1
00:00:10,417 --> 00:00:14,584
We have lost a lot of time
at the school, learning spelling.

2
00:00:15,234 --> 00:00:21,239
Kids are still losing a lot of time
at school with spelling.

3
00:00:22,149 --> 00:00:25,801
That's why I want to share
with you a question:

4
00:00:27,125 --> 00:00:31,071
"Do we need a new spelling?"

5
00:00:31,072 --> 00:00:33,389
I believe that yes, we do.

6
00:00:33,390 --> 00:00:38,268
Or even better, I think we need
to simplify the one we already have.

7
00:00:38,269 --> 00:00:42,639
Neither the question nor the answer
are new in the Spanish language.

8
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:47,334
They have been bouncing around
from century to century

9
00:00:47,336 --> 00:00:52,249
since 1492, when in the first grammar
of the Spanish language,

10
00:00:52,250 --> 00:00:58,415
Antonio de Nebrija set a clear and simple
principle for our spelling:

11
00:00:58,416 --> 00:01:00,816
"Thus, we have to write words
as we pronounce them,

12
00:01:00,816 --> 00:01:03,816
and pronounce words
as we write them."

13
00:01:03,816 --> 00:01:07,292
Each sound had to answer to a letter,

14
00:01:07,293 --> 00:01:10,292
and each letter had to represent
a single sound,

15
00:01:10,293 --> 00:01:15,496
and those which did not represent
any sound should be removed.

16
00:01:16,533 --> 00:01:19,495
This approach, the phonetic approach,

17
00:01:19,496 --> 00:01:23,136
-the one that says we have to write
words as we pronounce them-

18
00:01:23,137 --> 00:01:27,443
it is and it is not present in the basis
of spelling as we practice it today.

19
00:01:27,977 --> 00:01:33,920
It is, because the Spanish language,
in contrast to English, French or others,

20
00:01:33,926 --> 00:01:36,364
always had a strong resistance

21
00:01:36,365 --> 00:01:40,708
to writing words too differently
to how we pronounce them.

22
00:01:40,709 --> 00:01:44,083
But it is not present, because
when in the 18th century

23
00:01:44,083 --> 00:01:47,468
we decided how we would
standardize our writing,

24
00:01:47,469 --> 00:01:51,908
there was another approach which guided
a good part of the decisions.

25
00:01:51,909 --> 00:01:54,915
This approach was the etymological one,

26
00:01:54,915 --> 00:01:57,130
the one that says we have to write words

27
00:01:57,131 --> 00:02:00,169
according to how they were written
in their original language,

28
00:02:00,170 --> 00:02:01,735
in Latin, in Greek.

29
00:02:01,736 --> 00:02:06,133
That's how we're left with silent H's,
which we write but don't pronounce.

30
00:02:06,134 --> 00:02:09,501
That's how we're left with B's and V's,

31
00:02:09,506 --> 00:02:11,871
that contrary to what many people believe,

32
00:02:11,872 --> 00:02:15,310
were never differentiated
in Spanish pronunciation.

33
00:02:15,905 --> 00:02:20,283
That's how we're left with G's,
that sound hard as in "gente",

34
00:02:20,284 --> 00:02:23,141
and other times soft as in "gato".

35
00:02:23,142 --> 00:02:26,433
That's how we're left
with C's, S's, and Z's,

36
00:02:27,490 --> 00:02:30,741
three letters that in some places
correspond to one sound,

37
00:02:30,742 --> 00:02:33,323
and in others to two,
but nowhere to three.

38
00:02:35,420 --> 00:02:39,828
I'm not here to tell you anything
you don't know from your own experience.

39
00:02:40,466 --> 00:02:43,437
We all went to school,

40
00:02:43,438 --> 00:02:48,275
we all invested big amounts
of learning time,

41
00:02:48,277 --> 00:02:53,102
big amounts of that plastic
and childlike brain time

42
00:02:53,103 --> 00:02:54,578
in dictation,

43
00:02:54,581 --> 00:02:59,505
in the memorization of spelling rules
filled, however, with exceptions.

44
00:03:00,420 --> 00:03:04,229
We were conveyed in many ways,
implicitly and explicitly,

45
00:03:04,230 --> 00:03:06,415
the idea that in spelling,

46
00:03:06,416 --> 00:03:09,823
something fundamental
of our upbringing was at stake.

