I absolutely disagree with Marisa Micallef's assumption that not doing away with the rules and regulations of Maltese grammar (when adopting euro instead of ewro, as the powers that be in Brussels insist the Maltese do) is frivolous (gladiatorial?) of the Maltese Language Council. When Malta – or the Council – raises its voice on this issue it does so to safeguard the language that Maltese' scholars decided to adopt and endorse in the last century as a means of communication among ourselves; our lingua franca.

The British and their English language, even went a step further: by rejecting the euro entirely and keeping the sterling as their unit of currency. Yet Marisa and her ilk don't want to ruffle Brussels' feathers and reject our own interpretation of the euro.

What about her other cry that by insisting on the Maltese language for Maltese it is going to drain the type of work – interpreting and translations, or whatever – she says, that Malta should be pursuing internationally? The Indians in India seem to have cornered that niche very nicely. Every other call I get here in Sydney, especially in the evening, is from some person on the sub-continent trying to flog some service I hardly need. But the Indians with their myriad languages and, indigenous “alphabet” have not been undaunted by their pursuit of this market.

Whether it is easier to count in Maltese or English, or that talk among the chattering classes in Malta is conducted in Maltese or English is immaterial. Grammatical Maltese has to be defended at all costs. Otherwise why have a language? To be able to speak more than one language fluently is an advantage; we should not forego and forget that because primarily it develops one's thinking ability.

Emanuel Grima

Sydney, NSW

AUSTRALIA