我最早看到口袋公园这个表达的时候，觉得非常奇怪，因为这两个词搭配在一起毫无意义。今天又重新看到pocket的一个用法，想到以前想就这个问题写篇文章的，但是后来忘记了，今天补上。其实任何一个负责任的译者，只要稍微搜索一下，就不会把pocket park翻译成口袋公园。维基上的词条开头是这样解释的：A pocket park (also known as a parkette, mini-park, vest-pocket park or vesty park) is a small park accessible to the general public. While the locations, elements, and uses of pocket parks vary considerably, the common defining characteristic of a pocket park is its small size. Typically, a pocket park occupies one to three municipal lots and is smaller than 0.5 hectares (1 acre) in size.从上述内容来看，无论如何都无法牵扯到“口袋”上去。正常的译者根据上文可能会处理成“微型公园”，“迷你公园”，或者“袖珍公园”之类。事实上，即使维基上没有这个词条，pocket在这里的意思也非常容易确定的。科林斯针对这个用法，有专门的解释：A pocket of something is a small area where something is happening, or a small area which has a particular quality, and which is different from the other areas around it.thefreedictionary的解释更加清楚：Asmall,isolated,orprotectedarea。其实作为非母语人士，只要我们稍微建立这样的意识——即不同寻常搭配的背后，可能有我不知道的意思——便可以避免这样的问题。我不喜欢然后又反复被财经人士使用的另一个表达是破坏式/性（disruptive)，这个意思根本就不是破坏的意思，但是最早的译者根本就没有做任何查证的工作，就凭感觉翻译了出来。其实这个词，也是有明确的定义的：科林斯： Disruptive technology involves completely new methods that change the way something such as a market or a type of device works.thefreedictionary: Radically reconfiguring a particular field of business, as by implementing new technologies or a more competitive business model.综上，我个人觉得“颠覆式/性”更合适。