47
00:03:10,719 --> 00:03:12,836
Yet, I have the feeling

48
00:03:12,837 --> 00:03:16,744
that teachers didn't ask themselves
why it was so important.

49
00:03:16,745 --> 00:03:19,896
In fact, they didn't ask themselves
a previous question:

50
00:03:19,897 --> 00:03:22,439
what was the purpose that spelling played?

51
00:03:23,009 --> 00:03:26,264
What do we need spelling for?

52
00:03:27,575 --> 00:03:30,630
And the truth is that when someone
asks themselves this question

53
00:03:30,630 --> 00:03:34,173
the answer is much more simple
and less momentous

54
00:03:34,173 --> 00:03:35,529
than we'd usually believe.

55
00:03:36,482 --> 00:03:42,915
We use spelling to unify the way we write,
so we can all write the same way.

56
00:03:42,915 --> 00:03:47,072
So it is easier for us to understand
when we read each other.

57
00:03:47,776 --> 00:03:50,997
But opposed to other aspects of language,

58
00:03:50,999 --> 00:03:53,313
such as punctuation,

59
00:03:53,313 --> 00:03:59,443
there is no individual expressive ability
involved in spelling.

60
00:03:59,444 --> 00:04:00,888
In contrast to punctuation.

61
00:04:01,617 --> 00:04:05,596
With punctuation, I can choose
to change the meaning of a phrase.

62
00:04:05,597 --> 00:04:10,944
With punctuation I can impose
a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

63
00:04:10,944 --> 00:04:13,572
but not with spelling.

64
00:04:13,573 --> 00:04:16,909
When it comes to spelling,
it's either wrong or right,

65
00:04:16,910 --> 00:04:20,255
according to whether it conforms
or not to the current rules.

66
00:04:21,194 --> 00:04:26,427
But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

67
00:04:26,428 --> 00:04:32,209
so it is easier to teach, learn,
and use spelling correctly?

68
00:04:32,993 --> 00:04:37,110
Wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

69
00:04:37,111 --> 00:04:42,729
so that all that time we devote today
to teaching spelling,

70
00:04:42,729 --> 00:04:46,176
we can devote it
to other issues of language

71
00:04:46,177 --> 00:04:49,815
whose complexities do deserve
the time and effort?

72
00:04:51,933 --> 00:04:56,920
What I propose is not
to abolish spelling,

73
00:04:56,921 --> 00:05:00,516
not that everyone writes as they like.

74
00:05:01,455 --> 00:05:06,085
Language is a tool of common use,
and therefore

75
00:05:06,085 --> 00:05:10,365
I believe it's fundamental that we use it
following common criteria.

76
00:05:11,109 --> 00:05:13,198
But I also find it fundamental

77
00:05:13,199 --> 00:05:17,551
that those common criteria
be as simple as they can be,

78
00:05:17,552 --> 00:05:21,203
especially because
if we simplify our spelling

79
00:05:21,204 --> 00:05:24,440
we're not leveling down;

80
00:05:24,442 --> 00:05:26,923
when spelling is simplified,

81
00:05:26,924 --> 00:05:30,545
the quality of the language
doesn't suffer at all.

82
00:05:31,609 --> 00:05:35,540
I work every day with Spanish
Golden Age literature,

83
00:05:35,542 --> 00:05:39,029
I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
Góngora, Quevedo,

84
00:05:39,030 --> 00:05:42,140
who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

85
00:05:42,141 --> 00:05:44,932
sometimes write "escribir" with V,

86
00:05:44,933 --> 00:05:48,016
and it's absolutely clear to me

87
00:05:48,029 --> 00:05:53,279
that the difference between those texts
and ours is one of convention,

88
00:05:53,281 --> 00:05:56,897
or rather, of a lack of convention
during their time.

89
00:05:56,898 --> 00:05:58,580
But not one of quality.

90
00:05:59,908 --> 00:06:02,354
But let me go back to the masters,

91
00:06:02,355 --> 00:06:05,180
because they are key characters
in this story.

92
00:06:05,789 --> 00:06:10,686
Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
thoughtless insistence

93
00:06:10,687 --> 00:06:13,643
with which teachers
pester and pester us

94
00:06:13,644 --> 00:06:15,265
with spelling.

95
00:06:15,266 --> 00:06:19,092
But the truth is that,
being things as they are,

96
00:06:19,093 --> 00:06:21,404
this makes perfect sense.

