Talk:go for

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


 * ✅ I see we have it now. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

go for
RfD-sense X 4:
 * 1)  To apply equally to.
 * 2)  To go somewhere in order to do or to experience.
 * 3)  To cost (a stated price).
 * 4)  To endure, sustain, or spend (time).

All of these are encompassed by 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 (meaning "applies twice as much to"),, 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. —Ruakh TALK 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:, 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.):
 * 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)
 * 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)

go for a sailor, go for a soldier
Should these be covered? I think it just means "leave home to become a sailor/soldier". Equinox ◑ 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

go for + name
What does this expression mean when answering the walkie-talkie? --2001:16B8:3184:3600:D4B9:84E1:AEAD:A6FB 20:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)