I know for example in Japanese, instead of saying 私はライアンです (I’m Ryan) it becomes ライアンです “(I’m) Ryan” as that sounds natural, it’s like if saying “I’ve traveling to the US.” which simply in Japanese becomes イギリスに旅行に来ました. Basically it’s rewritten as “(I’m) traveling to the UK”. (This nuance often gets mistranslated via anime or JP media).
In this case by saying アメリカに旅行に来ました [There’s no 私は in this sentence] is akin to saying “Traveling to the US” when omitting I’m entirely, so you have to infer “who” which in this case is the PERSON IN FRONT OF YOU or TEXTING OR CALLING, so you’ve established who you are talking to based on presence of mind and situational awareness.
You need to use own brain to infer based on context rather than being direct (as in Japanese), if the speaker says “Who are you talking about” when omitting “I’m” or “We” or any other proverb entirely, you refer to yourself by stating amongst the lines of “You’re talking to me, right?” to convey to the speaker that you’re are the person they are referring to.
For example, if saying お腹が痛い “(My) stomach hurts” [It’s not: 私はお腹が痛い] as YOU or the [PERSON] in question is the subject, so there is no need for 私は (I am / my) but if they said 誰?(Who?) then simply state 私です (Me.) to clarify afterward. But saying 私 alone sounds robotic, that’s how they would know you’re using Google Translate.
Try reading this sentence (with subject omission akin to Japanese - absence of pronouns such as I’m, we, us, we’re, and so on, The result below is what it would like if it was written in the Japanese format:
財布をカバンから出し、好すきな子の為に高い宝石の支払いをした。
Took wallet out of bag and paid for expensive jewelry for the girl whom liked.
It’s definitely not written as:
彼は彼の財布を彼のカバンから出し、彼は彼の好すきな子の為に高い宝石の支払をした。
Seeing 彼 5 times in one sentence drives me insane and annoying to read, as there is no point, so in Japanese they omit it entirely, you HAVE to INFER on context. (The sentence: 財布をカバンから出だし、好すきな子の為に高い宝石の支払いをした from Japanese feels more natural to read without saying 彼 over again.)
The complete sentence (pronouns ommitted - conveyed in brackets) from Japanese:
(I) took (my) wallet out of (my) bag and paid for expensive jewelry for the girl whom (I) liked.
This is one of the reasons why a language like Japanese gets “lost” in translation, for example in manga or anime subs, as there is no 私 or 僕 in every sentence the same way as it is in “Western” languages, from their eyes it is considered “Vague” if they are not aware of Japanese grammar.
It does pose issues for inexperienced translators from JP > EN as they find it hard to distinguish on who to pinpoint since they do not use “I am” in the same way as English, since Japanese is a “pro-drop” language, in which pronouns or possessives are omitted, as they expect the audience to infer based on context.
I mean, can you still understand it if you OMIT the subject or pronoun to the same extent as Japanese, but in English sentences? Like this one:
went to Times square to meet up with a friend who lives here, such a good (pal).


On the titular question, I would say that there’s a realm in English where it’s possible to omit the subject. However, it is generally considered necessarily terse and wouldn’t be suitable for general conversation, due to distilling the language down to what essentially is a series of verbs strung together. That realm would be commands or instructions, with the specific example of highway/motorway signage.
It’s a unique challenge for English highway signs, to convey exactly what’s important but also not be too long to read. There is a physical limit for why “DO NOT ENTER” is preferred over “Automobiles May Not Turn Right Onto This Road”. In the UK, they even reduce this to “NO ENTRY”, which is in line with the pattern of “no parking” or “no lorries over 3 tonnes”.
Even more reduced are the words “EXIT ONLY” which means “this lane will soon terminate, vehicles in this lane will be forced to exit the highway, and vehicles should change lanes to remain on the highway”. All of that is from the very context of a road, made common through the context of driver training, signage, and lane markings.
I would argue that translation is not the exercise of converting words like-for-like, but to convey the same meaning or experience in the target language. As an example, expletives in other languages will reference different things, be it name-calling or dishonorable comparisons in Japanese, genitalia in English, excrement in German, etc. But there is no requirement that a mild expletive in Japanese needs to be perfectly preserved into English. Rather, the overall work when read in English should use an equivalently mild expletive, with proper consideration for what the original audience was. So if the Japanese source was a children’s anime and light high-school insults are in the dialogue, the English translation might render this as minced oaths in English. The character building should be mostly identical for the English audience.
But done only mechanically and without artistry, such a translation is going to sound very “American” and lose much of the soul of the original. IMO, this is something that older Crunchyroll translations suffered from, and fansubs did a much better job of preserving the dialogue faithfully. Even while doing this, some parts of the language are necessarily untranslatable, since things like post-nominal honorifics don’t exist in English. As a result, some fansubs might stylistically choose to always render the honorific every time – eg spelling out Kami-sama rather than translating as God.
This is in tandem to other subtitle-specific considerations like keeping the surname-then-given name ordering, so that the subtitles read in the same order as they are spoken in full (eg Kudo Shinichi) and correctly shortening to just the surname when addressed as such (eg Kudo-san or Kudo-sama).
Even still, it could be acceptable to translate as “Mr Kudo” or “Master Kudo”, if that’s the vibe that the source material was going for. Translation is, as I understand it, a holistic work. And perhaps the best example I can cite to is the English translation of The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin. Ken Liu did the translation, and made an explicit choice to hew towards Chinese terminology, explained in footnotes, because the ordering of the cosmic velocities (first, second, third) is more clearly a stair step towards space travel, rather than using the typical terms of “orbital velocity” and “escape velocity” in English.
The English translation intentionally makes itself clear as a translation, but care was taken to make sure it is uniquely from eastern source material yet still perfectly readable in English for someone that knows nothing of Chinese 20th Century history or much of anything about space travel. In that sense, it is accessible sci-fi, where even us Americans will understand the great work that Liu Cixin set into ink.