There can be little to no reason to dispute that translators are “more comfortable with words” than “ordinary people”, by which I guess I mean how words and expressions can be interpreted differently (whether this is unwittingly or contrived); but this would also mean that they are more comfortable than most people at explaining such differences and phenomena in a coherent manner. This includes questions of what certain words or expressions are capable of indicating in certain contexts, depending on who uses them, or where exactly they are read, whatever. After all, what do you think is meant by the immortal claim that an understanding of cultural factors and context is essential when it comes to translation work? What I’m trying to say is that high-level linguistic talent alone won’t always cut it if you’re not “awake”. I’m sure that language teachers/academic spend a lot of time on this very subject, and I’m going to share three “little thoughts” which I view as relevant, as follows:

One
You know when you watch snooker on TV? Well, before the days of colour TV, people did use to watch snooker on black and white TVs, you know. Well, suppose, as an example, that you were watching snooker on a black and white TV and the commentator said something like, “For those of you watching black and white TVs, the pink ball is the one next to the brown one.” You might instantaneously respond to that like “LOL” whether you knew that or not, or whether you were none the wiser after having heard it. But does it really sound so daft if you consider the assumption that the viewer had been watching the game up to that point?

Two
I recently heard of this brain-teaser (well, I don’t call it a “brain-teaser”; more like a “riddle” or a “trick question”) that goes: “If there are 3 apples and you take 2, how many do you have?” Boris Johnson was asked this question and the answer he gave was one – poor sod. For the proper answer is two: if you take two apples, then it is just plain undeniable fact that you then have two apples. Say what you like about Boris’ listening and comprehension faculties, but he might have given the right answer if the question had been put differently, like, “How many do you have in your possession?” But I don’t want to sound eager to ridicule him because I find it fun – I’m not that kind of guy – I imagine that what compelled him to answer “one” rather than “two” was the unmentioned thought of “How many do you have left?” Of course, the answer would not be two if you were already carrying some apples before you took the two apples mentioned in the question. If you were carrying some apples before you picked those two up and were then asked “how many apples do you have?”, that would seem like a proper question in that you would have to do a calculation to arrive at the right answer: add the ones you’re already carrying to these two that you have just picked up. But if you’re not carrying any apples to begin with, then, like I said before, it is just plain undeniable fact that you then have two apples; and to me it is this plain undeniable fact that makes people dismiss the question for what it is – like: “Why would someone ask how many apples you’re carrying when everyone knows that when you pick up two apples, you then have two apples, assuming you’re not carrying any more apples to begin with?”
I’m also reminded of another trick question at this point: the one that goes, “You’re driving a bus carrying a certain number of people from A to B, and drop some people off and/or pick some people up at B and carry on to C, and you drop some people off and/or pick some people up at C and carry on to D… what is the name of the bus driver?” When someone being asked that question says that they do not know the answer – and they may well wonder what that’s got to with all the picking people up/dropping them off business (not least because the question that they are expecting to be asked will be something like, “How many people are there on the bus at the end of it all?”) – they are reminded that the question begins, “You are driving a bus…”; like, “Don’t you know your own name?” To everyone out there who has answered this question, “I don’t know [the name of the bus driver]” and felt hurt at looking stupid as a result of it, I can empathise if you don’t possess a bus driver’s licence in real life.

Three
There are many car driving computer games (like Outrun 2006, which I bought recently) where, before you start a race or whatever it is, you have to choose between automatic or manual transmission. Consider this: if you select “automatic”, does your vehicle actually use an automatic transmission system or does the character that you’re playing as always change the gears manually even if you, the player, don’t?

Here’s one thing I think: when you’ve done as much translation as I have – and I do it for a living – you start to relate the concept of imagination (including your own personal imagination) to translating work – certainly if you’re serious about doing a good (and not merely passable) translation job.

I am aware that some people grow up speaking more than one language as their native tongue. I’m not one of those people myself, but I am also aware that it is said that your imagination is most active when you are very young; of course, when you are very young is also when you are at your most naïve and least socially competent etc. And while I have to admit that I am no psychologist, surely I can’t be the only person who has ever established a link between “imagination” and “human nature”.

Having said that, when I think of “human nature”, I think of cultural rebels, who are usually eager to paint a picture of themselves as self-appointed “revolutionaries” as far as culture is concerned. In my personal experience, these are the kind of people who are full of scorn for MTV or who are anything but prone to hiding the woe and / or disappointment they feel whenever someone reveals an infatuation for Big Brother. They act all proud because they spit in the face of conditioned attitudes, whether or not they would define it in that way or a similar way. But what I reject no less readily is conditioned imagination (try relating that to the concept of attitudes of habit – I have already suggested in earlier comments that too much of that can be detrimental to productivity and satisfaction in the workplace). I look at how far I’ve come since I started this job back in 2008 and I claim that, in my pursuit of quality in my translation work and my virulent desire to avoid making mistakes in it, I have “escaped the curse of conditioned imagination”.

Paramore have a song “The Only Exception”. What is supposed to be meant by, “I’m on my way to believing”? Admittedly, maybe I’ll never know – if that makes me “ignorant”… well, you can call it sad if you want. But I like Paramore and their music; I much relish their style as being passionately expedient yet evidently with heart, as I would put it. I think that, back when I was a teenager, I would definitely have listened to Paramore music repeatedly if they were around back then and I came across them, in which case I would probably have ended up rigidly thinking of “The Only Exception” as a “typical” or “classic” (“unmistakeably”) Paramore song. How many people who call themselves Paramore fans would agree with me on that one, or just “understand” me, so to speak? How about the band themselves?

But look, I don’t want to babble on too much about an over-generalised topic like some group and their music, where, for all the enthusiastic consensus one frequently encounters in connection with that sort of thing, everybody’s right and everybody’s wrong and none of it really matters unless you want it to. No, I’d rather talk about RAC, by which I mean “Relief Addiction Cure”. I used to think that this was a term of affection that it was obscene to use casually. And it is easy to point out that it speaks for itself: it is not enough to mention that it is a term of affection that it is obscene to use casually; it is an A PRIORI term of affection that it is obscene to use casually! But I want to defy all that and claim that it could pass for a term of reverence! Does that make sense? Either way, if you’re still reading: as I see it, you are now in the perfect position to fathom its meaning to the full; hence, logic would suggest that you will never use it…

You can think what you want about all this. Just know that the reason I write these comments is for the sake of promoting myself as a professional translator; think of it as blog material. The point of this particular one is that, when I do translation work, I aim to transcend scenarios in which I feel like I’m too bricks short of a loaf.

That was a deliberate faux pas. Who could refute that?