Talk:give hostage to fortune
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"? [1] ? 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]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Shakespearean? --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Might be better at hostage to fortune. Kappa 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2nd cite now added.
- 2001 -- 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. --Enginear 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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. --Enginear 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.
"hostage to fortune" is a bit of a set phrase, but it occurs after other verbs besides "give" (be a hostage to fortune, make someone or something a hostage to fortune, offer a hostage to fortune, etc) and even as a subject rather than the object of a verb. Therefor, at the very least, I think we should move the entry from a phrasal verb to the noun phrase hostage to fortune (with appropriate changes to the definition). However, I don't think even that is needed. In the last cleanup of the entry for hostage, I added the appropriate sense to "hostage" to make this a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. I believe this is the appropriate place, because in addition to "hostage to fortune", a similar meaning can be found in phrases such as "hostage to the future", "hostage to fate" and "hostage to prosperity". Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Move to hostage to fortune, which I think should be kept. PUC 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Move to hostage to fortune which should be kept. It's not easily understood from its parts. --Dmol (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)