We have lost a lot of time
at the school, learning spelling.

Kids are still losing a lot of time
at school with spelling.

That's why I want to share
with you a question:

"Do we need a new spelling?"

I believe that yes, we do.

Or even better, I think we need
to simplify the one we already have.

Neither the question nor the answer
are new in the Spanish language.

They have been bouncing around
from century to century

since 1492, when in the first grammar
of the Spanish language,

Antonio de Nebrija set a clear and simple
principle for our spelling:

"Thus, we have to write words
as we pronounce them,

and pronounce words
as we write them."

Each sound had to answer to a letter,

and each letter had to represent
a single sound,

and those which did not represent
any sound should be removed.

This approach, the phonetic approach,

-the one that says we have to write
words as we pronounce them-

it is and it is not present in the basis
of spelling as we practice it today.

It is, because the Spanish language,
in contrast to English, French or others,

always had a strong resistance

to writing words too differently
to how we pronounce them.

But it is not present, because
when in the 18th century

we decided how we would
standardize our writing,

there was another approach which guided
a good part of the decisions.

This approach was the etymological one,

the one that says we have to write words

according to how they were written
in their original language,

in Latin, in Greek.

That's how we're left with silent H's,
which we write but don't pronounce.

That's how we're left with B's and V's,

that contrary to what many people believe,

were never differentiated
in Spanish pronunciation.

That's how we're left with G's,
that sound hard as in "gente",

and other times soft as in "gato".

That's how we're left
with C's, S's, and Z's,

three letters that in some places
correspond to one sound,

and in others to two,
but nowhere to three.

I'm not here to tell you anything
you don't know from your own experience.

We all went to school,

we all invested big amounts
of learning time,

big amounts of that plastic
and childlike brain time

in dictation,

in the memorization of spelling rules
filled, however, with exceptions.

We were conveyed in many ways,
implicitly and explicitly,

the idea that in spelling,

something fundamental
of our upbringing was at stake.

Yet, I have the feeling

that teachers didn't ask themselves
why it was so important.

In fact, they didn't ask themselves
a previous question:

what was the purpose that spelling played?

What do we need spelling for?

And the truth is that when someone
asks themselves this question

the answer is much more simple
and less momentous

than we'd usually believe.

We use spelling to unify the way we write,
so we can all write the same way.

So it is easier for us to understand
when we read each other.

But opposed to other aspects of language,

such as punctuation,

there is no individual expressive ability
involved in spelling.

In contrast to punctuation.

With punctuation, I can choose
to change the meaning of a phrase.

With punctuation I can impose
a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

but not with spelling.

When it comes to spelling,
it's either wrong or right,

according to whether it conforms
or not to the current rules.

But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

so it is easier to teach, learn,
and use spelling correctly?

Wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

so that all that time we devote today
to teaching spelling,

we can devote it
to other issues of language

whose complexities do deserve
the time and effort?

What I propose is not
to abolish spelling,

not that everyone writes as they like.

Language is a tool of common use,
and therefore

I believe it's fundamental that we use it
following common criteria.

But I also find it fundamental

that those common criteria
be as simple as they can be,

especially because
if we simplify our spelling

we're not leveling down;

when spelling is simplified,

the quality of the language
doesn't suffer at all.

I work every day with Spanish
Golden Age literature,

I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
Góngora, Quevedo,

who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

sometimes write "escribir" with V,

and it's absolutely clear to me

that the difference between those texts
and ours is one of convention,

or rather, of a lack of convention
during their time.

But not one of quality.

But let me go back to the masters,

because they are key characters
in this story.

Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
thoughtless insistence

with which teachers
pester and pester us

with spelling.

But the truth is that,
being things as they are,

this makes perfect sense.

In our society, spelling works
as a privileged index

that tells the cultured from the brute,
the educated from the ignorant,

independently from the content
that's being written.

One can get or not get a job

because of an h that one put or did not.

One can become an object
of public ridicule

because of a misplaced B.

Therefore, in this context,

of course, it makes sense to dedicate
all this time to spelling.

But we don't have to forget

that throughout the history
of our language

it was always teachers

or people linked
to the early learning of language

those who promoted spelling reforms,

those who realized that in our spelling

there was often an obstacle
to the transmission of knowledge.

In our case, for example,

Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
promoted the biggest spelling reform

that effectively took place
in the Spanish language:

the Chilean one in mid-19th century.

Then, why not take over
the task of those teachers

and start making progress
in our spelling?

Here, in the intimacy of us 10,000,

I'd like to bring to the table

some changes that I find reasonable
to start discussing.

Let's remove the silent H.

There where we write an H,
but pronounce nothing,

let's not write anything.

(Applause)

It's hard for me to think
what sentimental attachment

can justify to someone all
the hassle caused by the silent H.

