Talk:go to

Webster 1828 contains the meaning go away (, the last line on the page), a phrase of scornful exhortation which apparently is not covered by the two current meanings tagged as archaic and obsolete. I suspect that Carlyle’s sentence may use it in this specific meaning, although used to express protest or surprise fits well too. Ought this sense to be added too? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Carlyle’s exhortation to working activities it may apply to the 4th meaning as well (get to work). I feel perplexed... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion

 * Transferred from RfD discussion

I'm not sure that there are any current idiomatic senses of this. Of the four given, the three that bothered me most were the following:
 * 1) (transitive) To move towards: Go to bed!
 * 2) (intransitive) To advance, be positive or make a decision" Go to!
 * 3) To attend an event or a sight.: We went to a concert for my birthday.
 * The second might just need an archaic tag.
 * I could understand giving verbs like "go", "have", "get", "take" and a few others some kind of special treatment, but this doesn't seem right to me. It seems misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything that this article offers right now that isn't go (verb) + to (preposition). Having said that, without an example, I don't know what #2 means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one needs to be deleted, but we could start a separate entry for "go to bed" which is an idiomatic expression for "put yourself to sleep". The second one needs an example, because I have never heard it used in that way. We could delete it until someone finds an example.  The third sense should stay. It is idiomatic; not literal.  The whole page could be delted, but I think it is useful because some languages, such as Arabic, make a distinction between "to go to" and "to go" (to go away, to travel). Gregcaletta 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only one that is dictionary material to me is the archaic imperative or interjection: "go to!" - it's totally opque to me whenever I run across it. All of the other senses require an entry exactly as much as go into, go beneath, go up etc etc. &mdash; hippietrail 02:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another example from Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet this time): "Go to, go to; / You are a saucy boy: is't so, indeed?" Does that match the archaic definition that we give? Equinox ◑ 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to keep the second sense, then we need citations. --EncycloPetey 18:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Striking. I don't know who moved this here, or on what basis, but so far as I can tell the entry has never had an RFV tag. Anyone wishing to RFV any of the uncited senses should feel free. —Ruakh TALK 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

forms
check the past participle. Ultimateria (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed "been to" and added a usage note. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)