1
00:00:00,861 --> 00:00:05,222
We lost a lot of time at school
learning spelling.

2
00:00:05,964 --> 00:00:11,969
Kids are still losing a lot of time
at school with spelling.

3
00:00:12,585 --> 00:00:16,236
That's why I want to share
a question with you:

4
00:00:17,720 --> 00:00:20,831
Do we need new spelling rules?

5
00:00:21,572 --> 00:00:23,866
I believe that yes, we do.

6
00:00:23,890 --> 00:00:28,520
Or even better, I think we need
to simplify the ones we already have.

7
00:00:29,187 --> 00:00:33,465
Neither the question nor the answer
are new in the Spanish language.

8
00:00:33,489 --> 00:00:37,703
They have been bouncing around
from century to century

9
00:00:37,727 --> 00:00:43,330
since 1492, when in the first grammar
guide of the Spanish language,

10
00:00:43,354 --> 00:00:49,096
Antonio de Nebrija, set a clear and simple
principle for our spelling:

11
00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:52,039
"... thus, we have to write words
as we pronounce them,

12
00:00:52,063 --> 00:00:54,443
and pronounce words as we write them."

13
00:00:54,467 --> 00:00:57,769
Each sound was to correspond
to one letter,

14
00:00:57,793 --> 00:01:01,118
each letter was to represent
a single sound,

15
00:01:01,142 --> 00:01:06,345
and those which did not represent
any sound should be removed.

16
00:01:07,517 --> 00:01:09,972
This approach, the phonetic approach,

17
00:01:09,996 --> 00:01:13,613
which says we have to write
words as we pronounce them,

18
00:01:13,637 --> 00:01:18,346
both is and isn't at the root of spelling
as we practice it today.

19
00:01:18,901 --> 00:01:24,402
It is, because the Spanish language,
in contrast to English, French or others,

20
00:01:24,426 --> 00:01:29,737
always strongly resisted
writing words too differently

21
00:01:29,761 --> 00:01:31,459
to how we pronounce them.

22
00:01:31,483 --> 00:01:33,752
But the phonetic approach
is also absent today,

23
00:01:33,776 --> 00:01:37,112
because when, in the 18th century,
we decided how we would standardize

24
00:01:37,136 --> 00:01:38,348
our writing,

25
00:01:38,372 --> 00:01:42,385
there was another approach which guided
a good part of the decisions.

26
00:01:42,409 --> 00:01:45,251
It was the etymological approach,

27
00:01:45,275 --> 00:01:47,468
the one that says we have to write words

28
00:01:47,492 --> 00:01:50,646
according to how they were written
in their original language,

29
00:01:50,670 --> 00:01:52,212
in Latin, in Greek.

30
00:01:52,236 --> 00:01:57,036
That's how we ended up with silent H's,
which we write but don't pronounce.

31
00:01:57,060 --> 00:02:02,348
That's how we have B's and V's that,
contrary to what many people believe,

32
00:02:02,372 --> 00:02:06,039
were never differentiated
in Spanish pronunciation.

33
00:02:06,460 --> 00:02:08,508
That's how we wound up with G's,

34
00:02:08,532 --> 00:02:11,213
that are sometimes aspirated,
as in "gente,"

35
00:02:11,237 --> 00:02:13,618
and other times unaspirated, as in "gato."

36
00:02:13,642 --> 00:02:17,152
That's how we ended up
with C's, S's and Z's,

37
00:02:17,990 --> 00:02:21,218
three letters that in some places
correspond to one sound,

38
00:02:21,242 --> 00:02:24,207
and in others, to two,
but nowhere to three.

39
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:30,778
I'm not here to tell you anything
you don't know from your own experience.

40
00:02:31,368 --> 00:02:34,317
We all went to school,

41
00:02:34,341 --> 00:02:38,988
we all invested big amounts
of learning time,

42
00:02:39,012 --> 00:02:43,710
big amounts of pliant,
childlike brain time

43
00:02:43,734 --> 00:02:45,341
in dictation,

44
00:02:45,365 --> 00:02:50,396
in the memorization of spelling rules
filled, nevertheless, with exceptions.

45
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,706
We were told in many ways,
implicitly and explicitly,

46
00:02:54,730 --> 00:03:00,420
that in spelling, something fundamental
to our upbringing was at stake.

47
00:03:01,261 --> 00:03:03,562
Yet, I have the feeling

48
00:03:03,586 --> 00:03:07,221
that teachers didn't ask themselves
why it was so important.

