For a translator, I’m actually a man of few words socially – but I would certainly agree that
it’s better to judge someone by the things they talk about (and, in certain contexts, won’t talk
about) rather than by how much they talk (or not, as the case may be). In any case, the Wuhan
coronavirus has caused so much disruption in the world that I would say that, with so many
people full of inevitable concern for themselves and their close ones and plenty even fearing
for their very life, many will start questioning just who they really are and where their
priorities and purpose lie (or should lie). There are more important things than wealth and
frivolity – maybe you know someone who pays lip service to this very important point but
doesn’t actually believe it? – but I am confident that the world will never be the same again
after the passing of this pandemic. We shouldn’t believe that, when it’s all over, the situation
will be one of only cheering and jubilation. It’s just too grim a matter; not unlike serving time
in prison and the stigma associated with it – pretend, just for a moment, that you have just
finished serving time in prison and are now released; think about how flat your mood would
likely in reality be (not that I have ever been to prison myself).

In any case, the modern world being what it is, it has never been easier to get access to
information about the coronavirus; and, human nature being what it is, idle chat about it was
inevitable. It should be evident from the previous paragraph that I have implied that a
person’s conversation reveals much about who they really are, and quite frankly it’s not just
as far as their own opinions are concerned. Yet I remember once remarking to others how it
seems that everyone, including me, seems inclined such that they just can’t wait to make their
next statement about the coronavirus known, however inane or inaccurate it might be, and
argument about what is acceptable and not is rampant (like this story:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1265570/Coronavirus-latest-lockdown-news-sunbathers-
lockdown-rules-UK-COVID-19 – some argue that it’s not sunbathing as such that’s the
problem; it’s people being too close to one another i.e. not obeying the social distancing rule.
Mind you, one person doing it could be enough to encourage many more to do it, and before
you know it some will insist that there is “too many” people within a given space). Of course,
no less of an issue is all the misinformation about the coronavirus that exists on the Internet,
mostly either medical advice which is incorrect and misleading or conspiracy theories posted
by people who pretend that it makes them far more important, credible and worthy than they
really are. Not to mention the scam attempts – fake fines for flouting lockdown regulations
and all the rest of it. And with all the government restrictions and panic-buying of toilet roll
and sanitiser and groceries and God knows what else, I just cannot easily predict what will
happen in the months ahead. The fact that Boris Johnson has tested positive for the disease –
and, as of 6 th April 2020, even ended up in hospital – suggests that even he has
underestimated its infectivity.

But at the end of the day, all will agree that the coronavirus is an “important” subject, which
got me wondering if there exists a term for participating in a conversation about something
such that the statements you make are meant more to give the impression that you actually
are prepared to be a part of it when you would rather not – intending to convince others that
you take the matter with at least a base level of seriousness; ultimately the intent is to
discourage others from believing that you are ignorant or naïve about what is being discussed
by doing nothing more than contriving to have a part in the conversation. Substantiation of
your own points is of less concern; meaning that what you say, even if there were some truth
in the facts behind it, would ultimately be irrelevant. Yes, that’s the word, irrelevant. It is
hardly rare for people to fall into a trap of saying something which reveals their own petty

prejudices about something, which proves unhelpful at best and embarrassing and humiliating
at worst. But a mature person is capable of respecting someone whose opinions they feel only
disdain for. In the case of the coronavirus, it’s just too easy for one to say that we should
wash our hands more and we should practice social distancing and “I wonder will happen as a
result of x?” even when we know there is no coherent answer to state and only time will tell.
The bottom line is that communication contribution with no purpose other than to provoke a
reaction (unless it is rhetoric as a means to a constructive end) is, ultimately, irrelevant
(unless, of course, it is actually enough to create a situation of someone being misled and/or
to divert the attention of others away from something else).

In any case, this is a business blog related to my career as a self-employed translator. Put
crudely, when you translate it is up to you to give the right consideration as to what
expressions will be used, and it is, I find, worth getting out of the habit of treating every
translation as “a boil in need of lancing” – meaning that you have agreed to do take on the job
“without complaining” even though you would rather get the money for nothing, but this
means you give little to no actual attention to the content of the original material, refusing to
embrace it because “it’s got nothing to do with me, after all”. Maybe remembering what I
mentioned in the previous paragraph would prove a valuable starting point.