Language barrier

I FOUND SOME OF David Gelernter's criticisms of President Bush's inaugural address to be valid ("Sometimes a Great Speech," Jan. 31). But his valid comments were, for the most part, minor points. (For example: "best defended" is indeed a better phrase than "most defended.")

Overall, Gelernter's "confusion" appears to stem more from his own laziness with words than from a lack of clarity on the part of the president. I took issue with many of Gelernter's criticisms, but will confine my brief response to the three that bugged me most.

First, Gelernter's criticism of "no one deserves to be a slave" seems to be premised upon a misapprehension of what the word "slave" means. Slavery connotes much more than forced labor. It connotes the complete ownership of one by another without any accountability to the rule of law. Slavery is dehumanizing. Saddam Hussein may deserve execution, but does Gelernter really believe that Saddam deserves to be stripped of his humanity--of all right to the protection of law--and be sold as chattel?

Second, "the pretensions of tyrants" is a superior construction to Gelernter's proposed "barbarity of tyrants." Not all tyrants are barbaric. A tyrant is merely a ruler who has seized power without moral right. By definition, all tyrants are pretentious, because their authority is false and unsupportable (i.e., based upon pretense).

Third, the phrase "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation" means exactly what it says. The president's duty in this regard is much more than "important" or "hard." "Solemn" conveys the somberness and gravity of sending troops into battle, as well as the sacredness of the president's sworn responsibilities in this regard. Neither of Gelernter's proposed replacements--"most important" or "hardest"--conveys that at all. Each would be a very weak substitute.

DAN MURDOCK

Charleston, WV

COPYRIGHT 2005 News America Incorporated
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group