49
00:03:07,245 --> 00:03:10,373
In fact, they didn't ask themselves
a previous question:

50
00:03:10,397 --> 00:03:12,939
What is the purpose of spelling?

51
00:03:13,993 --> 00:03:16,865
What do we need spelling for?

52
00:03:18,619 --> 00:03:21,536
And the truth is, when someone
asks themselves this question,

53
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:24,649
the answer is much simpler
and less momentous

54
00:03:24,673 --> 00:03:26,106
than we'd usually believe.

55
00:03:26,672 --> 00:03:33,391
We use spelling to unify the way we write,
so we can all write the same way,

56
00:03:33,415 --> 00:03:37,773
making it easier for us to understand
when we read to each other.

57
00:03:38,407 --> 00:03:43,979
But unlike in other aspects of language
such as punctuation,

58
00:03:44,003 --> 00:03:50,102
in spelling, there's no
individual expression involved.

59
00:03:50,126 --> 00:03:51,570
In punctuation, there is.

60
00:03:52,117 --> 00:03:56,073
With punctuation, I can choose
to change the meaning of a phrase.

61
00:03:56,097 --> 00:04:01,522
With punctuation, I can impose
a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

62
00:04:01,546 --> 00:04:03,785
but not with spelling.

63
00:04:03,809 --> 00:04:07,386
When it comes to spelling,
it's either wrong or right,

64
00:04:07,410 --> 00:04:11,004
according to whether it conforms
or not to the current rules.

65
00:04:11,694 --> 00:04:17,048
But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

66
00:04:17,072 --> 00:04:23,044
so it would be easier to teach, learn
and use spelling correctly?

67
00:04:23,678 --> 00:04:28,185
Wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

68
00:04:28,209 --> 00:04:33,561
so that all the time we devote today
to teaching spelling,

69
00:04:33,585 --> 00:04:36,653
we could devote to other language issues

70
00:04:36,677 --> 00:04:40,644
whose complexities do, in fact,
deserve the time and effort?

71
00:04:42,433 --> 00:04:47,397
What I propose is not to abolish spelling,

72
00:04:47,421 --> 00:04:51,413
and have everyone write however they want.

73
00:04:51,878 --> 00:04:55,798
Language is a tool of common usage,

74
00:04:55,822 --> 00:05:01,154
and so I believe it's fundamental
that we use it following common criteria.

75
00:05:01,609 --> 00:05:03,781
But I also find it fundamental

76
00:05:03,805 --> 00:05:08,151
that those common criteria
be as simple as possible,

77
00:05:08,175 --> 00:05:12,009
especially because
if we simplify our spelling,

78
00:05:12,033 --> 00:05:14,846
we're not leveling it down;

79
00:05:14,870 --> 00:05:17,543
when spelling is simplified,

80
00:05:17,567 --> 00:05:21,345
the quality of the language
doesn't suffer at all.

81
00:05:22,109 --> 00:05:26,018
I work every day with Spanish
Golden Age literature,

82
00:05:26,042 --> 00:05:29,646
I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
Góngora, Quevedo,

83
00:05:29,670 --> 00:05:32,617
who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

84
00:05:32,641 --> 00:05:35,869
sometimes write "escribir" with V,

85
00:05:35,893 --> 00:05:38,332
and it's absolutely clear to me

86
00:05:38,356 --> 00:05:43,757
that the difference between those texts
and ours is one of convention,

87
00:05:43,781 --> 00:05:47,374
or rather, a lack of convention
during their time.

88
00:05:47,398 --> 00:05:49,427
But it's not a difference of quality.

89
00:05:50,344 --> 00:05:52,768
But let me go back to the masters,

90
00:05:52,792 --> 00:05:56,146
because they're key characters
in this story.

91
00:05:56,170 --> 00:06:01,611
Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
thoughtless insistence

92
00:06:01,635 --> 00:06:04,549
with which teachers pester and pester us

93
00:06:04,573 --> 00:06:06,073
over spelling.

94
00:06:06,097 --> 00:06:09,569
But the truth is,
things being as they are,

95
00:06:09,593 --> 00:06:11,885
this makes perfect sense.

96
00:06:11,909 --> 00:06:17,248
In our society, spelling serves
as an index of privilege,

97
00:06:17,272 --> 00:06:21,660
separating the cultured from the brute,
the educated from the ignorant,

98
00:06:21,684 --> 00:06:26,672
independent of the content
that's being written.

99
00:06:26,696 --> 00:06:30,007
One can get or not get a job

100
00:06:30,031 --> 00:06:32,700
because of an H that one put or did not.

