Every time I try to make a statement about myself as a professional self-employed translator,
I’m confronted by the knowledge that I only know so much and can only do so much, and
this includes when I go about invoking my own experiences trying to decide how best to deal
with an issue in a particular translation job the resolution of which is anything but
straightforward. After all, I’m only human. And the weight of it all will only be compounded
by a sense of (in my case, at least, accepted) pressure to be competitive – in my case,
sometimes even I get confused, or misled, or simply lost when tackling a translation
conundrum as best I can. In short, I’m arguing that, should I be confused, I’m determined to
make sure that it’s only “for the right reasons” wherever possible… even if I fail to offer a
clarification of this straight up on any particular occasion. And yet, just as it can take courage
to be open about what troubles you the most, I find myself compelled to wonder if I should
feel legitimately “proud to be confused for the right reasons”.
The “single word” hinted at in the title is one that I find is no less likely to be used
subjectively than objectively – and quite possibly more the former than the latter. And it’s not
an adjective that basically means “good” or “bad” in a generic sense. That said,
slang/fashionable terms, in particular, would certainly seem prone to being used subjectively
rather than objectively; in the realm of adjectives meaning “good” or “bad” in a generic
sense, think of the last time you heard someone say “cool”, or “wicked”, or “wack”, or
“rank”, or even something like “sexy” (or, indeed, the last time you used any of these words,
depending on how honest you are prepared to be). But no, the term I’m talking about here is
“snitch” as a noun; essentially, it means “one who tells people”, like a police informant,
typically in exchange for some kind of reward or lenient treatment (or at least expecting it).
For this reason it is widely labelled as a derogatory term, and the people who host the online
Urban Dictionary, which includes the word with many definition entries, will doubtless
realise this.
Every time someone gets called a “snitch”, it always raises questions about three things in
particular: a) what they are snitching about; b) the identity of whom they are snitching to; and
c) the identity of whom they are snitching on, and the relationship between the snitch and all
other parties in any given case (if the snitch is to be judged fairly for their snitching; but it all
depends on the individual circumstances). If the snitch isn’t being just flagrantly selfish or
spiteful, they will likely justify their decision to snitch (if, quite probably, only to themselves)
by the fact that they are afraid of the person to whom they are snitching while believing that
they suspect something that the person they are snitching on doesn’t, in which case they may
actually be snitching reluctantly. Or maybe they just think that the struggle to keep “the
thing” under wraps is more trouble than it’s worth and they just want it to end. But surely you
can see how easily it can tend to lean on subjective “justification” rather than sound logic.
At the end of the day: would it really be fair to judge negatively (on principle) any
(nondescript) person who gets called a “snitch” like it’s a bad thing (i.e. strictly negatively
judged over it)? Answers to questions relating to this word lie mostly in the subjective nature
recognised with individual cases in which it is used; and I accept that it may well be likely
that an outsider couldn’t be expected to know the details of any particular such case.
All this because I’ve been pondering the word “snitch” ever since I realised that I can still
remember what it is both in French (“mouchard”) and in German (“Verräter” – which,

curiously enough, is usually used to mean “traitor” or “betrayer”). Although I’m proud of
myself for that, it’s beside the point here. What I mean here is…
…After all, what else?
Now it’s time for the afterword of this article, which – I promise you – was not something I
had originally planned when I started writing this. It just came to me over time as I was doing
what I do. I have a point to make here and it is this: surely it should be obvious that one
important principle when it comes to doing translation right is doing all you can to
understand the material properly. Well, I’ve come to realise that if you’re serious about this,
you won’t limit your understanding and judgement of something to the basis of an answer to
the hypothetical question: “What is the sum total of all I need to know about it?” I would go
as far as to add that such an approach is the most promising way of giving the thing the
respect it is owed, when you think about it. If this sounds like over-generalisation or mere
idle speculation that I maintain really should be related to reality, I will provide an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SysZtEKhq8 I’ve watched many of the Crimebodge
videos on YouTube (and many of them more than once) and the man’s name is Rob Warner.
From what I’ve seen, I think we can safely consider him an authority on otherwise
unmentioned modern day problems with the British police and the British legal system.
Honestly, he shows impressive conviction indeed in what he talks about in this regard, all
very articulate, and not without adept humour from time to time.
Anyway, in this particular video he talks about narcissism in the British police – let him
elaborate unto me as to how he sensed this as a widespread phenomenon and the extent of the
noxious things that it can lead to if it remains unchallenged. I for one know that I’m sold on
the idea that this is “serious stuff” in the public domain, and I’m very glad this Paul Ponting
had his day in court. In any case, I now want to draw your attention to the bit: “The other
party was much nicer” at 2:00. For all the valour Warner shows with these videos, what
follows is a question I find imperative to ask, and which I will not delay asking him:
Just to make it clear, I am talking about people (supposedly) identified by the police as, shall
we say, troublesome/of concern in connection with criminal complaints and investigating
them; that said, by “much nicer” (by the standards of the police, if anyone), are we more
talking about a) A party being less aggressive, confrontational, argumentative and generally
uncooperative or b) A party who is more inclined to be overtly kind with the police when
they come along to question them about a particular incident; a clear example being offering
them a cup of tea, uninvited, from the outset? I mean, seriously, one shouldn’t fail to consider
“the facts”, and one shouldn’t rush to judgement.
Mr. Warner, if you’re reading this, I respect you, but I still insist that the point I make here
matters when you think about it.