ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Trump was concise, eloquent

| Monday, Feb. 5, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

The army of the old Soviet Union consisted of Russians and (mostly) conscripted soldiers from the Soviet republics — soldiers who spoke approximately 15 different languages ranging in linguistic diversity from Lithuanian to Armenian, from Ukrainian (Slavic) to Kazakh (Asiatic), with Chechen, Uzbek and Azeri (Mideastern) in between.

Rather than spend time teaching the Russian language to soldiers they considered expendable cannon fodder (a Russian dictionary has 250,000 entries), the Russian generals conducted a study to determine the minimum number of Russian words a non-Russian soldier needed to understand to function. The study's surprising result: A mere 500 words were needed — and half of them were expletives.

Example: “Get this (blank) rifle clean or I'll knock your (blank) into next week, you (blankety-blank)!” The soldier need only comprehend “rifle must clean — or bad news.”

So, President Trump's recent comment about the U.S. admitting immigrants from “(expletive)hole countries” could have been conveyed with this more linguistically refined (and long-winded) explanation: “Persons/individuals originating from countries whose governments are rife with ingrained, systemic corruption after centuries of rule by despots which manifests itself into lawlessness and results in a collapsing, decaying infrastructure that inhibits any thorough and legitimate screening/vetting of the prospective immigrant's background/past/history.” Or “(expletive)hole countries” — very brief, direct and concise eloquence which accurately conveys the situation.

Also, the fact that Trump curses could possibly be “smoking gun proof” that he is (somehow) a Russian agent? To liberals, anyway.

C. Colpo


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me