An exclusive preview of Judge Mintoff’s gavel
Published:
July 17, 2014 at 6:29pm
Owen Bonnici and Joseph Muscat have given Judge Wenzu Mintoff their go-ahead to carry on using a hatchet instead of switching to a gavel at the bench.
(Vocabulary note: hatchets, like gavels, are used with one hand; axes are used with two hands.)
The Commission for the Administration of Justice has not been consulted on this measure, but it doesn’t matter anyway because it was only the PN governments that cared what they think – which is why Judge Farrugia Sacco is going to retire in a few days having successfully escaped impeachment.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Seems like we are going into an era of political prisoners, just like in China.
Technically, hatchets should have a flat bit, like a hammer, at the back. The one shown here might, in fact, be a hand axe. As for tomahawks…
[Daphne – All axes are hand-axes, because that’s how you use them. But technically, and if I might be even more of a pedant than you claim to be, a hand axe is actually a prehistoric stone tool without a handle, the ‘hand’ bit used to distinguish it from axes with handles. In other words, you hold the cutting stone instrument directly in your hand and not via a handle. The difference between axes and hatchets is what I said it is: the first is used with two hands, the second with one. The flat bit at the back is a relatively new development in historical terms: the difference between hatchets and axes predates it. The flat bit at the back is a tool used for a particular purpose, which allows you to chop with the blade edge and hammer with the blunt edge. The hatchet I use in the garden does not have that blunt edge because it is only required for removing small branches and not for hammering.]
The term ‘hand axe’ in the modern sense denotes a simple one-handed axe. A hatchet one the other hand is similar to the hand axe but the rear of the head is extended and often used as a hammer. However, this is merely pedantry as I believe it is perfectly acceptable for a simple hand axe to be called a hatchet.
You are correct that the term hand axe also refers to the prehistoric tools. However, I believe that nowadays it usually refers to the modern one-handed axe.
Not all axes are used with two hands. Many battle axes and broad axes are used with one hand. A warrior would use an axe in one hand, and carry a shield in another.
[Daphne – As Logic 101 would have it, PCM: all small axe-type tools for use with one hand and with a blunt hammer base at the opposite end of the cutting edge are hatchets, but not all hatchets are small axe-type tools for use with one hand and with a blunt hammer base at the opposite end of the cutting edge. In other words, some hatchets have a blunt hammer edge and others don’t. The common factor, that makes them all hatchets, is the fact that they look like a small axe but are used with a single hand.
No, a hand axe is always the prehistoric stone tool. The ‘hand’ reference is to the fact that it doesn’t have a handle. Contemporary axes are never referred to as hand-axes because there are no foot-axes from which they must be distinguished.
A broad axe cannot be used with one hand. Broad axes are the axes used for chopping wood or timber-felling. You need two hands for that.
A battle-axe is a completely different thing. It is a long slim pole with two blades facing in opposite directions. Yes, you could technically slash at your enemies holding it in one hand and a shield in the other, but you wouldn’t get far. To take his head off or do some proper serious damage, you’d need two hands because of the leverage on the length of the pole and the size of the blade. Battle-axes with a short pole were not much better in terms of inflicting damage with one hand, though they were easier to swing about. The blades were as large as those of proper axes.
I didn’t intend this to turn into a Word-and-Tool Anoraks’ Corner, but there you go.]
Again, a battle axe is any axe designed for use in combat. What you are referring to is a double-bladed axe which is a type of battle axe. However, it is often mistakenly called a battle axe.
Not all one handed axes have a very short pole, and you’d be surprised at some of their length and reach. In regards, to chopping of heads: axes are ineffective as slashing and even chopping weapons (presuming the enemy is reasonably armoured). Even a pole axe would be incapable of penetrating mail. The defender would mostly be injured from blunt trauma, and a blow from a one handed battle axe would be sufficient to splinter bone or fracture a skull through a helmet.
Broad axes and bearded axes were used in battle. Though admittedly many were two-handed. Broad simply refers to the shape of the head.
Neither did I, but I don’t enjoy being corrected when I know I’m right :P
[Daphne – The original argument (and post) is about the distinction between a hatchet and an axe, and no, you’re NOT right. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hatchet
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/axe
All hatchets are used with one hand. Only some of them have a blunt end for hammering. All axes are used with two hands. If they are small enough to be used with one hand, they are a hatchet. In our tool shed there are hatchets with a blunt end for hammering and hatchets without a blunt end. They are all hatchets. I do not call the one without a blunt end an ‘axe’, because it is most definitely not an axe but a hatchet – small enough to hang on the wall unlike the actual axe which is stacked against the wall with the hoes, rakes and forks. Weapons of war do not enter the equation.]
You are, of course, both wrong in your definition – the term battleaxe characterises women who single-handedly chop down non-sensical fabrication and deadwood – a technique known as (b)logging…
Professor Edward Scicluna has never heard of an auger, so anoraks do have their uses.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-07-17/news/impartiality-will-be-my-credo-judge-wenzu-mintoff-5873795072/
Oh, but he assures us that “independence and impartiality would be his credo”.
Does it ring no alarm bells anywhere that Wenzu Mintoff has to actually reassure us that he will be independent and impartial? Isn’t that taken to be a given in these cases?
Spot on, Calculator.
This is a really very worrying Freudian slip.
For a second I read that as “navel”