0:00:10.417,0:00:14.584 We have lost a lot of time[br]at the school, learning spelling. 0:00:15.234,0:00:21.239 Kids are still losing a lot of time[br]at school with spelling. 0:00:22.149,0:00:25.801 That's why I want to share[br]with you a question: 0:00:27.125,0:00:31.071 "Do we need a new spelling?" 0:00:31.072,0:00:33.389 I believe that yes, we do. 0:00:33.390,0:00:38.268 Or even better, I think we need[br]to simplify the one we already have. 0:00:38.269,0:00:42.639 Neither the question nor the answer[br]are new in the Spanish language. 0:00:42.640,0:00:47.334 They have been bouncing around[br]from century to century 0:00:47.336,0:00:52.249 since 1492, when in the first grammar[br]of the Spanish language, 0:00:52.250,0:00:58.415 Antonio de Nebrija set a clear and simple[br]principle for our spelling: 0:00:58.416,0:01:00.816 "Thus, we have to write words[br]as we pronounce them, 0:01:00.816,0:01:03.816 and pronounce words[br]as we write them." 0:01:03.816,0:01:07.292 Each sound had to answer to a letter, 0:01:07.293,0:01:10.292 and each letter had to represent[br]a single sound, 0:01:10.293,0:01:15.496 and those which did not represent[br]any sound should be removed. 0:01:16.533,0:01:19.495 This approach, the phonetic approach, 0:01:19.496,0:01:23.136 -the one that says we have to write[br]words as we pronounce them- 0:01:23.137,0:01:27.443 it is and it is not present in the basis[br]of spelling as we practice it today. 0:01:27.977,0:01:33.920 It is, because the Spanish language,[br]in contrast to English, French or others, 0:01:33.926,0:01:36.364 always had a strong resistance 0:01:36.365,0:01:40.708 to writing words too differently[br]to how we pronounce them. 0:01:40.709,0:01:44.083 But it is not present, because[br]when in the 18th century 0:01:44.083,0:01:47.468 we decided how we would[br]standardize our writing, 0:01:47.469,0:01:51.908 there was another approach which guided[br]a good part of the decisions. 0:01:51.909,0:01:54.915 This approach was the etymological one, 0:01:54.915,0:01:57.130 the one that says we have to write words 0:01:57.131,0:02:00.169 according to how they were written[br]in their original language, 0:02:00.170,0:02:01.735 in Latin, in Greek. 0:02:01.736,0:02:06.133 That's how we're left with silent H's,[br]which we write but don't pronounce. 0:02:06.134,0:02:09.501 That's how we're left with B's and V's, 0:02:09.506,0:02:11.871 that contrary to what many people believe, 0:02:11.872,0:02:15.310 were never differentiated[br]in Spanish pronunciation. 0:02:15.905,0:02:20.283 That's how we're left with G's,[br]that sound hard as in "gente", 0:02:20.284,0:02:23.141 and other times soft as in "gato". 0:02:23.142,0:02:26.433 That's how we're left[br]with C's, S's, and Z's, 0:02:27.490,0:02:30.741 three letters that in some places[br]correspond to one sound, 0:02:30.742,0:02:33.323 and in others to two,[br]but nowhere to three. 0:02:35.420,0:02:39.828 I'm not here to tell you anything[br]you don't know from your own experience. 0:02:40.466,0:02:43.437 We all went to school, 0:02:43.438,0:02:48.275 we all invested big amounts[br]of learning time, 0:02:48.277,0:02:53.102 big amounts of that plastic[br]and childlike brain time 0:02:53.103,0:02:54.578 in dictation, 0:02:54.581,0:02:59.505 in the memorization of spelling rules[br]filled, however, with exceptions. 0:03:00.420,0:03:04.229 We were conveyed in many ways,[br]implicitly and explicitly, 0:03:04.230,0:03:06.415 the idea that in spelling, 0:03:06.416,0:03:09.823 something fundamental[br]of our upbringing was at stake. 