Mark Anthony Sammut of Zebbug, ill-famed for his Catherine wheel comparison that collapsed like a pack of cards, has reappeared to revive the controversy of his unsolicited denigration of the Maltese identity. He never found it in his heart to apologise to his readers, if any.
The word pat(t)wit is not found either in the monumental Maltese-English Dictionary by Guzè Aquilina or in Id-Dizzjunarju Malti by Mario Serracino Inglott.
The word patwit in my letters was culled from contemporary learned judges' court sentences and from current law professors' court submissions - all spelling patwit with one "t". Probably Mr Sammut is not aware that the word patwit, as written by our present law practitioners, is actually derived from the Italian word pattuire which means "agreed" or miftiehem, as I said, and not from the short word patt as Mr Sammut wrongly maintains.
Perhaps Mr Sammut would care to take it up with our contemporary judges and lawyers; nothing stops him except his attitude.
In this context, spelling is not so important; but the meaning is. Evidently Mr Sammut is not fully conversant with present-day official law courts' practice.
While I still maintain that the common word miftiehem should definitely replace the barbarism patwit in our Maltese law courts, the 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.
As I insisted in my initial letter, wherein I gave several examples of such barbarisms, I would again make an earnest appeal to the National Council of the 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 proclaims its 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.
Editor's note: Correspondence on the subject is now closed.