3 ms·
That would be someone in a position of power in an oligarchy. If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs.
by zardo 5y ago
That would be someone in a position of power in an oligarchy. If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs This _describes_ how the term is used. As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want. This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares. Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition. You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic. 1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/ https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...