I refer to the article ‘The language question’ (The Sunday Times of Malta, August 27), in which both myself and Prof. Joe Friggieri were interviewed.
For the first time ever I was dubbed an Anglo-Maltese as if this hereditary trait diminishes my aptitude to argue my point. At no time in the past have I read within these pages other local debaters on this language question as Anglo- or Italo-Maltese with reference to their parental origins.
On my mother’s side my family pedigree goes back to the 1400s with additional genealogical research tracing my hereditary connections to the days of early Norman Malta. I wonder how many locals can match their biological origins to this antiquity?
Describing me as “... a visitor active in the promotion of Maltese culture, language and literature in Australia” while ignoring my professional status as an accomplished linguist and scholar of Maltese with no less than 10 peer reviewed and published monographs presented at international academic fora, as well as my historically recorded pioneering efforts in establishing the first ever Maltese Language School outside of Malta in the entire historicity of Maltese is hardly fair.
This significant event (the first Maltese Language School outside of Malta, 1968) took place in April 1968 at St Gertrude’s Catholic School, Smithfield, (Sydney) New South Wales, Australia. Considering my primary respondent was appropriately given his full title as professor and chairman of the National Council for the Maltese Language, the reference to myself was in this sense unbalanced and could even be perceived as biased.
Here’s my response to Prof. Friggieri’s contentions appertaining my claims. To his “Maltese is alive and flourishing” I say “it is moribond”. But then what else could the chairman of a Council that in its early days managed to irritate and insult a majority of leading local literati, many of whom declined to speak out for fear of retribution, say!
“No controversy in spelling and syntax”, according to Prof. Friggieri? Quite the opposite. The Council’s original edict reveals deep-seated problems reverberating throughout all levels of Maltese linguistics, many of which are traceable through the entire history of our language harking back to at least AD869/870 when the Arabic-speaking invaders finally decided to settle in Malta on a permanent basis following several prior historically recorded skirmishes.
Next: is the Council truly a democratic body? Certainly the process it adopted in issuing its first lot of gazetted orders was not democratic. Imposing by law, instead of introducing by stealth and example, as indeed Aquilina did, can hardly be termed ‘democratic’. May I remind Prof. Friggieri that countries such as France, Sweden, Italy and others, who have a long literary history, tried their own language interference with a resounding failure. Britain and the US also rejected outright any mere whiff of such draconian measures with respect to their language usage. In Australia the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian National Dictionary continually encourage input from the general public. That is democracy!
No one needs to follow Aquilina slavishly. I never made such a claim as any action by humans is intrinsically imperfect. But with the rich linguistic material Aquilina bequeathed to the Maltese nation there was never the need to ‘re-invent the wheel’.
Finally, the large number of books being published in Malta is no real attestation to a vibrant and flourishing language scenario. The deep seated social and political status quo reveals quite the opposite. Recently two professors met on campus and one said to the other “Does anyone read Saydon these days?” This language attitude at such a high level is tantamount to asking an Italian “who reads Petrarca and Dante nowadays?” or asking an Englishman “Are Chaucer and Shakespeare still read by anyone?”
What is one to conclude in reference to the present and future status of Maltese in the light of my revelations?