Talk:hostage

Changed the etymology of both words to its transparent derivation from host(e) + -age. I was really surprised to see a redlinked etymology for the English and a completely different, yet still unexplained, etymology for the French. If I'm wrong, could someone please show me why these two seemingly unexplainable etymologies have been here for so long? Thank you. Lollipop (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2020
Rfv-sense: "A person seized in order to compel another party to pay a ransom or act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) if the hostage-taker's instructions are not complied with."

Call me crazy but isn't this encompassed in the first sense, "A person given as a pledge or security for the performance of the conditions of a treaty or stipulations of any kind, on the performance of which the person is to be released."? I'm personally not satisfied with the wording in either senses, but would appreciate the input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The distinction, as I understand it, is that the first sense is someone voluntarily given as a pledge or security, while the challenged sense is someone who is taken by force. The challenged sense is closer to the more modern use of the term, while the first definition is more like the medieval practice of sending a younger son to another lord's court as security that one will uphold treaty obligations or such. Kiwima (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see what you're saying. Should the first sense be labelled, thinking "historical" or something like that? I'm also a bit iffy when it comes to using the term defined in the sense like in the challenged sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this is now cited. In searching for quotes, I found a number of other meanings, which I have added. I also paired down the definitions a bit, because they were rather wordy. They probably could still use some tweaking. (As a side point, the "See also" section lists, which I think should probably be moved or deleted. The phrase "hostage to fortune" is pretty common, but it does not always follow the verb "give", so we could move the entry to (appropriately tweaking the definition). However, even the use of "fortune" is not unique to this sense of "hostage", as you can see from one of the definitions I added, which includes cites for "hostage to fortune", "hostage to the future", and "hostage to prosperity".) Kiwima (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I call a good entry! Thanks Kiwima, your work is immaculate as usual :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good job adding senses to the noun. :) I think the "adverb" is just the noun, too, though. The quotes are "kept hostage", "held hostage" and "take [someone] hostage", but one can find the same phrases with "prisoner", and in some cases also with the plural, as when multiple people "are held hostages". No other dictionaries I looked at had an adverb, and Collins has "held hostage" as a usex of the noun. (MacMillan has "take someone hostage" and "hold someone hostage" as "run-in" entries under the noun, without clearly defining what POS "hostage" has in those phrases.) Pinging as someone very knowledgeable of grammar. One dictionary I looked at did offer one part of speech we're missing: the verb I just took a stab at, but it seems nonstandard and many uses are nebulous, so help with the definitions is appreciated. I was tempted to split out a sense like "(sometimes with "to") To subject to constraint or control (of), as if by having hostages from, or making (someone) hostage to (the controller)." (See also .) I also added a noun sense, "the condition of being hostage". - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sense of the verb is one contained in Century 1911. The citation makes it fairly clear that the six departments were hostaged by the French to the Germans in 1871. The citations under the second sense could be construed as the same sense, but with it being unclear who exactly (the evil local powers that be?) is doing the hostaging. Stylistically, I would say it's a failed metaphor, but lexicographically I suppose we need to try to define it.
 * The sense of hold hostage, take hostage, and keep hostage are semantically equivalent to hold/take/keep as hostage. In these expanded expressions as hostage is a prepositional phrase functioning adverbially to modify the verbs. One can find expressions in which hostage can be modified by an adjective in the expanded form of expression ("held as an additional hostage"), but not commonly in the abbreviated form without as (*"held additional hostage"). However I looked for and found a few cases of the as-less expression in which hostage was modified by determiner or an adjective and found numerous instances of "hold/take/keep him/her|me|you a hostage" and a few instance of adjectives "... who held me virtual hostage" and "holding me in financial hostage", "holding her a mental hostage"). One can also find instances of "hold/take them|you|us hostages". I could find it only once modified by an adverb ("she can hold you emotionally hostage"). The weight of these examples suggests hostage retains its membership in the word class noun. DCDuring (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I also see citations of being being held psychologically hostage, or psychologically or emotionally [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations%3Aprisoner&type=revision&diff=58815301&oldid=55263786 prisoner], but I agree this is not evidence of "hostage" being at adverb, as it looks like "psychologically"/"emotionally" modifies the whole verbal phrase. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems resolved / passed as amended. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)