|
"Illiterate" is the negative of "Literate". So, technically, it can be used in any case where you mean "not literate"...
However, "Literate" has a few possible connotations. The most common is very literal-- "can read"-- but there are others. Being competent with language, being well-read, etc. So, by extension, not being "Literate" (being Illiterate, Unliterate, Non-Literate, whatever) can mean a lot of different things.
My guess is that Jackson wanted to say that President Bush is not a very intelligent or well-read man. (This is petty much true.) Had he said "Bush is illiterate" he would have been saying he couldn't read, as that is the commonest definition of the word-- and also untrue. Thus, to avoid appearing to be saying something outright false, he used an alternate-- and viable-- construction. Just because "Illiterate" is a word doesn't mean "Unliterate" can't be.
So, I guess what I am saying is this... Besides calling a spade a spade, what did Jackson do wrong here?
|