In his article on the use of written Maltese (June 24) Henry Frendo, a historian, made some comments which he never clarified. For instance, he rightly said that “languages are not created, dominated, or controlledby ‘linguists’”.

But he never specified who creates language. Of course, the issue is rather complex but should we infer from his article that historians can dictate usage?

Is there a relevance for popular usage ‘dominated’ by common people who choose to make a pertinent distinction between isuq (to drive) and jispidja (to speed), inixxi (to ooze) and jillikja (to leak), ipaċpaċ (to chatter) and jiċċettja (to chat online)? Does Frendo really believe that these terms mean the same thing?

Then he said: “There is no need forhaving recourse to loan words where authentic words or expressions in Maltese already exist.”

But he never explained what he meant by “authentic” – and how does one determine what is authentic in words and expressions that are used by contemporary living people?

Is jipprenota (a loan word from Italian prenotare = to book) an authentic Maltese word when in common usage we encounter jibbukkja (to book)?

Jipprenota (how many Maltese can understand this word?) is very rarely used and it almost smacks of snobbery.

One can’t ignore collocations and connotations of terms – these are the products of the local culture. Loan words are a source of enrichment.

Semantic extension of words can lead to overburdening lexical items – a process that is often conducive to ambiguity.

Written Maltese can be enriched by using all the resources available in our language

The word leħħa (flash) – which, as Frendo said, is associated with lightning – is very different from “flashcard extending leħħa semantically to include “flashcard” in Maltese might create problems of interpretation especially in translation.

This same argument, however, applies to all the examples Frendo gave in his article.

In Maltese the semantic values of the following are different: niskrinjaw (we screen), nuru (we show), and nipproġettaw (we project), ċansijiet (chances), opportunitajiet (opportunities), and okkażjonijiet (occasions).

Synonymy is important in a language, but perfect synonymy is almost impossible because although two words may have similar meanings they may differ in implications and associations – a case in point is the pair tim (team) and skwadra (squad). Sometimes, Frendo considered implications: he said that sab ix-xibka (literal meaning = he found the net) is “much more expressive” than skorja (to score), but then he ignores the fundamental principle of economy in language.

Written Maltese can be enriched by using all the resources available in our language.

We often hear that we have to make the distinction between written and spoken language. But we are never given explanations of this distinction and how to distinguish between the two.

Are idioms which are common in the spoken language – like ġab id-dinja fit-tarf (he exaggerated in a pessimistic way) – never to be used in the written language? Should this idiom be treated in the same way as, say, fotta (to deceive) which is considered vulgar by many and the examiners of Maltese say that it should not be used by candidates in their answers?

Charles Briffa is professor of translation and Maltese at the University of Malta.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.