Also: “a ruler in an oligarchy” isn’t exactly a helpful definition. “Hmm, yes. This floor is made out of floor.”
Actually, dictionaries do this all the damn time. They always use the business end of a word in the definition of said word, without actually explaining what it means.
I guess, the number of descriptions they would have to write would explode exponentially, if they didn’t do that.
But yeah, really annoys me, too. When I write a definition I avoid similar words, even if I assume everyone knows that word, because it provides more information and is clearer when I use a synonym instead.
And dictionaries, whose only job is to provide definitions, frequently settle for these shitty definitions.Like, why not just say “ruler in an oligarchy” and then in the next sentence, actually explain what an oligarchy is?
If I’m searching up oligarch, I’m probably not confused on the suffixes, I don’t know what the first part of the word means.
Oligarch: A ruler in an oligarchy
Oligarchy: Rule by oligarchs
Though you have to admit that there actually is a difference in the way business and politics are entwined in Russia and in “the West”.
« In the USA the rich decide who becomes powerful and in Russia the powerful decide who becomes rich »
💯
I think the US translation you’re looking for is robber baron not “entrepeneur”… but then the stereotypical meme about all US people being 100% pro-capitalism wouldn’t work :s
The problem is, although the term exists in English, it’s never used in popular discourse, unlike oligarch.
It was used abundantly in leftist circles until the neoliberal turn. Now talk of the “bourgeoisie” or “robber barons” has been replaced by a confusionist denouncing of neoliberalism, multinationals and new world order… but despite the political shortcomings of these new expressions, anti-rich sentiment is still alive and well in the global North.