101
00:06:32,724 --> 00:06:35,913
One can become
an object of public ridicule

102
00:06:35,937 --> 00:06:38,588
because of a misplaced B.

103
00:06:38,612 --> 00:06:40,788
Therefore, in this context,

104
00:06:40,812 --> 00:06:45,885
of course, it makes sense to dedicate
all this time to spelling.

105
00:06:45,909 --> 00:06:48,447
But we shouldn't forget

106
00:06:48,471 --> 00:06:50,671
that throughout the history
of our language,

107
00:06:50,695 --> 00:06:52,635
it has always been teachers

108
00:06:52,659 --> 00:06:56,584
or people involved
in the early learning of language

109
00:06:56,608 --> 00:06:59,128
who promoted spelling reforms,

110
00:06:59,152 --> 00:07:03,591
who realized that in our spelling
there was often an obstacle

111
00:07:03,615 --> 00:07:06,004
to the transmission of knowledge.

112
00:07:06,028 --> 00:07:07,695
In our case, for example,

113
00:07:07,719 --> 00:07:12,272
Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
spearheaded the biggest spelling reform

114
00:07:12,296 --> 00:07:15,701
to take place in the Spanish language:

115
00:07:15,725 --> 00:07:20,235
the mid-19th century Chilean reform.

116
00:07:21,894 --> 00:07:26,355
Then, why not take over
the task of those teachers

117
00:07:26,379 --> 00:07:29,772
and start making progress in our spelling?

118
00:07:29,796 --> 00:07:33,048
Here, in this intimate group of 10,000,

119
00:07:33,072 --> 00:07:34,626
I'd like to bring to the table

120
00:07:34,650 --> 00:07:39,121
some changes that I find reasonable
to start discussing.

121
00:07:40,207 --> 00:07:42,575
Let's remove the silent H.

122
00:07:42,599 --> 00:07:47,687
In places where we write an H
but pronounce nothing,

123
00:07:47,711 --> 00:07:49,002
let's not write anything.

124
00:07:49,026 --> 00:07:50,042
(Applause)

125
00:07:50,066 --> 00:07:52,704
It's hard for me to imagine
what sentimental attachment

126
00:07:52,728 --> 00:07:57,719
can justify to someone
all the hassle caused by the silent H.

127
00:07:57,743 --> 00:08:00,088
B and V, as we said before,

128
00:08:00,112 --> 00:08:02,982
were never differentiated
in the Spanish language --

129
00:08:03,006 --> 00:08:04,023
(Applause)

130
00:08:04,047 --> 00:08:07,352
Let's choose one; it could be either.
We can discuss it, talk it over.

131
00:08:07,376 --> 00:08:11,006
Everyone will have their preferences
and can make their arguments.

132
00:08:11,030 --> 00:08:13,874
Let's keep one, remove the other.

133
00:08:13,898 --> 00:08:16,905
G and J, let's separate their roles.

134
00:08:16,929 --> 00:08:21,351
G should keep the unaspirated sound,
like in "gato," "mago," and "águila,"

135
00:08:21,375 --> 00:08:24,671
and J should keep the aspirated sound,

136
00:08:24,695 --> 00:08:29,589
as in "jarabe," "jirafa,"
"gente," "argentino."

137
00:08:30,441 --> 00:08:35,769
The case of C, S and Z is interesting,

138
00:08:35,793 --> 00:08:39,630
because it shows that the phonetic
approach must be a guide,

139
00:08:39,654 --> 00:08:42,719
but it can't be an absolute principle.

140
00:08:42,743 --> 00:08:47,502
In some cases, the differences
in pronunciation must be addressed.

141
00:08:47,526 --> 00:08:50,432
As I said before, C, S and Z,

142
00:08:50,456 --> 00:08:53,798
in some places, correspond
to one sound, in others to two.

143
00:08:53,822 --> 00:08:59,008
If we go from three letters
to two, we're all better off.

144
00:09:00,247 --> 00:09:05,117
To some, these changes
may seem a bit drastic.

145
00:09:05,141 --> 00:09:07,322
They're really not.

146
00:09:07,346 --> 00:09:10,609
The Royal Spanish Academy,
all of language academies,

147
00:09:10,633 --> 00:09:15,538
also believes that spelling
should be progressively modified;

148
00:09:15,562 --> 00:09:20,448
that language is linked to history,
tradition and custom,

149
00:09:20,472 --> 00:09:25,095
but that at the same time,
it is a practical everyday tool

150
00:09:25,119 --> 00:09:30,013
and that sometimes this attachment
to history, tradition and custom

151
00:09:30,037 --> 00:09:35,121
becomes an obstacle for its current usage.

