you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

But didn't you see he had his fingers crossed? That means he doesn't have to do it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago

    They're trying to play semantic games and claim that supporting is not the same thing is preserving, protecting, and defending. It's a laughably bad argument and hopefully it gets struck down pretty much immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hmm, I've usually heard it pronounced half to, but I guess the 'correct' spelling is have to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What would "half to" even mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What does have to mean? Have is possessing something, have to doesn't make sense either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It means that it is required. Obligatory.

    It's a modal verb. And I think it comes from the secondary meaning of have as "to undergo or experience" rather than to possess. Or maybe not.

    in any case:

    https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/have-to

    In my dialect, you're correct about one thing. It's pronounced nearly the same way as half. But that would make no sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments