Please decide whether you wish to write “genninhom” or “genninkom”. Your version does not exist. And if you can’t write proper Maltese kindly spare us your comments or write in English – if you know how.

Lola, you are definitely going to heaven. Smile, god loves you.

Ma nafx kif Gonzi ma ghajrux traditur u kif Mifsud Bonnici ma marx jahbat ghalih barra l-palazz. Kont mort ghand S Rita Ed?

‘muddled thought cannot be expressed in clear language’. True, but it does not follow that ‘clear language’ can express clear thinking when most of the issues and concepts, and terminology related to those them are ‘abstract’. Hence, deconstruction proves contradictions in what is often assumed to be ‘clear’ and that words have their own moral weight.

It only proves a skill, and that is what writing is. So much so that writers get better at it. Skills are learned. If you have limited skills using a foreign language you might ‘appear’ incoherent but it does not follow that your line of thought is flawed. I would say that the fact that Malta has two languages makes your claim, i.e ‘Analytical, clear thought is directly linked to the ability to use language.’, invalid.

[Daphne – I do not speak of limited knowledge of foreign languages. That is irrelevant. I speak of the use of language. That this means one’s own native language is implicit. Nor am I talking of fiction when I speak of ‘writing’. The fact remains, Rob, that a muddled thought cannot be expressed in clear language, and that muddled sentences are a reflection of muddled thought. I repeat that you yourself are a good illustration of that.]

Ninu: Mela vera Franco genninkhom !

U meta xi hadd jinsulenta jew joffendi lil haddiehor, tghid jghidu: ” Qed jaghmel bhal Daphne ” ?

[Daphne – Yes, right. Mr Privitera, you are SO sad.]

Lola, now imagine you were a Jew and Hitler got elected…

Nope, language is arbitrary. In fact, language is a tool which has its limitations. The bible is a good example of this.

‘That is a fact. When people write incoherently or use tangled sentences, it is because that’s what their thinking is like.’

Only if you take the world, or a ‘concept’, to be logical. However, most of the world and its concepts are not black or white, and in fact one can find many contradiction. Analytic thinking, while it has its uses and benefits (e.g. science), is flawed when it does not take into account that the predicate of a proposition is in fact arbitrary. This is especially true when it comes to politics and this is also why poetry and literature (and by this I do not mean academic writing/research) will always be deeper and have more substance than any political rethoric.

[Daphne – You illustrate my point with this comment. I could boil that down into clear language in two minutes, but I can’t be fagged right now.]

‘Analytical, clear thought is directly linked to the ability to use language.’ That’s pure nonsense.

[Daphne – Rob79, thought and language are interlinked. Words shape thoughts and thoughts shape words. You cannot have thoughts unless you have the words to have them in, and language does not develop unless people have thoughts they wish to express. Clear thought is reflected in clear language. That is a fact. When people write incoherently or use tangled sentences, it is because that’s what their thinking is like.]