SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Manafort and Gates, were charged with "conspiracy against the United States," "conspiracy to launder money" and other offenses. The two were expected in court in Washington by the afternoon.
The Justice Department indictment on Manafort and Gates contains 12 counts: "conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts."
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
The Manafort and Gates indictment unsealed on Monday morning does not make any reference to Russia's influence campaign against the presidential election, but it does allege extensive financial ties between Manafort and Gates and powerful Ukrainians.
The Papadopoulos materials, on the other hand, detail the many contacts investigators say he had with Russian-linked operatives. He met at least two people, a man and a woman, who the FBI says were working for the Russian government and had boasted to him about the help it could offer the Trump campaign against Clinton.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 31 2017, @04:47PM (3 children)
[* For example, is "light" a strong or weak verb? Well, that depends on whether your local population says "lighted" or "lit". So it's a property of the population more than an intrinsic immutable property of the verb itself.]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 31 2017, @06:50PM (2 children)
Your point is well taken. At the same time, "strong" and "weak" are just as arbitrary as "regular" and "irregular" when defining subsets of verbs based upon how they are conjugated. It's been a long time since I was in primary or secondary school, so perhaps they teach "strong/weak" instead of "regular/irregular" these days, but that's just grammarian jargon to represent something specific (like we might say "philips-head screwdriver" rather than "cruciform patterned torque fastening device" or the scientific definition of "theory" as compared with the more expansive definition used in general discourse).
As to your example, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find English speaking populations that use either "lighted" or "lit" but never use the other form. What's more, even the verb "plead" has both irregular and regular past tense conjugations (pled and pleaded).
As such, whether you say strong/weak, or regular/irregular, the meanings are quite clear. Which was the point. I was merely being specific. I find that if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything.
I suppose that disagreements between grammarians on that point might become heated, or even violent. But given that you knew exactly what I meant when i said it, it's clear that, regardless of preference, as long as the meaning is clearly understood, such arguments are best left to those who care enough to fight to the death over them.
If it makes you more comfortable, mentally replace the words "regular" and "irregular" with "strong" and "weak." I certainly won't mind.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 31 2017, @07:22PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:35PM
Interesting. I hadn't considered that different branches [wikipedia.org] of linguistics [wikipedia.org] might have different jargon for similar topics.
I guess that's just another not-so-subtle reminder that context has a strong impact on semantic value.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr