Obsolete? [ edit ]
That idiom is not obsolete at all...I have come across it in the Guardian many times, and recently again in a book by John Updike...
zigzig20s 14:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Did it include "give"?
 ? Kappa 15:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Yes it does include give...Actually if u add an 's' at the end of 'hostage' in your search, there is one result...It is odd that there's only one though - I don't think it's that uncommon.
zigzig20s 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
From RFV [ edit ]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2nd cite now added.
John O'Donoghue TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Parliamentary Debates ( Dáil and Seanad)
"I hope the other report will be completed at a very early date, but to put a timescale on it would be to
give hostage to fortune and I am not prepared to do that".
Dmol 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
635 b.g.c. hits for
hostage to fortune which I've heard frequently, but only 5 (only 3 independent) for give hostage to fortune. I agree with Kappa. --Eng 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC) inear
How many hits for
? gave hostage to fortune ? -- given hostage to fortune EncycloPetey 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
A few more, and more still for
gave a and given a, but still not as many as for is a or was a. --Eng 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC) inear
I disagree. I don't think
give + hostage to fortune is sum-of-parts. Edit: and what is be taken + hostage to fortune? DAVilla 09:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We need one more citation then...
Kappa 09:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I found one more. --
Beobach972 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
RFV passed, I guess. Does anyone dispute that they're independent? Is this Irish or something? DAVilla 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)