Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
As some national politicians are more pro or anti-EU (or EU institutions), so those institutions will be more pro or anti those national politicians. If she'd not said it she'd still have thought it, so best it be said.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
How can inflammable mean flammable?
Because it isn't unflammable.
Action and inaction; Activity and inactivity; Attentive and etc.etc etc
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.
Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
Why would you assume that? Involuntary peeing when laughing uncontrollably is not an unheard-of phenomenon. The reality is, you don't know what it means without checking for stains.
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
It means the next person in that seat in the theatre is going to get damp trousers.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
You are (as yet) not a statesperson.
What do you expect her to say ? It’s hardly controversial. I thought her words were lovely . I’ve not seen anything that seemed out of order .
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
How can inflammable mean flammable?
Because it isn't unflammable.
Action and inaction; Activity and inactivity; Attentive and etc.etc etc
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
I’ve only seen the comments that I posted . What else did she say ?
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
Sick
Back in the late 80s my grandfather was very interested in then modern usage of the word "wicked".
Have there been many other world leaders as well named for their country as Peter Magyar? I can think of Charles de Gaulle and Jomo Kenyatta… if only Leon Brittan had been PM.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
You are (as yet) not a statesperson.
What do you expect her to say ? It’s hardly controversial. I thought her words were lovely . I’ve not seen anything that seemed out of order .
Since we are thankfully out of the EU, I have no expectations. If I were advising her, I would suggest tepid congratulations that don't involve taking sides in a member state's electoral politics.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.
Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
Why would you assume that? Involuntary peeing when laughing uncontrollably is not an unheard-of phenomenon. The reality is, you don't know what it means without checking for stains.
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Orban concedes defeat. The support of Trump, Vance, Putin, Lavrov, Weidel, Milei, Le Pen, Fico, Babis and many others could not overcome Hungarian anger at a stagnant, corrupt regime
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
How can inflammable mean flammable?
Because it isn't unflammable.
Action and inaction; Activity and inactivity; Attentive and etc.etc etc
Intense Invest Incarcerate Inebriation
An "in" prefix is not always the same as an "un".
PBers discover that English isn't an entirely rationally designed language shock.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.
Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
Why would you assume that? Involuntary peeing when laughing uncontrollably is not an unheard-of phenomenon. The reality is, you don't know what it means without checking for stains.
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
My grandchildren say "sick" to mean "cool" not vomit. If they've "killed" a task, they've performed it really well, not extinguished it.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
I probably should address your question. If someone says, it's fucking freezing, it doesn't mean they are indulging in communion in the chilly open air. It means it's very cold. Fucking and literally are both intensifying adverbs in this context. What follows is even more whatever it is than you might think.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
How can inflammable mean flammable?
Because it isn't unflammable.
Action and inaction; Activity and inactivity; Attentive and etc.etc etc
Cantegory error. In- here means in or on, so to put on fire. Not the negative in-
Presumably influence is the lack of fluence.
Cleave however does mean both to stick together and to split apart
Have there been many other world leaders as well named for their country as Peter Magyar? I can think of Charles de Gaulle and Jomo Kenyatta… if only Leon Brittan had been PM.
Have there been many other world leaders as well named for their country as Peter Magyar? I can think of Charles de Gaulle and Jomo Kenyatta… if only Leon Brittan had been PM.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
How can inflammable mean flammable?
Because it isn't unflammable.
Action and inaction; Activity and inactivity; Attentive and etc.etc etc
Cantegory error. In- here means in or on, so to put on fire. Not the negative in-
Presumably influence is the lack of fluence.
Cleave however does mean both to stick together and to split apart
The section "Leaving Fidesz" in the new guy's wiki entry is wild.
Also:
"In February 2026, during a campaign stopover in Bicske, Magyar has claimed that Filipino workers at a Samsung battery factory in Göd have been eating ducks and goldfish they have captured from the Budapest Zoo, in a commentary that has been seen as reminiscent of Donald Trump's claims about Haitian migrants."
He is cute though. So I will forgive him that, and the pro-europeanism.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
Have there been many other world leaders as well named for their country as Peter Magyar? I can think of Charles de Gaulle and Jomo Kenyatta… if only Leon Brittan had been PM.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
I probably should address your question. If someone says, it's fucking freezing, it doesn't mean they are indulging in communion in the chilly open air. It means it's very cold. Fucking and literally are both intensifying adverbs in this context. What follows is even more whatever it is than you might think.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.
Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
Why would you assume that? Involuntary peeing when laughing uncontrollably is not an unheard-of phenomenon. The reality is, you don't know what it means without checking for stains.
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.
We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.
Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
Why would you assume that? Involuntary peeing when laughing uncontrollably is not an unheard-of phenomenon. The reality is, you don't know what it means without checking for stains.
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Orban's constitutional damage does need to be undone, but giving constitution-changing powers to a party winning 53% of the vote (and potentially a lot less if votes were more split) does seem a really bad idea. So I hope they raise the bar, either through a more proportional election system or by requiring a referendum with a two thirds majority to change the constitution.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
I’ve only seen the comments that I posted . What else did she say ?
I mean those ones. Framing it as being all about Europe and the European path imposes her own interpretation on the result and erases the national political questions. Maybe she's right, but it's not for her to judge.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
My grandchildren say "sick" to mean "cool" not vomit. If they've "killed" a task, they've performed it really well, not extinguished it.
Both examples of alternative usage. Not the exact opposite of the proper meaning.
And just kids thinking they are being clever by coming up with their own vernacular.
Orban's constitutional damage does need to be undone, but giving constitution-changing powers to a party winning 53% of the vote (and potentially a lot less if votes were more split) does seem a really bad idea. So I hope they raise the bar, either through a more proportional election system or by requiring a referendum with a two thirds majority to change the constitution.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
I’ve only seen the comments that I posted . What else did she say ?
I mean those ones. Framing it as being all about Europe and the European path imposes her own interpretation on the result and erases the national political questions. Maybe she's right, but it's not for her to judge.
The sight of william and Lucky tone policing, after the most blatant electoral interference from Trump and Vance, is priceless.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
I’ve only seen the comments that I posted . What else did she say ?
I mean those ones. Framing it as being all about Europe and the European path imposes her own interpretation on the result and erases the national political questions. Maybe she's right, but it's not for her to judge.
Why isn't it for her to judge? She's a politician for a pan-European institution, and will naturally interpret most things according to that question.
Now, whether it is wise to be so publicly delighted at one side or another is a seperate question, but it doesn't seem improper.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
The second sanctioned means authorised.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Earlier this week I bought some donuts while shopping as a treat for the girls. Next day my youngest asked if she could get a snack and I said "yes, there's some donuts in the kitchen if you want". Her sister then said "ooh, can I get a donut too", to which I replied "no, I want you to starve" to which she said "thanks" and went to go get a donut too.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Orban's constitutional damage does need to be undone, but giving constitution-changing powers to a party winning 53% of the vote (and potentially a lot less if votes were more split) does seem a really bad idea. So I hope they raise the bar, either through a more proportional election system or by requiring a referendum with a two thirds majority to change the constitution.
We left the EU on 52% of the vote..
And some have argued you need more than that for such questions. Some places have both winning threshold limits and turnout limits.
That's fine, so long as the limitations are in place beforehand.
Finding out an account on Polymarket owned by someone named Tonald Drump bet heavy on Orban losing and the Iran ceasefire talks failing immediately after the President announced JD Vance would be leading the charge
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
I probably should address your question. If someone says, it's fucking freezing, it doesn't mean they are indulging in communion in the chilly open air. It means it's very cold. Fucking and literally are both intensifying adverbs in this context. What follows is even more whatever it is than you might think.
I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
So she’s not allowed to congratulate the new Hungarian PM ? She’s clearly overjoyed at the result as are many who are pro -EU .
I’m ecstatic!
The tone was a bit patronising though, as if she was congratulating the Hungarian people on passing their GCSEs. She could have expressed the same thing in a more politically neutral way by talking about being excited to see a new generation of leadership.
I’ve only seen the comments that I posted . What else did she say ?
I mean those ones. Framing it as being all about Europe and the European path imposes her own interpretation on the result and erases the national political questions. Maybe she's right, but it's not for her to judge.
The sight of william and Lucky tone policing, after the most blatant electoral interference from Trump and Vance, is priceless.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
The second sanctioned means authorised.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Earlier this week I bought some donuts while shopping as a treat for the girls. Next day my youngest asked if she could get a snack and I said "yes, there's some donuts in the kitchen if you want". Her sister then said "ooh, can I get a donut too", to which I replied "no, I want you to starve" to which she said "thanks" and went to go get a donut too.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Because your daughters do not respect your authority and treat your house as an anarchic commune (good on them!)
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
I probably should address your question. If someone says, it's fucking freezing, it doesn't mean they are indulging in communion in the chilly open air. It means it's very cold. Fucking and literally are both intensifying adverbs in this context. What follows is even more whatever it is than you might think.
