Some say that as a language, Maltese is poor by way of a vocabulary which recognizes distinctions in meaning that can be derived from the same concept. We thus use the same word for the different meanings.
But how true is this? Indeed sometimes, the contrary seems to be the case.
For instance, take how in Maltese we say “żmien” and “ħin” for time. When a lot of “żmien” has passed, the reference is to a period that can be as long as the life of one person or of whole generations. When much “ħin” has passed, that would most probably refer to at most what goes on in a single day.
In English, invariably the word “time” is used. In this case, Maltese is more precise than English. Could the reason be that as a semitic langage, the Maltese vocabulary is spread out over a more limited range of issues than is the case for languages that have “roamed” the world? However then, in the context of its limitations, Maltese could develop a greater detail in the way by which it can indicate precisely what it is referring to.
***
TWO
Two reflections have been made about ongoing wars that merit being highlighted.
The first was advanced by Pope Francis who declared that in a war, a sign of courage is also being given by the side which accepts to prepare for negotiations. This was addressed to the Ukraine and made subject to the further statement that such negotiations should not be understood as implying an acceptance of defeat.
The second observation was published by a UN agency which claimed that in the war at Gaza, both sides have lost all consciousness of the sense that they belong to a common humanity, a sense that supposedly is ingrained in human nature. It is a horrible but correct judgement about a situaiton where both sides hve showed themselves ready and able to inflict indiscriminate death and atrocities on fellow human beings, as if this was being done on communities of ants, rather than on hundreds and thousands of human beings.
The most radical effect of war is that it dehumanises all those involved in it.
***
RESPONSIBILITY
Discussion about how responsibility for the conduct of public affairs should be assumed has taken off during past weeks in a big way. As was to be expected, it has been caught in partisan polemics that generated more heat than light. There still is a lack of the serious consideration that needs to be given regarding how political and administrative responsibility should be defined.
As far as I can tell, even at an academic level, discourse has not advanced far enough. It needs to go beyond courses about the “ethics” of administratiom to cover the study of concrete situations which would not be restricted just to the public sector. Such study should include as well the private sector at managerial and shareholder levels, plus the level of professionals, who occupy quite an extended space in this country.
An endemic problem is as always, that we have continued to define the phases of analysis, consultancy, decision-making and implementation in a vague manner. Frequently this means that more than one person is “responsible” for a given task from begininng to end. So, responsibilties cannot be ascertained only in terms of those having some decisional power but this also needs to be done in terms of the organisational structures within which such powers are being exercised.