You might be wondering about the possible tautologies inherent in 'perfect transposition and perfect rendition into perfect English' (to say nothing of the various senses of 'perfect', and we haven't begun to talk about procedurally and substantively perfect English). Here's my thinking about the phrase — let's assume you've decided upon it — 'I love you' as originally uttered in Spanish, English, Cantonese or 15th-century Buntu:-
perfectly transposed into perfect English: 'I love you'
imperfectly transposed into perfect English: 'I hate you'
perfectly transposed into imperfect English: "Wotcha, you'll do n'all innit"
imperfectly transposed into imperfect English: 'The reigns in Spane stays mainly, on hippopotamus let' (I observe procedural and substantive imperfections there. How many have you counted?)
Let's touch on the distinction between Richard's guaranteed procedurally and substantively perfect English:-
procedurally perfect (how to say it): I assist you to perfectly transpose into perfect English text of your own decided origination
substantively perfect (what to say): I assist you to perfectly render into perfect English substance that you may not already have thought of. Whatever the need, I can help you formulate something suitable. I'm very good at putting the right technical things into the right technical words. This service amounts or is close to counselling and or advice. Enjoy!
What's the different in meaning and sense between "I look forward to it' and 'I am looking forward to it'; why, where, when and how does it matter, and who really cares? (note the judicious use of the semi-colon)
English appears — I wouldn't know — to be a challenging language even for some native English speakers, some of whose dared essays into the depths of expressive spoken and written English are piteously shallow (which may explain the Englishman of few words, as bad teeth explain the closed-mouth smirk in some English portraiture and the tendency of upper-class English to smile with downturned lips). Hence my offer of perfect English to native English speakers, on the lines of the Ajami scribe. The service comes close to advice where the customer needs something highly technical — I do that — and doesn't know how to frame it
It is questionable business to hire a foreigner for a professional translation into English. I don't believe I've ever heard or read perfect English from a professional foreign translator. Usually the translation, delivered theatrically and with due self-importance, is frankly erroneous, materially misleading, culturally insensate, robotic, grandiose, pompous, pretentious, oppressively officious, ungainly, obtuse, superficial, illiterate, unlettered, flat, entirely lacking in intelligence, insight and finesse and otherwise incompetent. Sometimes it is outright nonsense. (For a few pennies less or more, you could have had multiply perfect English from the right sort of native English speaker)
Even if the situation, occasion, context, circumstances and need are all absolutely clear, there is often no one way — and sometimes there may be no way — to perfectly translate into perfect English (perfect English does not necessarily connote a perfect translation). Difficult enough for a native Englishman to express himself in his mother tongue, it is all the more intricate to effectually, efficaciously transpose into English an idea that starts by being singly or multiply foreign. For the huge scope for variations in tone, colour, sense, purpose, purport and meaning in translations into English by those who are native English speakers, compare David Barrett (ancient Greek) and J.M. Cohen (French and Spanish) with their respective competitors
Failure to correctly pronounce the letter 's' — a common defect of European obstinacy (barring some physical impediment)
Failure to correctly pronounce either iteration — as in 'The thing' — of 'th'. The French say 'z' and 's' respectively ('ze sing'). It won't do
Mis-using 'that' for 'which'
Mis-using 'will' for 'shall'
Mis-using 'should'
The thoughtless placement of 'not'. ('Try not to do that' vs 'Try to not do that': there's a material difference, if you're attuned to it)
Talking 'with' someone. A common mistake. In English, one never talks 'with' anyone. (One does 'have a talk with' someone, and one even 'has a talk to' someone, but — as well as being utterly different from each other — they are entirely different from merely talking to someone)
Using the past past ('I went…', I ate…', 'I visited…', 'were') erroneously for the present past (respectively, 'I have been…' (oddly enough, not 'I have gone…'), 'I have eaten…', I have visited…', 'have been'): a common journalistic error, especially by sub-editors, who in America habitually put the predicate at the end of a phrase, deliberately or idiotically rendering the phrase ambiguous
Using the present past erroneously for the present (the nonsensical 'Encyclopedia Britannica have sued OpenAI…'. The correct English is of course 'EB is suing…').
Using the imperfect erroneously for the present past: 'was' and 'were' instead of 'has been' and 'have been' (a very annoying, very common error in online-speak)
Failing otherwise to correctly use the imperfect (and the much-neglected 'used to…')
Failing to correctly use the pluperfect
Imperfectly using the subjunctive: poorly understood, even less well employed. (Here's a double for you. What's the difference between 'on his return' and 'when he returns'? And shouldn't it be 'when he return'?)
Outrageous recent Americanisms, so distasteful I desist from giving examples. A bastardised version of English English, American English is rapidly deteriorating in legitimacy. American English — overwhelming in its pretentiousness, verbosity, pomposity ('transportation') and illiteracy ('like') — is always a poor substitute for English (note that some words of American English mean the opposite in English. 'Oversight' is one of them). You will never get any points worth having for ever using American English (nor would you ever want to if you can use the real thing).
It's worth mentioning that for all its variety — x senses of a particular word, x connotations of each sense etc. — English in the wrong hands can be an exasperating, ponderous, bombastic, verbose, unwieldly language (prolixity is a different issue, emanating — exuberantly in the right hands, as in James Thurber's 'happened, transpired, took place and occurred' — not from a deficiency but from an abundance of apposite words used correctly but wilfully tautologously, and otherwise superfluously unless expertly for literary effect).
Curiously for such a multi-dimensionally rich language, and perhaps especially for a language particularly well stocked with monosyllables, English is deficient in single words — cf. phrases — to describe certain common facts, circumstances and situations, and requires the use of convoluted constructions. (One can readily sympathise with Balzac's yearning for the French mot juste.)
Can you think of an English linguistic or literary situation in which one English word would serve for a contorted phrase and where that word does not exist? To get us started, I venture to suggest that English lacks a word for-
an honest man, and for a dishonest one. (So, apparently, in each case, do French, Spanish, Italian, Indian, Russian, Mandarin, Japanese, Swahili and — my favorite — 9th-century Mongolian.)
a person who is, and is not, a native English speaker (note the commas: they affect the sense).
Conversely, can you think of an or the English word that, though technically correct, is not serviceable? ('Interlocutor', etc.)
Unlike French in France, there's no cultural obstacle to the expedient literate coinage, by a genuine literatus anywhere, preferably from Latin or Greek, of respectable English words (cf. the coinage of gutterances by illiterate Americans). You may have noticed a few on this webpage.