0:03:10.719,0:03:12.836 Yet, I have the feeling 0:03:12.837,0:03:16.744 that teachers didn't ask themselves[br]why it was so important. 0:03:16.745,0:03:19.896 In fact, they didn't ask themselves[br]a previous question: 0:03:19.897,0:03:22.439 what was the purpose that spelling played? 0:03:23.009,0:03:26.264 What do we need spelling for? 0:03:27.575,0:03:30.630 And the truth is that when someone[br]asks themselves this question 0:03:30.630,0:03:34.173 the answer is much more simple[br]and less momentous 0:03:34.173,0:03:35.529 than we'd usually believe. 0:03:36.482,0:03:42.915 We use spelling to unify the way we write,[br]so we can all write the same way. 0:03:42.915,0:03:47.072 So it is easier for us to understand[br]when we read each other. 0:03:47.776,0:03:50.997 But opposed to other aspects of language, 0:03:50.999,0:03:53.313 such as punctuation, 0:03:53.313,0:03:59.443 there is no individual expressive ability[br]involved in spelling. 0:03:59.444,0:04:00.888 In contrast to punctuation. 0:04:01.617,0:04:05.596 With punctuation, I can choose[br]to change the meaning of a phrase. 0:04:05.597,0:04:10.944 With punctuation I can impose[br]a particular rhythm to what I am writing, 0:04:10.944,0:04:13.572 but not with spelling. 0:04:13.573,0:04:16.909 When it comes to spelling,[br]it's either wrong or right, 0:04:16.910,0:04:20.255 according to whether it conforms[br]or not to the current rules. 0:04:21.194,0:04:26.427 But then, wouldn't it be more sensible[br]to simplify the current rules 0:04:26.428,0:04:32.209 so it is easier to teach, learn,[br]and use spelling correctly? 0:04:32.993,0:04:37.110 Wouldn't it be more sensible[br]to simplify the current rules 0:04:37.111,0:04:42.729 so that all that time we devote today[br]to teaching spelling, 0:04:42.729,0:04:46.176 we can devote it[br]to other issues of language 0:04:46.177,0:04:49.815 whose complexities do deserve[br]the time and effort? 0:04:51.933,0:04:56.920 What I propose is not[br]to abolish spelling, 0:04:56.921,0:05:00.516 not that everyone writes as they like. 0:05:01.455,0:05:06.085 Language is a tool of common use,[br]and therefore 0:05:06.085,0:05:10.365 I believe it's fundamental that we use it[br]following common criteria. 0:05:11.109,0:05:13.198 But I also find it fundamental 0:05:13.199,0:05:17.551 that those common criteria[br]be as simple as they can be, 0:05:17.552,0:05:21.203 especially because[br]if we simplify our spelling 0:05:21.204,0:05:24.440 we're not leveling down; 0:05:24.442,0:05:26.923 when spelling is simplified, 0:05:26.924,0:05:30.545 the quality of the language[br]doesn't suffer at all. 0:05:31.609,0:05:35.540 I work every day with Spanish[br]Golden Age literature, 0:05:35.542,0:05:39.029 I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,[br]Góngora, Quevedo, 0:05:39.030,0:05:42.140 who sometimes write "hombre" without H, 0:05:42.141,0:05:44.932 sometimes write "escribir" with V, 0:05:44.933,0:05:48.016 and it's absolutely clear to me 0:05:48.029,0:05:53.279 that the difference between those texts[br]and ours is one of convention, 0:05:53.281,0:05:56.897 or rather, of a lack of convention[br]during their time. 0:05:56.898,0:05:58.580 But not one of quality. 0:05:59.908,0:06:02.354 But let me go back to the masters, 0:06:02.355,0:06:05.180 because they are key characters[br]in this story. 0:06:05.789,0:06:10.686 Earlier, I mentioned this slightly[br]thoughtless insistence 0:06:10.687,0:06:13.643 with which teachers[br]pester and pester us 0:06:13.644,0:06:15.265 with spelling. 0:06:15.266,0:06:19.092 But the truth is that,[br]being things as they are, 0:06:19.093,0:06:21.404 this makes perfect sense. 