>>>Someone said that 98% of New Yorker readers say they read the cartoons first and that the other 2% are liars. I plead the fifth.
>>
>>Read cartoons? It is like saying "reading photos". I have never been into cartoons; so maybe I don't understand something.
>
>There's an uncertain shortage of terms in english on the subject, so they were turned into classes with overload.
>
>Word „cartoon“ may mean caricature, or may mean comic strip, depending on context. So think in terms of context (yup, completely ambiguous, a newspaper may publish both, sometimes even on the same page... there you go).
>
>How many translators from english does it take to replace a lightbulb? Unknown, depends on the context.

Aside from the definition of the word "cartoon", I find English to be a very useful language (the best of those I know) for a precise description of the events, people, or whatever. I think the fact that in English many things can be described in different ways and using different words, gives it (the language) ability to be very specific and give the listener/reader the exact feeling/descriptions of the subject.
I am not talking about a professional writer. Dostoyevskiy could describe the events super well. Or, any other writer, in English/Spanish/French/Russian. I am referring to the ability of a regular guys' to have have more options and therefore more ways to be "eloquent."