Yes. But I think you identify a bit of linguistic damage going on. In a comment about someone running fast or kicking a ball someone might use a whole range of words like incredible, fantastic, awesome, amazing, unbelievable, 'beyond unique', (or indeed beyond anything). SFAICS there is no longer any distinction or discrimination about these words, and no meaning at all apart from 'very good'. The word 'literally' seems to operate in the same way when people are using that register - the one where a variety of words means 'I am emotionally intensifying my description'.
But unless there is another another agreed register for indexing language, then it isn't possible to start defining words or granting them meanings for the simple reason that the words you use to define other words are themselves uncertain. Which would be literally (meaning literally) and literally (meaning metaphorically) and literally (meaning I am intensifying what follows) sub-optimal.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
The second sanctioned means authorised.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Earlier this week I bought some donuts while shopping as a treat for the girls. Next day my youngest asked if she could get a snack and I said "yes, there's some donuts in the kitchen if you want". Her sister then said "ooh, can I get a donut too", to which I replied "no, I want you to starve" to which she said "thanks" and went to go get a donut too.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Because your daughters do not respect your authority and treat your house as an anarchic commune (good on them!)
How can you respect the authority of a person who literally spells it 'donuts'? This spelling is a literal nightmare.
Edward Luce @EdwardGLuce · 19m People will be closely studying how Hungary's opposition pulled off their win in such a pro-incumbent system. Important to note that the theme was corruption. Democrats need to get much better at calling out Trump's corruption.
Finding out an account on Polymarket owned by someone named Tonald Drump bet heavy on Orban losing and the Iran ceasefire talks failing immediately after the President announced JD Vance would be leading the charge
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
The second sanctioned means authorised.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Earlier this week I bought some donuts while shopping as a treat for the girls. Next day my youngest asked if she could get a snack and I said "yes, there's some donuts in the kitchen if you want". Her sister then said "ooh, can I get a donut too", to which I replied "no, I want you to starve" to which she said "thanks" and went to go get a donut too.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Magyar continues with his nice words and his win is a huge relief for the gay community.
From Sky News .
He says he wants a Hungary where "no one is persecuted because they think differently or because someone loves in a different way to other people, who believe in a different way or in different things to others".
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
Quite easily.
Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
Such as?
You can be sanctioned for taking an action that is not sanctioned.
The second sanctioned means authorised.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Earlier this week I bought some donuts while shopping as a treat for the girls. Next day my youngest asked if she could get a snack and I said "yes, there's some donuts in the kitchen if you want". Her sister then said "ooh, can I get a donut too", to which I replied "no, I want you to starve" to which she said "thanks" and went to go get a donut too.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Magyar calls on the figurehead head of state Tamás Sulyok, as well as all high justice officials and other high officials appointed by Fidesz to resign immediately or they will be removed by the new government.
He also announces a constitutional reform and that Hungary is joining EPPO.
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.
In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll
Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart
Watch Tories literally implode.
Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.
Similar pressure on LDs
By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.
Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
"Literally"?
"Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
No it can't.
The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
That's because more people are getting it wrong.
You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.
It's really as simple as that.
You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?
So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.
I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.
I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.
That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.
Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.
The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
The word literally does mean both things.
How can literally mean "not literally"?
I probably should address your question. If someone says, it's fucking freezing, it doesn't mean they are indulging in communion in the chilly open air. It means it's very cold. Fucking and literally are both intensifying adverbs in this context. What follows is even more whatever it is than you might think.
Yes. But I think you identify a bit of linguistic damage going on. In a comment about someone running fast or kicking a ball someone might use a whole range of words like incredible, fantastic, awesome, amazing, unbelievable, 'beyond unique', (or indeed beyond anything). SFAICS there is no longer any distinction or discrimination about these words, and no meaning at all apart from 'very good'. The word 'literally' seems to operate in the same way when people are using that register - the one where a variety of words means 'I am emotionally intensifying my description'.
But unless there is another another agreed register for indexing language, then it isn't possible to start defining words or granting them meanings for the simple reason that the words you use to define other words are themselves uncertain. Which would be literally (meaning literally) and literally (meaning metaphorically) and literally (meaning I am intensifying what follows) sub-optimal.
Context is everything. I am generally relaxed about words having multiple usages. With literally you sometimes have to work out whether the claim is possible before deciding the context. If someone says, I was so tired my legs were literally falling off, it's probably the intensifier context.
There was some great material this week on the socials about the myriad meanings and uses of the word shit, several of which are close to being contronyms. You’re shit vs you’re the shit. Shit hot. Got shit to do (which can mean anything other than actually doing a shit), this is good shit vs this is shit, no shit, bullshit, horseshit, apeshit, chicken shit, get my shit together etc etc. Probably the most complex word in the English language.
Magyar calls on the figurehead head of state Tamás Sulyok, as well as all high justice officials and other high officials appointed by Fidesz to resign immediately or they will be removed by the new government.
