Maltese in court

In replying to my previous letter (October 15), Mark Anthony Sammut should have paid attention to what I had actually written.

For example, I never said that I was "frustrated at the apparent incomprehensibility of legal jargon". Actually, I attacked the widespread use of a hybrid jargon at our law courts.

The dictionary definition of the word "jargon" says it means "gibberish, unintelligible words, barbarous or debased language".

Mr Sammut had the temerity to describe the law courts' use of this hybrid (mixed) jargon (gibberish) as "the quintessence of the Maltese identity" and as "the epitome of our identity".

After reading the above definition, Mr Sammut might wish to review and revise his insulting statement against the Maltese nation's identity. Is it possible that the quintessence of our identity is composed of barbarous or debased language? I cannot believe it!

Mr Sammut erroneously tried to mitigate unsuccessfully the untold harm done to our identity by the hybrid jargon used in our courts by replacing the word jargon, which means barbarous or debased language, by the word "legalese" as if this would give it a semblance of correctness. The dictionary meaning of the word "legalese" is "the sort of language used in legal documents that is difficult to understand". Obviously, the word legalese cannot replace the word jargon in this context. Of course, what is intrinsically bad cannot suddenly become good by adorning it with a few flowery epithets.

In my opinion, law practitioners who deliberately continue to make ample use of our courts' hybrid jargon instead of our own orthodox down-to-earth everyday Maltese language, are harming and denigrating our Maltese identity. It, therefore, behoves the National Council of the Maltese Language seriously to address this disgraceful anomaly.