Caring for our language

I read with much interest the article on The Rise Of Maltenglish by John A. Mizzi (January 25), which, as he says, so many have been complaining about.

.... the struggle for general recognition of a ‘national language’ has been so long, bitter and complex- Henry Frendo

In particular, I noted that, according to him, article three of Act V of 2004 provided that the law’s principles and duties shall not be enforceable in any court of law. I am not sure what this means in practice because I hear that his “zealots” are even insisting on the republication of certain texts published in Maltese. However, how legal is it? The assumption is that all our sitting MPs agree with the committee of nine (who have not been by any means unanimous in their conclusions).

As a graduate in Maltese from Ġużè Aquilina’s time and the author of some seven books in the language, might I perhaps be allowed to say that I agree that where Maltese has not had or has a word or term for words that are of relatively recent import into the language, a phonetic spelling and/or conjugation from a borrowed or imported word might – even should – be considered as an option to italics or inverted commas. Thus, skorja (he scored [a goal]) may stand. The alternative, tefa’ l-ballun fix-xibka or tefa’ fix-xibka, is more authentic but rather too long.

However, ikkraxxja in Maltese is ħabat, iddrajvja is saq, just as chaired is ippresieda not iċċerja and a TV programme is programm televiżiv, a broadcast xandira televiżiva; it is not fuq it-telefixin or tat-televixin.

To disregard semantics and etymology, while literally inventing and forcefully imposing new words and spellings de rigeur, can be damaging to the language’s continued existence, pidginising it, and disrespectful to its users, its carriers and natural exponents.

Some of the howlers concern skont, which in Maltese means roħs or, literally, skont, that is, a discount or a sale. Whoever said “skont San Luqa”, for example? Who discounted the evangelist? Skond is derived from secondo (secondo Matteo, skond jien).

For example – pereżempju, forcibly written from now on (sic) as one word – is worse. As in other European languages and in the history of our own language, Maltese, per eżempju has tended always to be written as a term, not with the two words joined together as if they were one (per esempio, par example, for example, etc).

The word for baġit in Maltese had long been estimi or estimi finanzjarji; that for panċer, tiċrita; that for dabiljusi, loki, kamra tal-banju or twalett; that for friġġ, friża; that for bajsikil, rota or biċikletta; tajers are roti (ta’ karrozza) and so on ad nauseam.

At two wedding receptions recently, the young waiters at the bar did not know what larinġata meant; they stared at me. I wonder if they had even heard of lumminata. But, presumably, they would readily understand orenġjus or leminġjus. (Or would they?). Mr Speaker, unless it is written as is, or in italics, or in inverted commas, is President tal-Kamra, not Spijker, as I have seen it splashed on five columns in a front-page news report recently. I read the word three times. But what on earth is spijker, I asked myself, ever so stupidly. It is nothing to do with spikes or spiking.

Even our ex voto paintings in the sanctuaries are in for it. Henceforth, we are told, it should be eks.

Some months ago a professor of linguistics at the university wrote an article in a Maltese language Sunday to suggest one could or should say tikkaxxja ċekk. Funny, I had always thought that you said issarraf ċekk. Apparently, someone in Żebbuġ was heard at a bank branch saying tikkaxxja instead of issarraf. Hence, the new-found legitimacy for a new standard.

By the same token, we should say kanolla not kolonna, Ingliterra not Ingilterra, and so on.

In my humble opinion, neologisms (sic) may be justified if they enrich the language, adding meaning, but not if they impoverish it, reducing or confusing the meaning. This happens when you have two traditional words with different meanings (skond meaning according to and skont meaning a discount) rolled into one by a sudden decree!

It is true that language needs currency and an extended code when lost for words but, even so, these are immensely sensitive matters. The more so in our case, where the struggle for general recognition of a “national language” has been so long, bitter and complex.

Antonio Muscat Fenech (among many other greats in the history of our language and literature) must be turning in his grave. One can also still write in customary Maltese, disregarding the latest instructions, but then you might find your writings banned from use in the tax-funded public schools (?) by “the authorities”. Unless, that is, it would be illegal to do so. So much then for brainwashed newspaper and media editors and announcers, who may think they are rendering the public a service by ramming the “newspeak” down our throats.

Perhaps better, as some have inveighed in exasperation: stick to English – or even to Italian or French – safer still.

But what a pity! Such a beautiful, meaningful and richly expressive linguistic-cultural heritage as Maltese has been for centuries, again in contestation.

Mr Mizzi says the language is “fast losing its identity”. In the concluding chapter of a forthcoming book, I ask if, giving the seemingly endless twists and turns we have experienced, colonial and post-colonial, the nation itself is not losing its identity and its soul.

That, to some extent, was also the theme of the first President’s Forum held at the Palace in Valletta on April 9, 2011, just recently published as Lejn Għarfien ta’ Malta fi Żmienna.

I hope I am wrong.

Prof. Frendo is director of the University’s Institute of Maltese Studies.