0:06:21.409,0:06:26.772 In our society, spelling works[br]as a privileged index 0:06:26.772,0:06:31.178 that tells the cultured from the brute,[br]the educated from the ignorant, 0:06:31.184,0:06:36.093 independently from the content[br]that's being written. 0:06:36.094,0:06:39.530 One can get or not get a job 0:06:39.531,0:06:42.223 because of an h that one put or did not. 0:06:42.224,0:06:45.352 One can become an object[br]of public ridicule 0:06:45.353,0:06:48.229 because of a misplaced B. 0:06:48.230,0:06:50.310 Therefore, in this context, 0:06:50.311,0:06:55.041 of course, it makes sense to dedicate[br]all this time to spelling. 0:06:55.044,0:06:57.452 But we don't have to forget 0:06:57.453,0:07:00.171 that throughout the history[br]of our language 0:07:00.181,0:07:02.141 it was always teachers 0:07:02.159,0:07:05.870 or people linked[br]to the early learning of language 0:07:05.871,0:07:08.652 those who promoted spelling reforms, 0:07:08.653,0:07:11.184 those who realized that in our spelling 0:07:11.185,0:07:15.431 there was often an obstacle[br]to the transmission of knowledge. 0:07:15.432,0:07:17.071 In our case, for example, 0:07:17.071,0:07:21.643 Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,[br]promoted the biggest spelling reform 0:07:21.652,0:07:25.224 that effectively took place[br]in the Spanish language: 0:07:25.225,0:07:29.360 the Chilean one in mid-19th century. 0:07:31.302,0:07:35.333 Then, why not take over[br]the task of those teachers 0:07:35.334,0:07:39.209 and start making progress[br]in our spelling? 0:07:39.210,0:07:42.571 Here, in the intimacy of us 10,000, 0:07:42.572,0:07:44.149 I'd like to bring to the table 0:07:44.150,0:07:48.417 some changes that I find reasonable[br]to start discussing. 0:07:49.707,0:07:52.014 Let's remove the silent H. 0:07:52.014,0:07:56.990 There where we write an H,[br]but pronounce nothing, 0:07:56.990,0:07:58.211 let's not write anything. 0:07:58.211,0:07:59.193 (Applause) 0:07:59.193,0:08:01.853 It's hard for me to think[br]what sentimental attachment 0:08:01.854,0:08:06.867 can justify to someone all[br]the hassle caused by the silent H. 0:08:06.868,0:08:09.612 B and V, as we said before, 0:08:09.612,0:08:12.182 were never distinguished[br]in the Spanish language, 0:08:12.182,0:08:12.995 (Applause) 0:08:12.995,0:08:16.740 let's choose one, it could be either,[br]we can discuss it, talk it over, 0:08:16.741,0:08:20.189 each will have their preferences,[br]each can have their arguments. 0:08:20.190,0:08:23.249 Let's keep one, remove the other. 0:08:23.250,0:08:26.427 G and J, let's separate their roles, 0:08:26.429,0:08:30.874 G should keep the soft sound,[br]"gato", "mago", "águila", 0:08:30.875,0:08:33.727 and J should keep the hard sound, 0:08:33.729,0:08:39.089 "jarabe", "jirafa", "gente", "argentino". 0:08:40.029,0:08:44.512 The case of C, S, and Z is interesting, 0:08:45.151,0:08:48.541 because it shows that the phonetic[br]approach must be a guide, 0:08:49.250,0:08:52.305 but can't be an absolute principle. 0:08:52.306,0:08:57.025 In some cases, the differences[br]in pronunciation must be addressed. 0:08:57.026,0:08:59.955 As I said before, C, S, and Z 0:08:59.956,0:09:03.321 in some places correspond[br]to one sound, in others to two. 0:09:03.322,0:09:08.508 If we lower it down from three letters[br]to two, we're all better. 0:09:09.655,0:09:14.305 To some, these changes[br]may seem a bit drastic. 