It is with great pleasure and eager anticipation that I (and several others like me) await the online publication of the Maltese-English dictionary being prepared by Adam Ussishkin from Arizona University in the United States.
However, I take issue with a number of points raised in his correspondence to this newspaper (TMIS, 10 October).
Foremost is that regarding the spelling, which is a very sensitive and awfully sore point at present. The relatively recently formed National Council of the Maltese Language has stirred the ire of a very large number of well intended and reputable Maltese writers, teachers, journalists and others, both in Malta as well as among us of the Maltese Diaspora, especially in Australia where Maltese is very widely used on a day-to-day basis (in the streets and shopping centres of certain regions of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Goulburn, Mackay, Bundaberg, Wollongong, Morwell and other places; in our local Maltese Australian press; over the airwaves in numerous Maltese language radio programmes; at various popular social gatherings celebrating our festas and traditional national events; at numerous church gatherings; at the many Maltese social centres scattered around the main cities and so forth). In addition to all this social interactivity, we have Maltese language classes in all the major cities of Australia.
The on-going clash with the Language Council is a most serious matter of potentially very harmful proportions to the Maltese language; a situation brought on by the Council itself. And it is not going to dissipate into thin air as is apparently desired, judging by the dead silence from all quarters, political and academic, which should be responding with acceptable remedial action. If anything, out of sheer respect for the people who speak Maltese as their native tongue, the Maltese people, those responsible ought to have acted long ago, before this whole shameful affair became the festering wound it currently is.
What has happened is a direct result of (i) the arrogant manner in which the Council decided to legislate by decree through Parliament (in the Government Gazette) when it published the first list of words with their new spelling mode. This action was immediately and remains deeply resented by a very large portion of the populace from all corners of the social spectrum. Many of us dissenters including myself, have vowed never to abide by such dastardly behaviour in imposing the will of a very small and narrow minority upon an entire nation. (ii) The attitude of several of the officials currently sitting on the executive committee of the Council publicly expressed in the Maltese press, prior to the formation of the Council by Act of Parliament, attitudes which can only be described as fascist.
Others and I have written extensively in the local Maltese and English language Sunday newspapers on this very subject. Those interested but perhaps are unaware of such developments should acquaint themselves with this literature.
How can one ever trust the National Council in matters of Maltese when one of its current sitting members argued most vociferously and forcibly at a recent Malta University Senate sitting, that English instead of Maltese should become the official language of the university?
Another point of disagreement with the article I am responding to is that Maltese was supposedly given a new lease of life ever since it was recognised as one of the official languages of the EU. Of course this is the purely political line. This argument has nothing to do with academe or even the improvement of Maltese at grass roots. The reality is that the Maltese being used in the documents of the EU is apparently not understood by anyone else bar the translators themselves. I am informed by a number of reliable people that to understand these documents in Maltese you must first read the English or French or Italian versions. So who is reading and making use of these documents?
The nominated 400,000 Maltese-speaking inhabitants in Malta completely negates and intentionally (because this failure is constantly repeated by those pushing their argument) ignores the other hundreds of thousands of Maltese speakers of the Diaspora. In Australia alone, for instance, it is widely known that we have something like another 400,000 Maltese speakers. My book The Maltese Language of Australia: Maltraljan (in its third reprint) published by Lincom Europa of Munich, Germany gives a detailed description of the vibrant existence of this extant phenomenon. The fact that in Australia Maltese has diverged from the Maltese of Malta does not exclude it from the totality of universal Maltese. If anything, it strengthens the development of Maltese having coped so successfully in a different and often alien social environment. I believe a similar linguistic situation to the Australian one exists among Maltese ex-patriots, on a smaller scale in certain townships in the United States, Canada, England, Wales, Scotland, France, Italy and other places too. Is it right to continue to ignore this reality?
I further disagree with the notion that Maltese lexicography lacks the resources to cope with the modern onslaught from the English-speaking world. If there were sufficient funds in Maltese coffers to create a monster such as the National Council, surely there are sufficient funds for the creation of a permanent body specifically for the constant updating of our national dictionary! This is what is needed and not artificial supercilious new rules.
The “new lease of life” to the Maltese language claimed in the article contributes absolutely zero to the development of Maltese at grass roots level (the basis for any language). Just as useless is this new “political” development, being carried out by the National Council, in the further application and development of Maltese in its literary and idiomatic forms. This so-called “new lease of life” contributes not a single iota to the artistic refinement and development at the basic level of Maltese. Or perhaps our so-called “experts” do not deem these aspects as equally relevant and important? Artificial interference in our indigenous tongue can only increase the corrosive inroads towards the destruction of Maltese as we know it and as it has managed to survive over several centuries. Just because the English got away with multiple manipulations of their language with every Tom, Dick and Harry sticking their fingers in the pie, does not mean we should follow suit.
Professor Ussishkin’s well-intended declaration that “My main goal is to benefit the Maltese people so they have a more up-to-date resource about their language” is most admirably greeted. But for a foreigner who does not “live” the language and does not “know” the Maltese social environment, his task remains questionable, especially knowing the contacts on whose advice he is most probably relying.
I am in agreement with Beth Hume’s (whom I met at the AIDA conference in 1998) stated opinion to Deutsche Welle radio that “…this kind of electronic tool is ideal for researchers looking to deepen their understanding of the language... It allows us to search for patterns of language, and it is patterns that linguists try to explain and build theories around”. – Indeed! But not when we have blatant evidence that “patterns” are being artificially moulded and contrived in an apparent attempt at desemiticising Maltese (its basic lifeline) and Europeanising it into some kind of creole. Scholars of Maltese are already well aware of historic and traditional patterns as well as all relatively new linguistic trends and precedents.
The damage being inflicted upon Maltese is not so much the English onslaught. It is the accumulated result of several years of neglect by all affected authorities in Malta, which over the years have influenced and are still influencing the indigenous language of the Maltese (successive governments; local politics; historical events; social attitudes; church and other privately run schools; the local educational system and attitudes; broadcasting; Maltese journalese; and so on.). Again I refer the genuinely motivated reader not only to a number of my own contributions in the international arena: Lingwa u Lingwistika (1998) Current Issues in Language Planning (2004); Corpus linguistics around the world (Rodopi 2006), Language Planning in Local Contexts (2008) et al, but even more to the works of renowned internationally recognised scholars of Maltese as Professors Dionisius Agius (UK) and Alexander Borg (Israel).
Finally, my trust in the National Council of the Maltese Language is zero; as is that of so many “silent” others. (This silence I refer to is sadly indicative of underlying distrust and fear of retribution, reminiscent of the dreaded camorra atmosphere.) There are individuals on the Council whose competence in Maltese is in my estimation most dubious. Others ought not to be in such responsible positions as their very “Malteseness” (an essential ingredient for all and any guardians of our language) is questionable, to say the least. Others it seems are there as political appointees and/or merely out of egotistical self-righteousness, for material and career gains and who knows what “other” motives are driving them instead of a pure belief in and dedication towards the preservation, guidance and development of our beloved and revered Maltese tongue.
Roderick Bovingdon
MERRYLANDS
AUSTRALIA