I refer to Albert Camilleri's correspondence Hybird Legal Jargon (March 26).

Mr Camilleri accused me of "unsolicited denigration of the Maltese identity". I should like hereby to rebut this false assertion, giving the reasons therefor.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by arguing that pattwit (any other variant must be a typing or an orthographical error) forms part of the Maltese language. It is not strange that Aquilina's and Serracino Inglott's dictionaries do not carry such entries as pattwit because those dictionaries are meant for general purposes, not for specialised registers.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by pointing out that pattwit and miftiehem are not synonyms, as Mr Camilleri insists. I do not believe that highlighting semantic differences is tantamount to denigrating the Maltese identity.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by suggesting that (i) the Chamber of Advocates should issue a charter similar to that of England's Law Society whereby law practitioners would explain legal terminology to clients with a view to achieve complete comprehension of legal texts which often are inaccessible to the layman, due to their technical nature; and (ii) the nascent National Council of the Maltese Language should direct its energies not towards the only state institution which functions completely (and excellently, to my understanding) in the Maltese language, but to others in which English is needlessly, and often times atrociously, employed.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by stating that, ultimately, it is because it is hybrid that our legal register is a true reflection of the Maltese linguistic identity. This is not denigrating our national identity, but viewing it in its proper perspective.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by putting forward the argument that times have evolved since the 1920s and 1930s when it was convenient romantically to portray the Maltese language as the language of peasants. The intervening decades have seen the Maltese language grow, whenever it was given the possibility, like in the law courts.

There are judges today who are so confident with the language they adopt different styles, as I had the unique opportunity to discuss in a private interview with the Chief Justice. He rightly pointed out the different styles of judges who make use, in their own personalised way, of the Maltese language to express complex legal theories and analyses.

I do not think I denigrated the Maltese identity by submitting to the attention of intelligent readers that any serious study of language and law - not least from a hermeneutical point of view - demonstrates that there is an intimate relationship between the two. Ours is a mixed jurisdiction; it is only natural that the legal terminology should be mixed (or hybrid) too.

In view of the above, I trust your correspondent's comment about my alleged "denigration of the Maltese identity" has been proved completely unfounded.

Editor's note: Correspondence on the subject has been closed. This letter is appearing in terms of the provisions of the Press Act.