Talk:go at it

RFV discussion: December 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

go at it

Permalink to referenced version: [1]

RFV sense 1: Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see go,‎ at it.

I don't know if I'm missing some point here, but I cannot see any other "literal" meaning obtained from "go + at it" that is anything more or different than existing senses 2 through 4. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO definition 2 is worded so as to include NiSoP usage of go at + it as well as idiomatic usage. Usage in which it has a clear deictic referent seems quite literal to me. Usage in which the referent of it is not specifically mentioned and the "especially" items are present seem to me to be idiomatic. Many of the Google Books cites here seem NiSoP. DCDuring (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely go at it cautiously and other similar phrases are using the second idiomatic sense of go at it. Unless I’m missing something, Mihia is right to claim that there are no non-idiomatic/literal uses of go at it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The challenged "&lit" decomposition is "go + at it", so strictly speaking this RFV is about whether there is a "more literal" meaning of "go + at it" that is not covered by senses 2 through 4. (Another opinion might be that all the senses are explained by "go + at it", i.e. it is all SoP, cf. keep at it, stay at it, in which case anyone can nominate it for deletion as SoP if they so wish.) However, as you mention, another decomposition is "go at + it", which might be distinguishable from "go + at it", at least in speech, on the basis of stress pattern. Whether we need to be troubled by any difference in meaning or usage between "go + at it" and "go at + it", I'm not sure. Mihia (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, all the same I think this should really be an RFD as I can’t think of any non-idiomatic sense of go at it, whether it’s parsed as go at + it, go + at it, or go+at+it. In any case I see this sense failing the verification process and being deleted in a week or so, unless I’ve missed something obvious. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to send the whole thing to RFD please do so, and we can freeze this RFV listing pending the outcome. Mihia (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If anything it might be an RfC. I am saying that:

2. To engage in some activity, especially vigorously or enthusiastically.

should be

2. Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see go at,‎ it. [= To engage in some activity previously mentioned]

3. To engage in some activity not previously mentioned vigorously or enthusiastically.

The other definitions seem OK. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Presently the ety for the whole entry is "go +‎ at it". Do you think in fact we should have two separate ety sections, "go + at it" and "go at + it"? Or one section covering both? Mihia (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO there's not enough difference in meaning to make two etymology sections necessary. I don't think we have any objective ('scientific') basis for choosing one nor for assigning definitions to one or the other. DCDuring (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how any senses of "go at it = go at + it" are not clearly SoP. Thus, the only point I can see for the entry "go at it" is if "go at it = go + at it" is not SoP (which may be debatable), and thus any non-&lit definitions would only be for "go at it = go + at it"? Mihia (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have done something with this, though I am not especially thrilled with the result. I am marking the RFV as Resolved, but anyone please go ahead and do something different with it, or nominate the whole thing for deletion as SoP if you wish. Mihia (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The various MWE verb phrase entries containing it can be non-SoP if the referent to it is not specified in the context. Where go at it refers to sex, it is very rare that any explicit it has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs of writing. Similarly for conversational use. There are other examples like that. It's not a universal meaning of it, though it may occur in more than one it idiom. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That much is true, but this sense of "it" is contained within "at it" itself, which has its own entry, so arguably "go at it" = "go + at it" is still SoP. It just depends on whether the use of the combination is thought to be idiomatic enough, or non-obvious enough, or whether it is understandable enough from a sense of "go" plus the entry "at it". And, as I may have mentioned earlier, I'm not sure whether there are any uses of "go at + it" that are not "it" referring to a stated thing. Mihia (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The original first definition, saying ‘used other than figuratively or idiomatically’ was a bit vague in terms of usage and meaning and lacked an example sentence but you’re rewrite is spot on. I consider this RFV resolved. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)