During the ongoing debate on the Maltese language, Albert Borg attacked Henry Frendo on his choice of words in his books on history. Whereas there is no doubt in my mind that Professor Frendo needs nobody to defend him, the criticism Borg levelled at Frendo’s semantic choices deserves a reply – one with which, of course, Frendo himself might actually disagree:

Borg asked: Assemblea għall-għalliema – why not ġemgħa? Because whereas every assemblea is a ġemgħa, not every ġemgħa is an assemblea.

Imantnu l-lingwa Taljana – why not iżommu? Because whenever somebody imantni he also iżomm, but when he iżomm he does not necessarily imantni. If Borg cannot intuitively feel this difference, then perhaps he should not comment.

Lingwa frustiera – why not ilsien barrani? Because in the context of the rhetoric associated with the discourse on the Maltese language and Maltese culture in general, barrani/ja carries nuances and has echoes which frustier/a does not.

Teachers and insenjanti – why not għalliema? Again because għalliem is semantically broader than teacher, insenjant, lettur, doċent, professur, instructor, etc. All teachers and instructors are għalliema, but not all għalliema are teachers or instructors, because some can be professuri.

Why should Professor Borg prefer hypernyms to hyponyms?

In Maltese, one has to come to terms with the fact that Semitic words are semantically broad while Romance and Anglo-Saxon words are semantically narrow. If you seek precision, you have to opt for semantically narrow words. The issue is cogently argued by Professor Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici in the chapter entitled Il-Malti Ġuridiku in our book Il-Liġi, il-Morali, u r-Raġuni.

Borg might retort that semantics is the province of scholars. But, then again, should not a linguist avoid intruding on the philosopher’s turf? The linguist might end up misquoting Wittgenstein, for example, and out of context to boot!

In the German language original, Proposition 7 of Wittengstein’s Tractatus reads: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”. This is not, as Borg suggests, “Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak” but, as F.P Ramsey and C.K. Ogden (who was aided by Wittgenstein himself in the translation) conveyed it: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. “Do not know” and “cannot speak of” are different, unrelated concepts.

Scholars argue that in Proposition 7 (a numerologically significant number, being this the last proposition) of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein is referring to the Mysterious. Whereas Proposition 1 deals with the world and therefore what we can speak about, Proposition 7 deals with what we cannot speak about, the mystical, the higher, the unsayable, the perfect – basically that which we must therefore pass over in silence.

Ironically, it seems that the twisted translation that Borg hurled at Frendo he should actually apply to himself!

I think that Henry Frendo is championing the opinion held by the majority of the Maltese people. Like many others, I hope that the ongoing efforts in favour of the ‘baħnanisation’ of Maltese cease.

Maltese needs solutions of a semantic nature. The spelling of loan words should be given low priority, as only time can tell whether such words will survive in their new linguistic environment. The language planner should be less of a Zamenhof and more of an intelligent observer of the language being used by those more skilled at it.

One last thought, Professor Borg: were the monies your Institute lent brevi manu to the Għaqda tal-Malti – Università ever repaid?

Mark A. Sammut