Translating natural human language is more of an art than a science. There is usually no such thing as the only correct way to translate a passage of text, much as there is no such thing as the only correct way to paint a portrait or furnish a room. While this is very obvious in translations of poetry and creative literature, it also remains true in commercial and even in very narrow technical contexts.

It is broadly the case that we cannot translate material unless we can also compose such material as its original author. A good translator should also be a good writer in the relevant specialism.

A single example is enough to illustrate this. Finnish labour law recognises the employer's right to terminate employment when a change in business conditions makes it economically unviable to continue that employment. The key expression used by lawyers and other specialists in these circumstances is irtisanoa taloudellisista ja tuotannollisista syistä, from which we can also derive the noun phrase taloudellistuotannollinen irtisanominen. The English language equivalents to these terms of art say nothing about economics, finance or production. Instead English speakers describe exactly the same phenomenon using the verb make redundant and the noun redundancy. The difference here is a complete shift of perspective: Finnish describes the phenomenon from the point of view of the employer, whereas the expressions in English reflect the position of the employee. It is not even enough to recognise these translation equivalents at the level of whole phrases. Instead the writer's entire point of view must change.

A good translation should primarily serve the needs of the reader, while reflecting the aims of the source text author and of the party who commissioned the translation.