And chorizar in Spain’s Spanish, although you need to specify what is being chorizado. A person who choriza is, you’ve probably guessed it, a chorizo.
I agree with Johanna in post #159, and I said more or less the same thing back in post #5. People are making too big a deal of the difficulty of translation here. No, you can’t always do a one-word translation. No, this doesn’t mean that you can’t get across the meaning most of the time pretty well.
“Sea” = yes
“Ni Hea” = no
in Irish. However as someone else pointed out, they’re rarely used, as you answer a verb with a verb.
For example:
“Ar ghlan tú an fhuinneog?” = Did you clean the window?
The answer would be “Ghlan mé” or “Níor ghlan mé” not “Sea” or “Ni Hea”.
Over the years, I have never found a French translation for “understatement”, though quite widely used in English.
Since the word does not permit too much poetic licence (as in loom) I have never managed to convey it’s meaning directly.
Just a word on subtitles, they are generally pretty bad “translations” in the strict sense, a good subtitle allows you to follow the plot. Even good literary translators are better when they respect color and style over literal translation (so much for the Bible)
The space between where translation ends and where meaning extends has always haunted people. There are expressions like traduttore è traditore (translator is traitor) and “A translation is like a woman: If she is beautiful, she is not faithful. If she is faithful, she is not beautiful,” a complimentary helping of misogyny along with your metaphor. These are familiar complaints about the gap between translation and meaning.
It also means that meaning is something more than is coded in symbols. It takes place inside the human brain, and it can be very extensively coded by symbols, but the symbols can only point to the meaning, not be it. I’m using symbol in the broadest sense, including everything that language is made of. Language comprises a set of symbols. Translation can do whatever language can do. The question of what meaning is depends on the question of what consciousness is, which goes outside the scope of linguistics.
And then there’s the infamous question of “what is is,” which is either profound metaphysics or a crude abuse of words by a lawyer.
I can’t say that I agree with this. Perhaps it collides with some technical or professional definition of translation, but the common usage of translation includes text intended for laypeople, such as the translation of a movie or novel. A translation that did not make some effort to take cultural context into account would be a poor one. It isn’t the job of the original author to provide alternate idioms/metaphors/etc. for the target audience, nor is it the job of the end user to research words and phrases in the original language. That’s what translation is for.
Aut Caesar, aut nihil! 
In Hebrew, isn’t “fair” a loan word (Northern Piper’s point).
Yes and no. "Noix appears to be both general (nut) and specific (walnut), but if you really want to specify the latter, you would say “Noix de Grenoble”. There is a “Maison de noix” not far from here. It obviously means House of nuts (Nuthouse?), not House of walnuts.
The two English words “safety” and “security”, seem to cover the same semantic territory as the two French words “sureté” and “sécurité” but have different break points. In fact, although I know when to use the first two I still cannot explain even to myself how they differ.