The recent decision by the National Council for the Maltese Language regarding the official name of The Netherlands and its language (TMIS, 5 July) has left the public bewildered, and rightly so. The methodological shortcomings of such a decision from a terminological viewpoint causes special concern, since the Council has been given the legal power to impose its decisions on the users of the Maltese language through the Maltese Language Act of 2005.
The new terms (neoterms) chosen by the Council, ‘in-Netherlands’ and ‘Netherlandiż’, are intended as official names to be used in specialized contexts according to the requirements of the European Union. It is important to note that the use of ‘Olanda’ and its derivatives is not allowed by the EU itself, in order to avoid ambiguity and possible synonymity with the two Holland provinces of The Netherlands (see http://publications.europa.eu/code/fr/fr-370100.htm). The neoterms will be mostly used in treaties and other official documents, and are not meant for general use in spoken or written Maltese.
The collection and formation of such specialized terms pertains to the field of Terminology, a specific discipline possessing its own methodology. The processes by which terms are collected and neoterms are formed are set out by the International Standard Organization in ISO Standard 704:2009. The methodology was established by the ISO’s Technical Committee on Terminology (TC 37), which includes the world’s leading experts in the field, and establishes guidelines followed by terminologists worldwide. Malta, however, seems to be an exception.
The chosen neoterms regarding The Netherlands and the Dutch language do not follow current terminological practice. In the case of ‘in-Netherlands’, we have a clear case of borrowing, which should only be resorted to when the target language does not have available terms to express the concept. ISO 704 clearly states that “even though borrowing from other languages is an accepted form of term formation, native-language expressions should be given preference over direct loans” (7.4.2.8, p. 41). In this case, a comparative analysis of languages closely related to Maltese could have given a better solution. French and Italian use ‘Pays-Bas’ and ‘Paesi Bassi’ respectively, which reflect the meaning of the Dutch appellation ‘Nederland’, meaning ‘low countries’ or ‘lowlands’. Since Maltese already possesses the words ‘pajjiż’ and ‘baxx’ with the same meaning as their French and Italian counterparts, the appellation ‘Pajjiżi Baxxi’ would have ticked all the boxes.
In the case of ‘Netherlandiż’, whereas English uses the term ‘Dutch’ (thankfully we have been spared ‘Daċċ’!), French and Italian use ‘néerlandais’ and ‘neerlandese’ respectively. Here again, the decision taken by the Council to use ‘Netherlandiż’ goes against ISO 704 which states that “when neoterms or appellations are coined, they should conform to the morphological, morphosyntactic, and phonological norms of the language in question” (7.4.2.7, p. 41). Since the digraph ‘th’ as a /ð/ sound does not exist in Maltese, the option ‘Netherlandiż’ clearly does not conform to correct methodological practice and should not have been considered at all. In the absence of an ‘ee’ digraph in Maltese, the two possible options would have been ‘Nederlandiż’ and ‘Nerlandiż’. My choice would have fallen on the former due to it being more easily associated with The Netherlands, but the latter could also be given consideration.
Such shortcomings in terminological methodology by the Council are worrying indeed, especially considering the legal status given to the institution. Its decisions are imposed by law and must be obeyed by Maltese language users, even when they are clearly flawed as in this case. In such a situation, the public consultation process on the status and remit of the Council announced by the Minister of Education is most welcome. The Maltese language belongs to all its users. It should be treated with the respect it deserves, and safeguarded from personal preferences and agendas based on flawed methodologies and inconsistency.