Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1424528
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 31 OCTOBER 2021 INTERVIEW language? means the same thing, and which is still alive. These are the things that annoy me: because it is a case of 'killing' something that is still alive. I have no problem when a language gives birth to something new… it only becomes a problem when we unnecessarily kill off what we already have. I'm not saying, however, that we should dig up ancient, fossil- ized words that have been dead for centuries – because that is also how culture works: people discard words when they have no further use for them, and adopt new ones instead. One example, that just sprang to mind now, would be any word related to the craft of wag- on-making [karrettuni]. Once the era of the horse-drawn wag- on came to an end, it is only nat- ural that all the vocabulary asso- ciated with that trade would also vanish. And if certain words are long dead and buried… I see no sense in resuscitating them from the grave. But when words are still alive, there is no reason under the sun why we should kill them. It only makes our language poorer, but we should really be doing our ut- most to enrich it. There are, however, very vocal disagreements about how we should assimilate foreign loan- words, even when these are necessary. For instance, neolo- gisms such as 'skajskrejper', for 'skyscraper'. Would you also consider this as form of threat, facing the Maltese language to- day? I understand why it would be viewed as a problem; but first of all, this problem only concerns nouns… not verbs. Because when a verb is conjugated in the Mal- tese form – for example, 'ikkraxx- ja' for 'he crashed' – it has to be written out phonetically, because that's how Maltese grammar works. There is no other option, really; so there is no real problem, concerning verbs. Nouns, however, are different: even because they tend to look aesthetically ugly, when written in the same way. And they look ugly, also because we are far too accustomed with the original English spelling. So when we see words like 'heater', or 'air-condi- tioner', written out phonetical- ly… they are difficult for us to accept, simply because they look 'wrong'. However, there are now rules for how to transcribe English loan-words into Maltese: even if the final decision remains in the hands of the individual author. My own favourite - or at least, the one that makes the most sense to me – is that, if the plural of an English noun remains written in English… then it should be left in English. The plural of 'heater', in Maltese, remains 'heaters'; it doesn't change to 'heater-ijiet'. So it should be spelt the same as in English. But if the Maltese people decid- ed, over the years, to give certain words a Maltese plural-form – like, for example, 'kowt' [coat], which becomes 'kowtijiet' [coats]… then it makes more sense to continue writing it that way, too. All the more so, if those words have already been in use for a very long time. There are, however, a few ex- ceptions. The word 'futbol', for instance, has been written that way, in Maltese newspapers, since at least 1916. The first-ever mention was, I believe, in an is- sue of 'L-orizzont'. So even if we never changed its plural to 'fut- bol-ijiet', or anything similar… we are so used to that spelling, that it makes absolutely no sense to change it now. Despite your emphasis on spo- ken Maltese, you are better known as one of Malta's most accomplished and prolific au- thors. Bearing in mind that literature also echoes con- temporary linguistic realities – both Chaucer and Dante, for instance, wrote in the vernacu- lar of their time - do you see any indication that these linguis- tic 'problems' are also being reflected in Maltese literature today? Up to a point, yes I do. You mentioned Chaucer, for in- stance. Today, anyone trying to read Chaucer will find it im- possible to decipher, without the aid of annotations. This is because, as you say, literature is nothing but a reflection of the way people thought, and spoke, at the time. As times change, so does language; and so do public attitudes; and all of that ends up reflected in contemporary writ- ing. Maltese literature also has his- torical examples of this. If you read certain old manuscripts, written in archaic Maltese syn- tax, you might find them tedious by today's standards. Because it's not just the grammar, or the contents, that have changed: it's also the format and structure of how they were written. Let's just say that the old, archaic style is no longer fashionable, nowadays. Times have changed. Today, on the other hand, many more books are coming out in Maltese than ever before. For such a small island, we have an enormous number of books published each year. Now: where there is quantity, there will al- so be the graph that inevitably comes with it. A few will be good – very good – but a lot will be av- erage… and a small amount will be trash. I'm not saying anything 'new', here, by the way: this is the just natural, normal way of things. And to be honest, it is good that there is now so much quanti- ty; because it also implies that, among the vast output of pub- lished books, there will be a few that stand out; and that – unlike any of the trash – may withstand the test of time. In what specific ways, though, do you see these linguistic changes affecting the output of Maltese authors? To come back to that graph I mentioned: today, we have some authors who are writing excellent material; and also, some authors who are writing rubbish. And in both cases, I'm not just talking about the choice of subject mat- ter; but also, about how they are written. For instance: in certain books today, you will also find words that are vulgar, explicit, crude or obscene – and I'm not being judgmental about this: I actually have no objection to it at all: it is, after all, also a reflection of how our society has developed. But again, it is also a question of whether such words are needed, or not. If, for instance, an author feels that certain coarse language is necessary, to bring out the per- sonality of a particular character; I see nothing wrong in putting vulgar words into that charac- ter's mouth. After all, everybody speaks using a slightly different vocabulary, according to their own cultural or social baggage. So you certainly can't have a sit- uation where all characters speak the same way… But if, on the other hand, it is done only as a gimmick: to show off how 'cool' the author is, or how well they know how to blas- pheme… that is nothing but a betrayal of the author's craft. Be- cause the way I see it: the work of a writer is in reality that of a 'stylist for words'. Even when the intention is to create a genuine, realistic tone… the writer will still resort to a 'beautician's tool- kit' – the language of metaphor, and imagery – to somehow make those words more artistic, evoca- tive and effective. Ultimately, however, you still have to have a good grasp of that language to begin with… and that only takes us back to the original problem.