Tackling the Maltese language crisis

I don’t think Roderick Bovingdon was correct when he potrayed the Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ilsien Malti (The Sunday Times of Malta, August 23) as a bunch of usurpers imposing their beliefs how to write Maltese.

To my knowledge, the gentlemen he mentioned are part of the University academic staff who are currently serving on the council. Having spent one whole year studying under their guidance, I am proud to possess sufficient skills to write Maltese.

The problem is that not everyone values the importance of good Maltese writing skills. This has nothing to do with foreign influences.

The author’s pet subject is the semitic Arabic stratum and is inclined towards preserving the semitic aspect of our language. Fine, but it is a known fact that the Maltese language of the Middle Ages was very much similar to some Northern African dialect.

Since the island’s destiny had taken different paths, the Maltese language had become more intimate with other foreign influences, apart from Arabic.

Throughout the course of history it has developed into a language in its own right. And this is what makes it unique: a Semitic language with a Latin alphabet and and Latin influences.

Any spoken language is dynamic. In World War II the word spitchered, derived from  the Maltese term spiċċa, had been imported into the Oxford English Dictionary. Maltese is no exception. If we do not preserve  English and Italian influences which  have been ‘superimposed’ on our language, what shall we do with the Arab influence? I still have to come across a contemporary author using the Kantilena vocabulary of the 15th century.

Maltese is a rich language. We have the luxury of selecting more than one word when defining something. We can use both the Semitic and the Latin version.

A case in point that comes to mind for the term many, is bosta or diversi. They are both correct. Our language is a reflection of our historic past, which should make us proud.

Our past intimacy with foreigners has only enriched our language. However, today, our language is more exposed to borrowing from foreign sources at a faster rate than before. But ultimately who develops the language? The University academic staff, council members or the man in the street? In my humble opinion, the latter plays a major role in the development and transformation of any language.

I concur with Bovingdon that Joseph Aquilina did quite a good job with his dictionary. And yes, he was on his own, as rightly said by Bovingdon. Today, we have other valuable  linguists.

Shall we push them aside simply because they have adapted to the influx of non-Semitic vocabulary in our language?