The commentators agree on the reading I call (1a), a reading that sneers at intellectuals for being bogged down in common styles of thought and behavior-- even while they plume themselves on their special innovativeness and unique insights. I hadn't even initially thought of that reading, because (1b) struck me as so obvious. It sneers at intellectuals for a kind of empty pretentiousness: they devote themselves to special little gaits and paths that actually have nothing particular (other than preciousness and obscurity) to recommend them. While the truth is that it's plenty much of an achievement just to manage to follow the traditional norms of behavior, to be a good person in an 'ordinary' way (with overtones of the ' philosophia perennis '). Perhaps I thought first of (1b) because becoming a pretentious intellectual is an occupational hazard for professors, so I was especially attuned to it. My students tended to share the commentarial reading; one of them (Mohamad Khan) pointed out that tends to have a negative sense, and that an avoidance of the well-trodden path is a very Ghalibian value. This is of course true. But then, an even more Ghalibian value is to contrive to offer more readings instead of fewer. And in 232,5 , the use of to mean 'plenty, enough' is clear. Still, I do concede that (1a) is the dominant reading, while (1b) is secondary. The verse also has some excellent wordplay among 'gait', 'foot', and 'path', and the opposition of 'special' and 'common'. But in my view the two readings of the second line, both bouncing off the first line in their own different directions, give the verse its real kick. graphics/roads.jpg