From Mr A. Camilleri

I refer to my letter headed “The Maltese language in court” which dealt with the hybrid jargon practiced in our Law Courts, quoting a number of examples (TMIS, 26 September, 2004).

There were no comments except for an enthusiast who, in another section of the press, pour scorned on our Maltese identity by claiming that this hybrid jargon, defined as gibberish and barbarous and debased language, was “the quintessence of the Maltese identity” and “the epitome of our identity” which, obviously, is very far from the truth.

Criticising one of the barbarisms I had quoted, this enthusiast, who spins like a Catherine wheel, said that the word “patwit was spelt with a double “t” from the Maltese word “patt” used, for instance, in the Maltese collocation “bil-patt u l-kundizzjoni li…” From where, how and why the letters “wit” were added to “patt” to form the word “pattwit” he omits to explain, which is deplorable.

The bastardised word “pat(t)wit” is not found either in the monumental Maltese-English Dictionary by Prof. J. Aquilina, LL.D., or in id-Dizzjunarju Malti by Mario Serracino Inglott. The barbarism “patwit” was culled from contemporary learned judges’ court sentences and from current law professors’ court submissions – all spelling “patwit” with one “t”. Perhaps he would care to take it up with our present-day judges and lawyers; nothing stops him expect his attitude. Evidently he is not aware that the bastardised word “patwit”, as written by our present law practitioners, is actually derived from the Italian word “pattiure” which means “agreed” or “miftiehem”, as I said and not from the short Maltese word “patt” as he wrongly maintains.

In this context, spelling is not so important; but the meaning is. Obviously he is not fully conversant with present day official Law Courts’ practice.

While I maintain that the common word “miftiehem” should definitely replace the barbaric “patwit” in our Maltese courts, the bastardised word “patwit” is only an infinitesimal part of the thousands of other similarly constructed words which form the hybrid jargon practised in our Courts of Justice to the detriment of the ordinary citizen.

As I insisted in my initial letter where I gave several examples of such barbarisms, I would again make an earnest appeal to the National Council of Maltese Language (Act V of 2004) to “tackle with exceptional vigour this shameful Maltese language problem at our Law Courts without delay”.

No one should put our Maltese language in an academic position that erroneously proclaims its alleged inadequacy to deal with legal procedures because this would not be substantially correct.

The exigencies of the many count for more than those of the few.

Albert Camilleri

SLIEMA