Tampering with our national language, our unique indigenous tongue, no matter where the agitation originates from, inflicts undesirable harm with long-lasting repercussions. True lovers of Maltese, both in Malta and beyond the Pillars of Hercules, are more confused than ever about our language.
These lingering concerns that go back to olden times have been exacerbated by the antics of the Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ilsien Malti when this body wrongfully and irresponsibly decided to publish in the Government Gazette its 'Deċiżjonijiet 1'. Through this ill-conceived action, the Kunsill imposed by edict its version of the Maltese nation's hallowed, historical, traditional mode of language usage on the sole and true owners of the Maltese language; the Maltese people.
Of course the written form of Maltese (as with any language) requires a measure of regulation. But without binding rigidity!
When we already had Aquilina's widespread examples of assimilating foreign words into Maltese that were functioning satisfactorily, with relatively minimal disturbance to the basic structure and functionality of Maltese, why destabilise a working model? Under Aquilina, several words from English had long been accepted and written phonetically without causing any major upheavals. (I will deal with Maltese orthography in a separate article.)
Exerting one's obstinacy, by decree, particularly with one's native tongue, is tantamount to grasping control over the Maltese speakers' minds.
Is it any wonder that the Kunsill's actions have generated irreversible mistrust in their perpetrators? Can these same people now and in future be entrusted to play a fair game and not cause a language schism within all ranks of Maltese society?
Until the relevant section of the Act is repealed, the whole question of Maltese will continue to fester.
In the on-going debate, even after the recent national forum called by Minister for Education Evarist Bartolo, as well as his later press release, the underlying deep-seated problems afflicting our Maltese language over eons will not abate until all underlying tensions are tackled out in the open.
The idea of a public forum was a primary step in the right direction; never intended as a final solution as the Kunsill tried to present it!
But this method excludes a large portion of would-be participants. Here are some of these reasons: (i) Not everyone wanting to participate would be willing to speak openly. This could be out of fear of retribution or because they lack the confidence for public speaking. This category of individuals would comprise a very large portion of those genuinely interested in contributing their ideas. (ii) Overseas residents like me, who could participate by written submission, would not be able to respond to their debaters on the spot. (iii) There are those who though interested, are incapable of articulating their thoughts. (iv) In a forum situation, the proceedings are controlled by a chairperson with a panel. This encounter can have the effect of scaring people off. (v) Forums can be heavily stacked in favour of one party while the physical set-up between four walls allows for tighter control with the result of silencing would-be worthwhile critique.
Aside from all this, there are those old deep-seated problems of anti-Maltese prejudice so widespread among our people. As far as I know, no Maltese government has ever challenged those private and Church-run schools that forbid their students to speak Maltese at school. Such persistent corrosive practices are clearly the outcome of successive governments' indifference to these problems.
These practices over several decades have so deeply permeated the social mores that it has damaged the local idiom among our children and young adults. The end result is that many of them no longer know their native idiom. They are unable to articulate fluently in their own native tongue. Many Maltese today do not know how to count in Maltese. They have no notion of forming simple plural forms let alone our richer and more meaningful broken plurals!
Mr Bartolo doubling the Kunsill's budgetary funds while providing an additional staff member are very positive measures. But will these additional funds provide open accountability; transparency? And are we going to have consultation with the entire public as we have in Sydney, Australia in the case of the Macquarie Dictionary?
Deeply embedded language rigidity manifest in the Kunsill's open declarations - 'we are the highest authority of Maltese', 'we are the experts' - is a form of pedantry that hinders progress. Psychologically, it is a sign of intellectual insecurity, a lack of profundity, a most dastardly attitude unbecoming an academic group by blocking all avenues to the rational intelligent debate.
If the Kunsill of the future is to regain the nation's respect as the guiding body for Maltese, these dire matters cannot and must not be ignored.
Roderick (Rigu) Bovingdon