Talk:go number two

go number two
I think this can be speedied on the grounds that the discussion has happened already for (which was recently recreated and which I deleted). Perhaps folks want to have the discussion though. - TheDaveRoss 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is would be nice to have the collocation at number two, though collocation space would probably be better. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to number two. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion and redirect are pretty much the same thing as if you search for 'go number two', it finds 'number two' as the first hit. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's possible to say "went number two", so it's not just "go" + "number two". You can't say *"went drive", *"went talk", or *"went sit".
 * I have no idea what the connection is between went drive etc and the case at hand. I have no idea what the connection might be between "it's possible 'number two'." and your vote to keep. Could you explain? DCDuring TALK  23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can say "go drive", "go talk" and "go sit". You can't however say *"went drive" *"went talk" and *"went sit". You can however say "went number one" and "went pee". "go number one" and "go pee" are therefore special cases and should have entries.
 * That's because "number two" is a noun, and "drive", "talk" and "sit" are verbs. Pur ple back pack 89  00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we ordinarily put "go" before nouns? Or is number two a special case? Can you say things like "go house", "go car", "go TV", "go soda" etc.? I don't think so. Something special going on with number two. We have go potty. Such is use of "go" before a noun something that doesn't ordinarily occur.
 * No, we don't. But that's because this is only go in the sense of relieving oneself. There are a limited number of nouns referring to what one is relieving oneself of that can be used attributively after "go". The one thing they seen to have in common is that they're childish euphemisms: you can "go wee-wee", "go pee-pee", "go tinkle", "go number one", but not "go urine", and when you say "go piss", it's really the verb (shortened from "go and piss"), not the noun. What I think is going on here is that the construction is based on the way a child would say it, and if any part of it is something a child wouldn't say, it won't sound right. It's like there's an exemption from normal syntactic constraints that's granted because of difficulties children have with complex constructions, and if it's not the kind of thing a child would say, that exemption is revoked. Within those narrow restrictions, though, the parts are quite independent. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case one uses the lexicon as follows:
 * Try to make sense of the expression using the most common senses of go number and [[two, which would probably lead to combining number and two and skipping the next two steps.
 * If necessary, one looks up the two two word combinations: go number and number two
 * Since go number fails one reviews the meanings at number two
 * From context one would select the meaning of number two {"Feces; the act of defecation."} and place it in one's working memory.
 * One then proceeds to go (because it is shorter?) and determine there is no possible definition there that fits with context or.
 * One then proceeds down the long list of definitions of go, discarding meanings until one comes to sense 40 (the last, though it probably should be higher based on relative frequency of use, especially in speech.)
 * Then, if necessary, one can analyze the grammar and perhaps guess, based on similar cases like go home, in which the noun home is used adverbially, that number two is not functioning as a noun.
 * In all likelihood one would not have to complete all the steps even if one could not guess the meaning from context. Steps one and four would probably lead to the correct conclusion. It is always true that it is faster to have an entry for the exact item on is searching for. But it is also true that putting words together is the most basic element of understanding language. It's reasonable to expect folks to have the skill and to benefit from learning the pattern of combination which may be applicable to other cases, eg, "go Dior" (a red-carpet celebrity), "go Sanders" (a state's voters), "go bluegrass" (a musician), "go structuralist" (a lexicographer?). DCDuring TALK 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The algorithm is based on particular kinds of memory and processor. Human associative memory enables one to avoid the need for some of these steps, even when one must have recourse to a dictionary because the required information is not already in-brain or is inaccessible. DCDuring TALK  11:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted: as far as I can see, no convincing reason has been provided for retaining the term. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

go number one
Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted for the same reason as the above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)