He also announces a constitutional reform and that Hungary is joining EPPO.
I guess someone senior pointed out the potential acts of war and piracy that the US Navy would be committing against countries with no dog in this fight.
Comments
In the latest one he literally (in both senses) did nothing wrong, and still got portrayed as unfair.
Activity and inactivity;
Attentive and etc.etc etc
I’m ecstatic!
Someone can quite happily claim they pissed themselves laughing when they didn't - they don't need to add the word 'literally'. That's called an error. If the language doesn't have correct and incorrect usage, why teach people to write at all?
Invest
Incarcerate
Inebriation
An "in" prefix is not always the same as an "un".
https://x.com/patrick_kidd/status/2043430961086369977
Same applies to railway cranks saying Dreadful!
@anneapplebaum
Orban concedes defeat. The support of Trump, Vance, Putin, Lavrov, Weidel, Milei, Le Pen, Fico, Babis and many others could not overcome Hungarian anger at a stagnant, corrupt regime
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/2043413077454925931
If they've "killed" a task, they've performed it really well, not extinguished it.
The section "Leaving Fidesz" in the new guy's wiki entry is wild.
Presumably influence is the lack of fluence.
Cleave however does mean both to stick together and to split apart
"In February 2026, during a campaign stopover in Bicske, Magyar has claimed that Filipino workers at a Samsung battery factory in Göd have been eating ducks and goldfish they have captured from the Budapest Zoo, in a commentary that has been seen as reminiscent of Donald Trump's claims about Haitian migrants."
He is cute though. So I will forgive him that, and the pro-europeanism.
The first foes not mean unauthorised.
Two different meanings, not opposites.
Sarcasm is not a mistake.
Some people are ignorant, but the use of either hyperbole or sarcasm is entirely legitimate.
This unsanctioned post has been sanctioned.
And just kids thinking they are being clever by coming up with their own vernacular.
To 'Vance'; verb, to fuck up.
Now, whether it is wise to be so publicly delighted at one side or another is a seperate question, but it doesn't seem improper.
Why did she thank me and go get a donut, when I had said no, not yes?
Enjoy the current pump figures. With the so-called 'blockade', Soon you'll be nostalgic for $4–$5 gas.
ΔO_BSOH>0 ⇒ f(f(O))>f(O)
To Rubio. To not be in the room when the fuck up happens. Nor even to be in the same continent.
Peter Magyar .
That's fine, so long as the limitations are in place beforehand.
Finding out an account on Polymarket owned by someone named Tonald Drump bet heavy on Orban losing and the Iran ceasefire talks failing immediately after the President announced JD Vance would be leading the charge
- Cleave: To cling/stick together OR to split/separate apart.
- Dust: To remove particles (cleaning) OR to add particles (e.g., dusting a cake).
- Sanction: To approve/permit OR to penalize/boycott.
- Clip: To fasten/attach OR to cut/detach.
- Fast: Moving rapidly OR fixed firmly in place.
- Oversight: Watchful care/supervision OR a mistake/unnoticed error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContronymBut unless there is another another agreed register for indexing language, then it isn't possible to start defining words or granting them meanings for the simple reason that the words you use to define other words are themselves uncertain. Which would be literally (meaning literally) and literally (meaning metaphorically) and literally (meaning I am intensifying what follows) sub-optimal.
Turns out she hit the roof.
Extra holes - even without Tiger.
Magyar is asking Hungary's president, a puppet of Orban, to resign once he gives Magyar the mandate to form a Govt
Moving quickly
@EdwardGLuce
·
19m
People will be closely studying how Hungary's opposition pulled off their win in such a pro-incumbent system. Important to note that the theme was corruption. Democrats need to get much better at calling out Trump's corruption.
https://x.com/EdwardGLuce/status/2043432217590833643
We decided to call it a day.
https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/orbans-brits
From Sky News .
He says he wants a Hungary where "no one is persecuted because they think differently or because someone loves in a different way to other people, who believe in a different way or in different things to others".
He also announces a constitutional reform and that Hungary is joining EPPO.
https://bsky.app/profile/minczifra.bsky.social/post/3mjdb5y6rj22r
EPPO is the European Public Prosecutors Office. Its main remit is combatting corruption.
CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports.
@duncanrobertson.bsky.social
So it's now *not* a blockade then?!
Magyar calls on the figurehead head of state Tamás Sulyok, as well as all high justice officials and other high officials appointed by Fidesz to resign immediately or they will be removed by the new government.
He also announces a constitutional reform and that Hungary is joining EPPO.
But Asda and Aldi happily sell donuts.