152
00:09:35,619 --> 00:09:37,728
Indeed, this explains the fact

153
00:09:37,752 --> 00:09:44,705
that our language, much more than
the others we are geographically close to,

154
00:09:44,729 --> 00:09:48,257
has been historically
modifying itself based on us,

155
00:09:48,281 --> 00:09:51,935
for example, we went
from "ortographia" to "ortografía,"

156
00:09:51,959 --> 00:09:56,060
from "theatro" to "teatro,"
from "quantidad" to "cantidad,"

157
00:09:56,084 --> 00:09:58,472
from "symbolo" to "símbolo."

158
00:09:58,496 --> 00:10:03,903
And some silent H's are slowly
being stealthily removed:

159
00:10:03,927 --> 00:10:06,167
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy,

160
00:10:06,191 --> 00:10:11,983
"arpa" and "armonía" can be written
with or without an H.

161
00:10:12,007 --> 00:10:13,507
And everybody is OK.

162
00:10:15,452 --> 00:10:18,200
I also believe

163
00:10:18,224 --> 00:10:24,169
that this is a particularly appropriate
moment to have this discussion.

164
00:10:25,397 --> 00:10:29,408
It's always said that language
changes spontaneously,

165
00:10:29,432 --> 00:10:31,298
from the bottom up,

166
00:10:31,322 --> 00:10:34,595
that its users are the ones
who incorporate new words

167
00:10:34,619 --> 00:10:38,154
and who introduce grammatical changes,

168
00:10:38,178 --> 00:10:41,995
and that the authority --
in some places an academy,

169
00:10:42,019 --> 00:10:45,930
in others a dictionary,
in others a ministry --

170
00:10:45,954 --> 00:10:49,780
accepts and incorporates them
long after the fact.

171
00:10:50,576 --> 00:10:54,224
This is true only
for some levels of language.

172
00:10:54,248 --> 00:10:57,643
It is true on the lexical level,
the level of words.

173
00:10:57,667 --> 00:11:00,921
It is less true on the grammatical level,

174
00:11:00,945 --> 00:11:05,131
and I would almost say
it is not true for the spelling level,

175
00:11:05,155 --> 00:11:09,196
that has historically changed
from the top down.

176
00:11:09,220 --> 00:11:13,255
Institutions have always been the ones
to establish the rules

177
00:11:13,279 --> 00:11:15,619
and propose changes.

178
00:11:17,143 --> 00:11:21,933
Why do I say this is a particularly
appropriate moment?

179
00:11:21,957 --> 00:11:23,325
Until today,

180
00:11:23,349 --> 00:11:29,489
writing always had a much more restricted
and private use than speech.

181
00:11:30,118 --> 00:11:34,592
But in our time,
the age of social networks,

182
00:11:34,616 --> 00:11:37,763
this is going through
a revolutionary change.

183
00:11:38,311 --> 00:11:41,355
Never before have people written so much;

184
00:11:41,379 --> 00:11:45,927
never before have people written
for so many others to see.

185
00:11:46,536 --> 00:11:49,653
And in these social networks,
for the first time,

186
00:11:49,677 --> 00:11:54,717
we're seeing innovative uses
of spelling on a large scale,

187
00:11:54,741 --> 00:11:59,350
where even more-than-educated people
with impeccable spelling,

188
00:11:59,374 --> 00:12:01,654
when using social networks,

189
00:12:01,678 --> 00:12:07,227
behave a lot like the majority of users
of social networks behave.

190
00:12:07,251 --> 00:12:10,933
That is to say, they slack
on spell-checking

191
00:12:10,957 --> 00:12:15,792
and prioritize speed and efficacy
in communication.

192
00:12:16,309 --> 00:12:21,740
For now, on social networks,
we see chaotic, individual usages.

193
00:12:21,764 --> 00:12:24,781
But I think we have
to pay attention to them,

194
00:12:24,805 --> 00:12:27,152
because they're probably telling us

195
00:12:27,176 --> 00:12:31,774
that an era that designates
a new place for writing

196
00:12:31,798 --> 00:12:36,107
seeks new criteria for that writing.

197
00:12:36,448 --> 00:12:41,566
I think we'd be wrong
to reject them, to discard them,

198
00:12:41,590 --> 00:12:46,562
because we identify them as symptoms
of the cultural decay of our times.

