Talk:hollow victory

RFD discussion: January 2019
SOP: sense 3 ("Without substance; having no real or significant worth; meaningless.") +. Per utramque cavernam 16:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a synonym of Pyrrhic victory I don't see any harm in keeping it, it certainly isn't a resounding victory. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What use is it? We can put the translations at (although tbh I'm not convinced it is entirely synonymous with it), and write  there. Per utramque cavernam 17:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am not even certain it is synonymous with Pyrrhic victory, yet the nomination implies that it is clear and that it is so by taking no reservation and instead claiming SOP. I doubt that the meaning of "hollow victory" is perfectly clear from its parts. We need to figure out whether it really means Pyrrhic victory, and adjust the entry accordingly; if it turns out that it does mean that, we have learned something and what we have learned is stored in Wiktionary for our readers to know. A Pyrrhic victory is one that cost too high a price, e.g. in losses of men and weapons; by contrast, a meaningless victory could have been cheap but achieve nothing of worth. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I doubt that the meaning of "hollow victory" is perfectly clear from its parts": fact-free and research-free opinions are the cheapest goods in the world: everyone has plenty of them and everyone is glad to share them. What makes you think hollow victory is not clear from its parts? Per utramque cavernam 22:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the meaning of "hollow victory" is perfectly clear from its parts, why is it that someone thinks that it means Pyrrhic victory? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, fixed. Per utramque cavernam 19:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, the definition should be altered perhaps, and compared to a Pyrrhic victory. DonnanZ (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A victory can be called hollow, not because of any losses incurred in gaining it, but because that what was gained turns out to be actually worthless. For example here, where a measure adopted in California after a bitter fight became toothless because it was declared unconstitutional. That does not fit the definition of . --Lambiam 21:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious about the syntax of your sentence: "because that what was gained turns out to be actually worthless". Shouldn't you write "because that that was gained [...]" or "because what was gained [...]"? Per utramque cavernam 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * “Because that that was gained” sounds wrong to me while “because what was gained” is fine. The conjunction is followed by a phrase that can be a full sentence on its own. As far as I can see, there is nothing amiss with the sentence “That what was gained turns out to be worthless”.  --Lambiam 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mh. I've never seen what used as a relative pronoun like that; in fact our entry labels it as "nonstandard". On the other hand, that used as a relative pronoun is perfectly standard; that's how I read it in "because that that was gained" (although it might be ungrammatical; "that which was gained" might sound better). What do you think? Again, no offense meant; I'm just genuinely curious. Per utramque cavernam 20:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "That what" also sounds odd to me, but then so does "that that". I would use "that which". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not a native speaker. It may be an echo of other Germanic languages, such as German “das, was”, as in “Wir wollen immer das, was wir gerade nicht haben.” The words “that”, “what” and “was” are all stop words in Google searches, so I cannot easily examine how common this nonstandard use is. There is no doubt that “that which” is quite common and standard, even as it violates Fowler’s proscription against the use of relative in restrictive clauses.  --Lambiam 10:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would keep this, if only because has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All right. I suggest a change in CFI then: . Per utramque cavernam 22:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Per utramque cavernam 19:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)