The language question

The blame for the untimely return of "the language question" should not be placed solely at the door of the euro. A few weeks ago, suddenly and without as much as a by your leave, local Maltese-language newspapers started to transliterate indiscriminately.

Words like dijzil (for 'diesel') and xowrum (for 'showroom') appeared in the headlines, becoming themselves the focus of attention and totally eclipsing the importance of the news item. Seksi articles were written, followed by irate letters to the editor and less irate contributions from readers seeking to enlighten or be enlightened.

If one is to derive any benefit from the debate, three things need to be made absolutely clear from the start. First, the problem does not regard the spoken but the written language. It would be not just totally undesirable but quite simply impossible to control the way people express themselves in ordinary, everyday conversation.

Speech is always uttered by individuals who are members of different social groups. In a very real sense, every individual speaks a language that is very much his or her own. We recognise many different ways of speaking the same language, and linguists spend most of their time studying the particular varieties and variations of language use, the structures and strategies used by the different groups, as well as the historical, social and psychological factors that give rise to them. So the problem concerns mainly the codified or written language, as well as what one might call its 'institutional' use, for it is here that standards of correctness evolve.

Secondly, a living language grows and develops through its use. Which foreign words become part of the language cannot be decided by legislation. All attempts to interfere with the natural process of linguistic development in the name of some alleged pristine 'purity' are bound to fail. So one should have absolutely no qualms about using words like 'traffic lights', 'airport', 'honeymoon' or 'boyfriend' in Maltese.

No Maltese couple nowadays would refer to their honeymoon as 'qamar il-ghasel', unless they were taking part in a poetry competition or speaking in jest. And it is just as ridiculous to insist on using 'in-namrat' for 'boyfriend' as it would be to invent Maltese words for 'ashtray', 'bubblegum', 'jeans', 'vacuum cleaner', 'toothpaste', 'windscreen', 'disc jockey', 'windsurfer', etc.

Thirdly, the rules governing Maltese orthography are clear and clearly stated. They provide unambiguous answers to most of the questions that may be asked by writers, teachers, journalists, politicians, broadcasters, students, and so on.

If we have a problem, then, it is one related to the spelling of English loan-words, mainly nouns. Verbs do not seem to present any special difficulty. Scores of English verbs have become an integral part of Maltese, and they are spelt following the rules governing Maltese phonetics.

As Professor Albert Borg showed in his letter (The Sunday Times, February 5), it would be terribly cumbersome, not to say practically impossible, to spell them in any other way, and equally absurd to try and find a Semitic or Italian equivalent to replace the English root. Try doing that with words like ibbawnsja, ibbiddja, ibblaffja, ibboksja, ibbuwja, iddejtja, iddimmja, iddraftja, iffrejmja, iffansja, iffittja, ikkanvassja, ikkastja, ikkjuwja, ikklejmja, ikklaxxja, ikklincja, illandja, illokkja, ippancja, ippikkja, ippottja, irrejdja, ikklejmja, issettja, issortja, ittrejsja, ittrikkja, ittrimmja, ittrippja, iwweldja, ixxiftja, ixxortja, and watch the result. These words create absolutely no problem for pronunciation and their second syllable reflects almost to perfection the phonetic sound of the English verb they are derived from.

So the main problem, as I see it, arises in connection with the transliteration of nouns that do not have cognate verbal derivations. Here I think one needs to be careful. New formations like dijzil, xowrum, woxing-maxijn, bejking-pawder, pajnepil, likwidajzer, stejkendkidnipaj create huge problems for the reader.

There are those who claim that people would get used to them in the long run. Here I'm afraid I have to admit to having doubts. This is not just a question of getting used to 20 or 30 words over, say, a period of three years. It means having to struggle to read new words all the time as they crop up in your newspaper from day to day.

Will this encourage or facilitate reading in Maltese? I definitely think not. Any obstacle that slows down the process of reading should be discouraged. Readers should understand the words without having to make the slightest conscious effort.

There are then the usual problems regarding examinations. Are students going to be told to transliterate all loan-words? Will they be penalised if they don't? Or are they going to be given the option to do as they please? None of these 'solutions' seems reasonable.

My suggestion is to allow words that create the kind of difficulty I mentioned to be spelt as they are in the original. Rules are fine, as long as they work; but one should be prepared to make exceptions. Common sense should prevail. Est modus, as they used to say, in rebus.