0:09:14.306,0:09:16.698 They are not so much. 0:09:16.699,0:09:20.132 The Royal Spanish Academy,[br]all of language academies, 0:09:20.133,0:09:24.722 also believe that spelling[br]should be progressively modified, 0:09:24.723,0:09:29.971 that language is linked to history,[br]tradition and custom, 0:09:29.972,0:09:34.115 but that at the same time[br]it is a practical everyday tool 0:09:34.116,0:09:39.021 and that sometimes this attachment[br]to history, tradition and custom 0:09:39.022,0:09:44.106 turns into an obstacle[br]for its current usage. 0:09:45.238,0:09:48.156 Indeed, this explains the fact 0:09:48.157,0:09:53.585 that our language, much more than[br]the others we are geographically close to, 0:09:53.586,0:09:57.541 has been historically[br]modifying itself based on us, 0:09:57.542,0:10:01.458 for example, we went from[br]"ortographia" to "ortografía", 0:10:01.459,0:10:05.582 we went from "theatro" to "teatro",[br]we went from "quantidad" to "cantidad", 0:10:05.584,0:10:08.067 we went from "symbolo" to "símbolo", 0:10:08.068,0:10:13.265 and slowly some silent H's[br]are being stealthily removed, 0:10:13.266,0:10:15.690 in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy 0:10:15.691,0:10:21.308 "arpa", "armonía" can be written[br]with or without H 0:10:21.309,0:10:22.809 and we're all okay. 0:10:24.889,0:10:27.543 I also believe 0:10:27.544,0:10:33.669 that this is a particularly appropriate[br]moment to face this discussion. 0:10:34.918,0:10:38.931 It's always said that language[br]changes spontaneously, 0:10:38.932,0:10:40.821 from the bottom up, 0:10:40.822,0:10:43.987 that users are the ones[br]that incorporate new words, 0:10:43.988,0:10:47.677 the ones that introduce[br]grammatical changes, 0:10:47.678,0:10:51.518 and that the authority,[br]in some places an academy, 0:10:51.519,0:10:55.636 in others a dictionary[br]in others a ministry, 0:10:55.637,0:10:59.245 a long time after, accepts them[br]and incorporates them. 0:11:00.315,0:11:04.087 This is true only[br]for some levels of language, 0:11:04.088,0:11:07.476 it is true for the lexical level,[br]for the level of words, 0:11:07.477,0:11:10.896 it is less true for the grammatical level, 0:11:10.897,0:11:14.954 and almost, I would say, it is not true[br]for the spelling level, 0:11:14.955,0:11:18.851 that has historically changed[br]from top to bottom. 0:11:18.852,0:11:25.040 Institutions have always been those[br]who set the rules and proposed changes. 0:11:26.438,0:11:31.456 Why do I say this is a particularly[br]appropriate moment? 0:11:31.457,0:11:33.035 Until today, 0:11:33.036,0:11:39.199 writing always had a much more restricted[br]and private use than speech, 0:11:39.200,0:11:43.846 but in our time,[br]the age of social networks, 0:11:43.847,0:11:47.229 this is going through[br]a revolutionary change. 0:11:48.200,0:11:50.774 Never before have people written so much, 0:11:51.308,0:11:55.626 never before have people written[br]for so many others. 0:11:56.536,0:11:59.675 And in these social networks,[br]for the first time, 0:11:59.676,0:12:04.414 we're seeing at a large scale[br]innovative uses of spelling 0:12:04.417,0:12:08.957 where even people of impeccable,[br]more than educated spelling, 0:12:08.958,0:12:14.956 when using social networks,[br]behave a lot like the majority of users 0:12:14.956,0:12:16.898 in social networks behave. 0:12:16.899,0:12:20.603 That is to say, they loosen spellchecking 0:12:20.604,0:12:25.439 and prioritize speed and efficacy[br]in communicating. 0:12:26.151,0:12:31.414 For now, over there, there are [br]chaotic, individual usages, 0:12:31.415,0:12:34.454 but I think we have[br]to pay attention to them 0:12:34.455,0:12:36.974 as they're probably telling us 0:12:36.975,0:12:41.417 that a time that assigns[br]a new place to writing 0:12:41.418,0:12:45.445 is asking new criteria for that writing. 