> It's really just that we don't have a singular corresponding word, not that they can't be translated. Not to detract from your conclusion, but I think the cu

> It's really just that we don't have a singular corresponding word, not that they can't be translated. Not to detract from your conclusion, but I think the current top comment, by jbay808, is a pretty good counterexample. Of course, as per your point, they are able to offer a literal translation of what the word means. But without the cultural context, I can't actually use it. I'd have to explain what I meant so academically that the emotional weight would be lost to person I was talking to.