Whenever we are arguing the case about the standard of the English language in Malta we tend to fall into the trap of believing in a golden age characterised by a large group of Maltese citizens who were highly fluent in their spoken English and flawless in their writing.

Very often the argument betrays a bitter-sweet longing for things, persons and situations of the past. This is much evident in the letter penned by Anita Bianchi (‘Why English has declined’, January 21) who argues that this distinctive feature of fluent speech and flawless writing in English among members of the Maltese society has been lost. And this is mainly due to the derision shown by a large section of Maltese society against the group of Maltese who prefer to use the English language as their main means of communication.

This argument may be based on a distorted view of reality. The number of Maltese who use English as a medium of communication has increased rather than decreased.

Moreover it is no longer confined to one area, that is Sliema, which earned the nickname of ‘tal-pepe’ because most its residents use English as their means of communication. Syllogistically speaking by taking the argument of our correspondent as a major premise, given the more widespread areas where English is used as the means of communication which results in a larger number of the English- speaking Maltese, it follows that the standard should have been improved. Still, the counter argument might be that notwithstanding this increase our forebears overall had a better command of the spoken and written form of English.

Speaking of our forebears, the sentence that still rings in my ears is one uttered by my teacher of religion: “The ship was drowned but St Paul did not sink”. This example is not being given to ridicule my teachers but to emphasise the fact that the spoken English of our forebears was not always impeccable.

This point can be corroborated by comparing today’s standard of the English newspaper in Malta with that of the past. By making such a comparison, however odious it may sound to be, I do not detect any lowering of standards.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s as a teenager crazy about football I used to read avidly the reports of the football matches. It was later in my life that I became aware of the hackneyed style of these reports with repetitions of stock phrases such as “monarch of all he surveyed” and “a square peg in a round hole”. The reports of football matches in Times of Malta of today tend to be free of these clichés. This is just one example to show that the argument about a lower standard of English language may not be totally valid.

Of course I am not implying that the issue of the proper use of English language does not exist. What I am suggesting is a more sober and reflective approach to address the issue.