97
00:06:21,409 --> 00:06:26,772
In our society, spelling works
as a privileged index

98
00:06:26,772 --> 00:06:31,178
that tells the cultured from the brute,
the educated from the ignorant,

99
00:06:31,184 --> 00:06:36,093
independently from the content
that's being written.

100
00:06:36,094 --> 00:06:39,530
One can get or not get a job

101
00:06:39,531 --> 00:06:42,223
because of an h that one put or did not.

102
00:06:42,224 --> 00:06:45,352
One can become an object
of public ridicule

103
00:06:45,353 --> 00:06:48,229
because of a misplaced B.

104
00:06:48,230 --> 00:06:50,310
Therefore, in this context,

105
00:06:50,311 --> 00:06:55,041
of course, it makes sense to dedicate
all this time to spelling.

106
00:06:55,044 --> 00:06:57,452
But we don't have to forget

107
00:06:57,453 --> 00:07:00,171
that throughout the history
of our language

108
00:07:00,181 --> 00:07:02,141
it was always teachers

109
00:07:02,159 --> 00:07:05,870
or people linked
to the early learning of language

110
00:07:05,871 --> 00:07:08,652
those who promoted spelling reforms,

111
00:07:08,653 --> 00:07:11,184
those who realized that in our spelling

112
00:07:11,185 --> 00:07:15,431
there was often an obstacle
to the transmission of knowledge.

113
00:07:15,432 --> 00:07:17,071
In our case, for example,

114
00:07:17,071 --> 00:07:21,643
Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
promoted the biggest spelling reform

115
00:07:21,652 --> 00:07:25,224
that effectively took place
in the Spanish language:

116
00:07:25,225 --> 00:07:29,360
the Chilean one in mid-19th century.

117
00:07:31,302 --> 00:07:35,333
Then, why not take over
the task of those teachers

118
00:07:35,334 --> 00:07:39,209
and start making progress
in our spelling?

119
00:07:39,210 --> 00:07:42,571
Here, in the intimacy of us 10,000,

120
00:07:42,572 --> 00:07:44,149
I'd like to bring to the table

121
00:07:44,150 --> 00:07:48,417
some changes that I find reasonable
to start discussing.

122
00:07:49,707 --> 00:07:52,014
Let's remove the silent H.

123
00:07:52,014 --> 00:07:56,990
There where we write an H,
but pronounce nothing,

124
00:07:56,990 --> 00:07:58,211
let's not write anything.

125
00:07:58,211 --> 00:07:59,193
(Applause)

126
00:07:59,193 --> 00:08:01,853
It's hard for me to think
what sentimental attachment

127
00:08:01,854 --> 00:08:06,867
can justify to someone all
the hassle caused by the silent H.

128
00:08:06,868 --> 00:08:09,612
B and V, as we said before,

129
00:08:09,612 --> 00:08:12,182
were never distinguished
in the Spanish language,

130
00:08:12,182 --> 00:08:12,995
(Applause)

131
00:08:12,995 --> 00:08:16,740
let's choose one, it could be either,
we can discuss it, talk it over,

132
00:08:16,741 --> 00:08:20,189
each will have their preferences,
each can have their arguments.

133
00:08:20,190 --> 00:08:23,249
Let's keep one, remove the other.

134
00:08:23,250 --> 00:08:26,427
G and J, let's separate their roles,

135
00:08:26,429 --> 00:08:30,874
G should keep the soft sound,
"gato", "mago", "águila",

136
00:08:30,875 --> 00:08:33,727
and J should keep the hard sound,

137
00:08:33,729 --> 00:08:39,089
"jarabe", "jirafa", "gente", "argentino".

138
00:08:40,029 --> 00:08:44,512
The case of C, S, and Z is interesting,

139
00:08:45,151 --> 00:08:48,541
because it shows that the phonetic
approach must be a guide,

140
00:08:49,250 --> 00:08:52,305
but can't be an absolute principle.

141
00:08:52,306 --> 00:08:57,025
In some cases, the differences
in pronunciation must be addressed.

142
00:08:57,026 --> 00:08:59,955
As I said before, C, S, and Z

143
00:08:59,956 --> 00:09:03,321
in some places correspond
to one sound, in others to two.

144
00:09:03,322 --> 00:09:08,508
If we lower it down from three letters
to two, we're all better.

145
00:09:09,655 --> 00:09:14,305
To some, these changes
may seem a bit drastic.

146
00:09:14,306 --> 00:09:16,698
They are not so much.