B and V, as we said before,

were never distinguished
in the Spanish language,

(Applause)

let's choose one, it could be either,
we can discuss it, talk it over,

each will have their preferences,
each can have their arguments.

Let's keep one, remove the other.

G and J, let's separate their roles,

G should keep the soft sound,
"gato", "mago", "águila",

and J should keep the hard sound,

"jarabe", "jirafa", "gente", "argentino".

The case of C, S, and Z is interesting,

because it shows that the phonetic
approach must be a guide,

but can't be an absolute principle.

In some cases, the differences
in pronunciation must be addressed.

As I said before, C, S, and Z

in some places correspond
to one sound, in others to two.

If we lower it down from three letters
to two, we're all better.

To some, these changes
may seem a bit drastic.

They are not so much.

The Royal Spanish Academy,
all of language academies,

also believe that spelling
should be progressively modified,

that language is linked to history,
tradition and custom,

but that at the same time
it is a practical everyday tool

and that sometimes this attachment
to history, tradition and custom

turns into an obstacle
for its current usage.

Indeed, this explains the fact

that our language, much more than
the others we are geographically close to,

has been historically
modifying itself based on us,

for example, we went from
"ortographia" to "ortografía",

we went from "theatro" to "teatro",
we went from "quantidad" to "cantidad",

we went from "symbolo" to "símbolo",

and slowly some silent H's
are being stealthily removed,

in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy

"arpa", "armonía" can be written
with or without H

and we're all okay.

I also believe

that this is a particularly appropriate
moment to face this discussion.

It's always said that language
changes spontaneously,

from the bottom up,

that users are the ones
that incorporate new words,

the ones that introduce
grammatical changes,

and that the authority,
in some places an academy,

in others a dictionary
in others a ministry,

a long time after, accepts them
and incorporates them.

This is true only
for some levels of language,

it is true for the lexical level,
for the level of words,

it is less true for the grammatical level,

and almost, I would say, it is not true
for the spelling level,

that has historically changed
from top to bottom.

Institutions have always been those
who set the rules and proposed changes.

Why do I say this is a particularly
appropriate moment?

Until today,

writing always had a much more restricted
and private use than speech,

but in our time,
the age of social networks,

this is going through
a revolutionary change.

Never before have people written so much,

never before have people written
for so many others.

And in these social networks,
for the first time,

we're seeing at a large scale
innovative uses of spelling

where even people of impeccable,
more than educated spelling,

when using social networks,
behave a lot like the majority of users

in social networks behave.

That is to say, they loosen spellchecking

and prioritize speed and efficacy
in communicating.

For now, over there, there are 
chaotic, individual usages,

but I think we have
to pay attention to them

as they're probably telling us

that a time that assigns
a new place to writing

is asking new criteria for that writing.

I think we'd be doing wrong
in rejecting them, in discarding them,

because we identify them with symptoms
of the cultural decay of our times.

No, I believe we have to observe them,
arrange them, and channel them

within a regulation more related
to the needs of our times.

I can anticipate some objections.

There will be those who'll say

that if we simplify spelling
we'll lose etymology.

Strictly speaking, if we wanted
to preserve etymology

it wouldn't be enough with spelling,

we'd also have to learn Latin,
Greek, Arabic --

With a simplified spelling
we'll go to recover etymology

to the same place we go now,
to etymological dictionaries.

A second objection will be that
of those who will say:

"If we simplify spelling,

we'll stop distinguishing between

words that now are different
in just one letter."

That is true, but it's not a problem.

Our language has homonyms,
words with more than one meaning,

and we don't confuse

the 'banco' where we sit with the 'banco'
where we deposit money,

the 'traje' that we wear
with the things we 'trajimos'.

In the enormous majority of situations,
context dispels any confusion.

But there's a third objection,

to me the most understandable,
even the most moving,

that is the one of those who'll say:
"I don't want to change,

I was brought up like this,
I got used to this way,

when I read a written word
in simplified spelling my eyes hurt."

This objection is, in part, in all of us.

What do I believe we have to do?

Do as is always done in these cases,

changes are made onwards,
children are taught the new rules;

to those of us who don't want to adapt,
they let us write as we're used to

and it's expected that time
will cement the new rules.

The success of every spelling reform
that touches upon such rooted habits

lays in caution, agreement,
gradualism, and tolerance.

But we still can't allow
the attachment to old costumes

to impede us from moving forward.

The best tribute we can pay to the past
is to improve upon what we received.

So I believe that we must
reach an agreement,

that academies must reach an agreement
and clear our spelling

of the habits we use because we received
them, even if they are useless.

I'm convinced that if we do that

in the humble, but extremely
important sphere of language,

we'll be leaving a better future
to the next generations.

(Applause)