just spotted myself and fixed! Sowelu (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]