Talk:give hostage to fortune

Obsolete?
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)

give hostage to fortune
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. --Dmol 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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".


 * 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 in ear 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. --Eng in ear 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)

RFD discussion: March 2020
"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 (with appropriate changes to the definition). However, I don't think even that is needed. In the last cleanup of the entry for, 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, which I think should be kept. PUC 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to which should be kept.  It's not easily understood from its  parts. --Dmol (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)