147
00:09:16,699 --> 00:09:20,132
The Royal Spanish Academy,
all of language academies,

148
00:09:20,133 --> 00:09:24,722
also believe that spelling
should be progressively modified,

149
00:09:24,723 --> 00:09:29,971
that language is linked to history,
tradition and custom,

150
00:09:29,972 --> 00:09:34,115
but that at the same time
it is a practical everyday tool

151
00:09:34,116 --> 00:09:39,021
and that sometimes this attachment
to history, tradition and custom

152
00:09:39,022 --> 00:09:44,106
turns into an obstacle
for its current usage.

153
00:09:45,238 --> 00:09:48,156
Indeed, this explains the fact

154
00:09:48,157 --> 00:09:53,585
that our language, much more than
the others we are geographically close to,

155
00:09:53,586 --> 00:09:57,541
has been historically
modifying itself based on us,

156
00:09:57,542 --> 00:10:01,458
for example, we went from
"ortographia" to "ortografía",

157
00:10:01,459 --> 00:10:05,582
we went from "theatro" to "teatro",
we went from "quantidad" to "cantidad",

158
00:10:05,584 --> 00:10:08,067
we went from "symbolo" to "símbolo",

159
00:10:08,068 --> 00:10:13,265
and slowly some silent H's
are being stealthily removed,

160
00:10:13,266 --> 00:10:15,690
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy

161
00:10:15,691 --> 00:10:21,308
"arpa", "armonía" can be written
with or without H

162
00:10:21,309 --> 00:10:22,809
and we're all okay.

163
00:10:24,889 --> 00:10:27,543
I also believe

164
00:10:27,544 --> 00:10:33,669
that this is a particularly appropriate
moment to face this discussion.

165
00:10:34,918 --> 00:10:38,931
It's always said that language
changes spontaneously,

166
00:10:38,932 --> 00:10:40,821
from the bottom up,

167
00:10:40,822 --> 00:10:43,987
that users are the ones
that incorporate new words,

168
00:10:43,988 --> 00:10:47,677
the ones that introduce
grammatical changes,

169
00:10:47,678 --> 00:10:51,518
and that the authority,
in some places an academy,

170
00:10:51,519 --> 00:10:55,636
in others a dictionary
in others a ministry,

171
00:10:55,637 --> 00:10:59,245
a long time after, accepts them
and incorporates them.

172
00:11:00,315 --> 00:11:04,087
This is true only
for some levels of language,

173
00:11:04,088 --> 00:11:07,476
it is true for the lexical level,
for the level of words,

174
00:11:07,477 --> 00:11:10,896
it is less true for the grammatical level,

175
00:11:10,897 --> 00:11:14,954
and almost, I would say, it is not true
for the spelling level,

176
00:11:14,955 --> 00:11:18,851
that has historically changed
from top to bottom.

177
00:11:18,852 --> 00:11:25,040
Institutions have always been those
who set the rules and proposed changes.

178
00:11:26,438 --> 00:11:31,456
Why do I say this is a particularly
appropriate moment?

179
00:11:31,457 --> 00:11:33,035
Until today,

180
00:11:33,036 --> 00:11:39,199
writing always had a much more restricted
and private use than speech,

181
00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:43,846
but in our time,
the age of social networks,

182
00:11:43,847 --> 00:11:47,229
this is going through
a revolutionary change.

183
00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:50,774
Never before have people written so much,

184
00:11:51,308 --> 00:11:55,626
never before have people written
for so many others.

185
00:11:56,536 --> 00:11:59,675
And in these social networks,
for the first time,

186
00:11:59,676 --> 00:12:04,414
we're seeing at a large scale
innovative uses of spelling

187
00:12:04,417 --> 00:12:08,957
where even people of impeccable,
more than educated spelling,

188
00:12:08,958 --> 00:12:14,956
when using social networks,
behave a lot like the majority of users

189
00:12:14,956 --> 00:12:16,898
in social networks behave.

190
00:12:16,899 --> 00:12:20,603
That is to say, they loosen spellchecking

191
00:12:20,604 --> 00:12:25,439
and prioritize speed and efficacy
in communicating.

192
00:12:26,151 --> 00:12:31,414
For now, over there, there are 
chaotic, individual usages,

193
00:12:31,415 --> 00:12:34,454
but I think we have
to pay attention to them

194
00:12:34,455 --> 00:12:36,974
as they're probably telling us

195
00:12:36,975 --> 00:12:41,417
that a time that assigns
a new place to writing

196
00:12:41,418 --> 00:12:45,445
is asking new criteria for that writing.