199
00:12:46,586 --> 00:12:51,524
No, I believe we have to observe them,
organize them and channel them

200
00:12:51,548 --> 00:12:57,210
within guidelines that better correspond
to the needs of our times.

201
00:12:58,741 --> 00:13:02,473
I can anticipate some objections.

202
00:13:03,524 --> 00:13:04,954
There will be those who'll say

203
00:13:04,978 --> 00:13:10,088
that if we simplify spelling
we'll lose etymology.

204
00:13:10,923 --> 00:13:14,013
Strictly speaking, if we wanted
to preserve etymology,

205
00:13:14,037 --> 00:13:16,467
it would go beyond just spelling.

206
00:13:16,491 --> 00:13:20,496
We'd also have to learn
Latin, Greek, Arabic.

207
00:13:21,239 --> 00:13:23,870
With simplified spelling,

208
00:13:23,894 --> 00:13:29,084
we would normalize etymology
in the same place we do now:

209
00:13:29,108 --> 00:13:31,457
in etymological dictionaries.

210
00:13:32,117 --> 00:13:35,124
A second objection will come
from those who say:

211
00:13:35,148 --> 00:13:38,866
"If we simplify spelling,
we'll stop distinguishing

212
00:13:38,890 --> 00:13:42,566
between words that differ
in just one letter."

213
00:13:42,590 --> 00:13:46,680
That is true, but it's not a problem.

214
00:13:46,704 --> 00:13:51,680
Our language has homonyms,
words with more than one meaning,

215
00:13:51,704 --> 00:13:54,466
yet we don't confuse
the "banco" where we sit

216
00:13:54,490 --> 00:13:56,562
with the "banco" where we deposit money,

217
00:13:56,586 --> 00:13:59,835
or the "traje" that we wear
with the things we "trajimos."

218
00:13:59,859 --> 00:14:06,498
In the vast majority of situations,
context dispels any confusion.

219
00:14:07,192 --> 00:14:10,145
But there's a third objection.

220
00:14:12,102 --> 00:14:13,274
To me,

221
00:14:15,053 --> 00:14:18,498
it's the most understandable,
even the most moving.

222
00:14:18,522 --> 00:14:21,990
It's the people who'll say:
"I don't want to change.

223
00:14:22,536 --> 00:14:26,245
I was brought up like this,
I got used to doing it this way,

224
00:14:26,269 --> 00:14:32,542
when I read a written word
in simplified spelling, my eyes hurt."

225
00:14:32,566 --> 00:14:34,367
(Laughter)

226
00:14:34,391 --> 00:14:39,264
This objection is, in part, in all of us.

227
00:14:40,183 --> 00:14:41,672
What do I think we should do?

228
00:14:41,696 --> 00:14:44,405
The same thing that's always
done in these cases:

229
00:14:44,429 --> 00:14:49,842
changes are made looking forward;
children are taught the new rules,

230
00:14:49,866 --> 00:14:54,399
those of us who don't want to adapt
can write the way we're used to writing,

231
00:14:54,423 --> 00:14:58,724
and hopefully, time will cement
the new rules in place.

232
00:14:59,264 --> 00:15:05,771
The success of every spelling reform
that affects deeply rooted habits

233
00:15:05,795 --> 00:15:11,101
lies in caution, agreement,
gradualism and tolerance.

234
00:15:11,663 --> 00:15:15,981
At the same time, can't allow
the attachment to old customs

235
00:15:16,005 --> 00:15:18,320
impede us from moving forward.

236
00:15:18,775 --> 00:15:22,211
The best tribute we can pay to the past

237
00:15:22,235 --> 00:15:24,749
is to improve upon what it's given us.

238
00:15:25,255 --> 00:15:27,828
So I believe that we must
reach an agreement,

239
00:15:27,852 --> 00:15:30,863
that academies must reach an agreement,

240
00:15:30,887 --> 00:15:33,825
and purge from our spelling rules

241
00:15:33,849 --> 00:15:37,554
all the habits we practice
just for the sake of tradition,

242
00:15:37,578 --> 00:15:39,239
even if they are useless now.

243
00:15:39,685 --> 00:15:43,161
I'm convinced that if we do that

244
00:15:43,185 --> 00:15:47,185
in the humble but extremely
important realm of language,

245
00:15:47,209 --> 00:15:52,543
we'll be leaving a better future
to the next generations.

246
00:15:53,122 --> 00:15:56,530
(Applause)