An asymmetry in the use of means

Of the following:

1. "red" means rot (in German)
2. "red" bedeutet rot / auf Englisch bedeutet "red" rot
3. (in German) "rot" means red
4. "rot" bedeutet red (auf Englisch)

Only the second two are natural to me.  I also find these questions natural:

1. How do you say red in German?
2. Wie sagt man red auf Deutsch?

And have, somewhat understandably, I suppose, never had to ask something like "wie sagt man rot auf Englisch?"/"How do you say rot in English?".  I hypothesize that the "red"s in the questions above are further instances of what Sellars calls an unique sense of word use (as opposed to mention), exhibition, in §31 of EPM.  (The question couldn't be "How do you say 'red' in German?", because the answer to that is "red", perhaps with an accent; similarly Church was wrong in saying that the proper translation into English of "Jean a dit 'Les triangles ont trois bords'" is "John said 'Les triangles ont trois bords'"[1].  The name "Jean", in English, is "Jean", even if the name which plays the analogous role in English is "John", and even if we are accustomed to referring to Kings Henry, Charles, and Francis instead of Henri, Charles (but pronounced differently!) and François.)  I suspect that exhibition in this sense is something like quasiquotation, actually.  You don't want to quote the word, but what the word would mean if you were using it, and ask, how do I say that, what corresponds in your tongue to that?

[1] Translation being a pragmatic sort of thing, the right answer is clearly either "Jean said 'triangles have three sides'", or "Jean said 'triangles ont trois bords'", depending on what you're about.