197
00:12:46,250 --> 00:12:51,319
I think we'd be doing wrong
in rejecting them, in discarding them,

198
00:12:51,320 --> 00:12:56,315
because we identify them with symptoms
of the cultural decay of our times.

199
00:12:56,315 --> 00:13:01,047
No, I believe we have to observe them,
arrange them, and channel them

200
00:13:01,048 --> 00:13:06,570
within a regulation more related
to the needs of our times.

201
00:13:08,241 --> 00:13:11,973
I can anticipate some objections.

202
00:13:13,226 --> 00:13:14,659
There will be those who'll say

203
00:13:14,660 --> 00:13:19,701
that if we simplify spelling
we'll lose etymology.

204
00:13:20,535 --> 00:13:23,647
Strictly speaking, if we wanted
to preserve etymology

205
00:13:23,648 --> 00:13:26,328
it wouldn't be enough with spelling,

206
00:13:26,329 --> 00:13:30,334
we'd also have to learn Latin,
Greek, Arabic --

207
00:13:31,089 --> 00:13:35,850
With a simplified spelling
we'll go to recover etymology

208
00:13:35,851 --> 00:13:41,122
to the same place we go now,
to etymological dictionaries.

209
00:13:42,150 --> 00:13:44,814
A second objection will be that
of those who will say:

210
00:13:44,815 --> 00:13:46,630
"If we simplify spelling,

211
00:13:46,631 --> 00:13:48,752
we'll stop distinguishing between

212
00:13:48,753 --> 00:13:52,142
words that now are different
in just one letter."

213
00:13:52,143 --> 00:13:56,255
That is true, but it's not a problem.

214
00:13:56,256 --> 00:14:00,906
Our language has homonyms,
words with more than one meaning,

215
00:14:00,906 --> 00:14:02,816
and we don't confuse

216
00:14:02,816 --> 00:14:06,577
the 'banco' where we sit with the 'banco'
where we deposit money,

217
00:14:06,577 --> 00:14:09,849
the 'traje' that we wear
with the things we 'trajimos'.

218
00:14:09,849 --> 00:14:15,832
In the enormous majority of situations,
context dispels any confusion.

219
00:14:16,590 --> 00:14:19,746
But there's a third objection,

220
00:14:21,769 --> 00:14:28,240
to me the most understandable,
even the most moving,

221
00:14:28,241 --> 00:14:31,732
that is the one of those who'll say:
"I don't want to change,

222
00:14:31,733 --> 00:14:35,592
I was brought up like this,
I got used to this way,

223
00:14:35,593 --> 00:14:42,168
when I read a written word
in simplified spelling my eyes hurt."

224
00:14:44,201 --> 00:14:49,097
This objection is, in part, in all of us.

225
00:14:49,098 --> 00:14:51,186
What do I believe we have to do?

226
00:14:51,196 --> 00:14:54,195
Do as is always done in these cases,

227
00:14:54,196 --> 00:14:59,201
changes are made onwards,
children are taught the new rules;

228
00:14:59,201 --> 00:15:04,110
to those of us who don't want to adapt,
they let us write as we're used to

229
00:15:04,111 --> 00:15:08,229
and it's expected that time
will cement the new rules.

230
00:15:09,201 --> 00:15:14,917
The success of every spelling reform
that touches upon such rooted habits

231
00:15:14,918 --> 00:15:20,836
lays in caution, agreement,
gradualism, and tolerance.

232
00:15:21,457 --> 00:15:25,346
But we still can't allow
the attachment to old costumes

233
00:15:25,347 --> 00:15:27,774
to impede us from moving forward.

234
00:15:28,410 --> 00:15:34,117
The best tribute we can pay to the past
is to improve upon what we received.

235
00:15:35,098 --> 00:15:37,684
So I believe that we must
reach an agreement,

236
00:15:37,685 --> 00:15:43,349
that academies must reach an agreement
and clear our spelling

237
00:15:43,349 --> 00:15:48,715
of the habits we use because we received
them, even if they are useless.

238
00:15:49,487 --> 00:15:52,583
I'm convinced that if we do that

239
00:15:52,584 --> 00:15:56,708
in the humble, but extremely
important sphere of language,

240
00:15:56,709 --> 00:16:02,043
we'll be leaving a better future
to the next generations.

241
00:16:02,924 --> 00:16:04,244
(Applause)