I refer to Ms Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article (TMID, 13 July). I refer particularly to her description of the Maltese as “Arabic-speaking Christians”.

I consider this description as far too simplistic. While it may describe with an appreciable degree of accuracy the Maltese of the 14th century, I do not think it is an accurate description of the Maltese of today.

I believe it was Professor Guzè Aquilina who defined the Maltese language as “basically semitic and superstructurally romance” and I consider this definition as the most accurate one in its brevity.

Maltese is not Arabic though it has a basis in Arabic and is usually classified within the semitic family of languages. Were Maltese Arabic, Maltese speakers would understand it but, in fact, they do not understand any variety of it. I have watched satellite television in Arabic transmitted from many Arabic-speaking countries but I understand almost nothing apart from numbers and a few scattered words. I have also lived for four years in a nearby north African country and could not remotely carry on an intelligible conversation in Maghrebin Arabic, French having been my medium of communication.

The Arabic constituent of Maltese appears to have remained basically fossilised as it was in the Middle Ages and since then many lexical and phonemic elements have disappeared. Linguistic development in the last 500 years has been mainly through romance and, recently, English influence and the Maltese have succeeded in creating their own language from a synthesis of its various components.

I think Maltese is a language in its own right and it is not correct to describe it as Arabic. Maltese is, perhaps, the one characteristic which clearly distinguishes us from southern Europeans like the Sicilians and southern Italians. It is for this reason that it is the surest badge of national identity and anyone who wants to flaunt one’s “Malteseness” should speak it socially to fellow Maltese in preference to other foreign languages.

Obviously, the indispensability of English and, to a lesser extent, other foreign languages is not in question.

Though I am personally against the waving of foreign flags and motorcades by Maltese supporters, there is nothing wrong in supporting a foreign team and this is not unique to Malta. I agree, however, that it is utterly ridiculous to taunt the Italian supporters if England wins against a third country or vice-versa. Supporting the Italian, German or, for that matter, the French team does not necessarily imply condoning the wrongs that took place in recent or not-so-recent history.

In the last war when Malta belonged to Britain, Italy and Germany were enemies but Italy was an ally of Britain in World War I. It is, therefore, better not to involve history and politics in such arguments. We are today all together in the European family.

Your contributor also generalises too much when she says that “we are indifferent or oblivious to the fact that Britain and England are not one and the same thing”. Some of us are aware of this and some are not. As far as I know, even British supporters of England wave the Union Jack and the flag of England is rarely seen. Even on St George’s day, the Union Jack is usually flown not that of St George which was originally the emblem of the crusaders. Incidentally, the Italian flag in the time of Mussolini (the flag of the Kingdom of Italy) was different than the tricolore of today since it carried the Savoy arms in the central strip.

Dr Mario Costa

Moscow