0:12:46.250,0:12:51.319 I think we'd be doing wrong[br]in rejecting them, in discarding them, 0:12:51.320,0:12:56.315 because we identify them with symptoms[br]of the cultural decay of our times. 0:12:56.315,0:13:01.047 No, I believe we have to observe them,[br]arrange them, and channel them 0:13:01.048,0:13:06.570 within a regulation more related[br]to the needs of our times. 0:13:08.241,0:13:11.973 I can anticipate some objections. 0:13:13.226,0:13:14.659 There will be those who'll say 0:13:14.660,0:13:19.701 that if we simplify spelling[br]we'll lose etymology. 0:13:20.535,0:13:23.647 Strictly speaking, if we wanted[br]to preserve etymology 0:13:23.648,0:13:26.328 it wouldn't be enough with spelling, 0:13:26.329,0:13:30.334 we'd also have to learn Latin,[br]Greek, Arabic -- 0:13:31.089,0:13:35.850 With a simplified spelling[br]we'll go to recover etymology 0:13:35.851,0:13:41.122 to the same place we go now,[br]to etymological dictionaries. 0:13:42.150,0:13:44.814 A second objection will be that[br]of those who will say: 0:13:44.815,0:13:46.630 "If we simplify spelling, 0:13:46.631,0:13:48.752 we'll stop distinguishing between 0:13:48.753,0:13:52.142 words that now are different[br]in just one letter." 0:13:52.143,0:13:56.255 That is true, but it's not a problem. 0:13:56.256,0:14:00.906 Our language has homonyms,[br]words with more than one meaning, 0:14:00.906,0:14:02.816 and we don't confuse 0:14:02.816,0:14:06.577 the 'banco' where we sit with the 'banco'[br]where we deposit money, 0:14:06.577,0:14:09.849 the 'traje' that we wear[br]with the things we 'trajimos'. 0:14:09.849,0:14:15.832 In the enormous majority of situations,[br]context dispels any confusion. 0:14:16.590,0:14:19.746 But there's a third objection, 0:14:21.769,0:14:28.240 to me the most understandable,[br]even the most moving, 0:14:28.241,0:14:31.732 that is the one of those who'll say:[br]"I don't want to change, 0:14:31.733,0:14:35.592 I was brought up like this,[br]I got used to this way, 0:14:35.593,0:14:42.168 when I read a written word[br]in simplified spelling my eyes hurt." 0:14:44.201,0:14:49.097 This objection is, in part, in all of us. 0:14:49.098,0:14:51.186 What do I believe we have to do? 0:14:51.196,0:14:54.195 Do as is always done in these cases, 0:14:54.196,0:14:59.201 changes are made onwards,[br]children are taught the new rules; 0:14:59.201,0:15:04.110 to those of us who don't want to adapt,[br]they let us write as we're used to 0:15:04.111,0:15:08.229 and it's expected that time[br]will cement the new rules. 0:15:09.201,0:15:14.917 The success of every spelling reform[br]that touches upon such rooted habits 0:15:14.918,0:15:20.836 lays in caution, agreement,[br]gradualism, and tolerance. 0:15:21.457,0:15:25.346 But we still can't allow[br]the attachment to old costumes 0:15:25.347,0:15:27.774 to impede us from moving forward. 0:15:28.410,0:15:34.117 The best tribute we can pay to the past[br]is to improve upon what we received. 0:15:35.098,0:15:37.684 So I believe that we must[br]reach an agreement, 0:15:37.685,0:15:43.349 that academies must reach an agreement[br]and clear our spelling 0:15:43.349,0:15:48.715 of the habits we use because we received[br]them, even if they are useless. 0:15:49.487,0:15:52.583 I'm convinced that if we do that 0:15:52.584,0:15:56.708 in the humble, but extremely[br]important sphere of language, 0:15:56.709,0:16:02.043 we'll be leaving a better future[br]to the next generations. 0:16:02.924,0:16:04.244 (Applause)