WEBVTT

00:00:00.861 --> 00:00:05.222
We lost a lot of time at school
learning spelling.

00:00:05.964 --> 00:00:11.969
Kids are still losing a lot of time
at school with spelling.

00:00:12.585 --> 00:00:16.236
That's why I want to share
a question with you:

00:00:17.720 --> 00:00:20.831
Do we need new spelling rules?

00:00:21.572 --> 00:00:23.866
I believe that yes, we do.

00:00:23.890 --> 00:00:28.520
Or even better, I think we need
to simplify the ones we already have.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:29.187 --> 00:00:33.465
Neither the question nor the answer
are new in the Spanish language.

00:00:33.489 --> 00:00:37.703
They have been bouncing around
from century to century

00:00:37.727 --> 00:00:43.330
since 1492, when in the first grammar
guide of the Spanish language,

00:00:43.354 --> 00:00:49.096
Antonio de Nebrija, set a clear and simple
principle for our spelling:

00:00:49.120 --> 00:00:52.039
"... thus, we have to write words
as we pronounce them,

00:00:52.063 --> 00:00:54.443
and pronounce words as we write them."

00:00:54.467 --> 00:00:57.769
Each sound was to correspond
to one letter,

00:00:57.793 --> 00:01:01.118
each letter was to represent
a single sound,

00:01:01.142 --> 00:01:06.345
and those which did not represent
any sound should be removed.

00:01:07.517 --> 00:01:09.972
This approach, the phonetic approach,

00:01:09.996 --> 00:01:13.613
which says we have to write
words as we pronounce them,

00:01:13.637 --> 00:01:18.346
both is and isn't at the root of spelling
as we practice it today.

00:01:18.901 --> 00:01:24.402
It is, because the Spanish language,
in contrast to English, French or others,

00:01:24.426 --> 00:01:29.737
always strongly resisted
writing words too differently

00:01:29.761 --> 00:01:31.459
to how we pronounce them.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:31.483 --> 00:01:33.752
But the phonetic approach
is also absent today,

00:01:33.776 --> 00:01:37.112
because when, in the 18th century,
we decided how we would standardize

00:01:37.136 --> 00:01:38.348
our writing,

00:01:38.372 --> 00:01:42.385
there was another approach which guided
a good part of the decisions.

00:01:42.409 --> 00:01:45.251
It was the etymological approach,

00:01:45.275 --> 00:01:47.468
the one that says we have to write words

00:01:47.492 --> 00:01:50.646
according to how they were written
in their original language,

00:01:50.670 --> 00:01:52.212
in Latin, in Greek.

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.

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,

00:02:02.372 --> 00:02:06.039
were never differentiated
in Spanish pronunciation.

00:02:06.460 --> 00:02:08.508
That's how we wound up with G's,

00:02:08.532 --> 00:02:11.213
that are sometimes aspirated,
as in "gente,"

00:02:11.237 --> 00:02:13.618
and other times unaspirated, as in "gato."

00:02:13.642 --> 00:02:17.152
That's how we ended up
with C's, S's and Z's,

00:02:17.990 --> 00:02:21.218
three letters that in some places
correspond to one sound,

00:02:21.242 --> 00:02:24.207
and in others, to two,
but nowhere to three.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:25.800 --> 00:02:30.778
I'm not here to tell you anything
you don't know from your own experience.

00:02:31.368 --> 00:02:34.317
We all went to school,

00:02:34.341 --> 00:02:38.988
we all invested big amounts
of learning time,

00:02:39.012 --> 00:02:43.710
big amounts of pliant,
childlike brain time

00:02:43.734 --> 00:02:45.341
in dictation,

00:02:45.365 --> 00:02:50.396
in the memorization of spelling rules
filled, nevertheless, with exceptions.

00:02:50.919 --> 00:02:54.706
We were told in many ways,
implicitly and explicitly,

00:02:54.730 --> 00:03:00.420
that in spelling, something fundamental
to our upbringing was at stake.

00:03:01.261 --> 00:03:03.562
Yet, I have the feeling

00:03:03.586 --> 00:03:07.221
that teachers didn't ask themselves
why it was so important.

00:03:07.245 --> 00:03:10.373
In fact, they didn't ask themselves
a previous question:

00:03:10.397 --> 00:03:12.939
What is the purpose of spelling?

00:03:13.993 --> 00:03:16.865
What do we need spelling for?

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:18.619 --> 00:03:21.536
And the truth is, when someone
asks themselves this question,

00:03:21.560 --> 00:03:24.649
the answer is much simpler
and less momentous

00:03:24.673 --> 00:03:26.106
than we'd usually believe.

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,

00:03:33.415 --> 00:03:37.773
making it easier for us to understand
when we read to each other.

00:03:38.407 --> 00:03:43.979
But unlike in other aspects of language
such as punctuation,

00:03:44.003 --> 00:03:50.102
in spelling, there's no
individual expression involved.

00:03:50.126 --> 00:03:51.570
In punctuation, there is.

00:03:52.117 --> 00:03:56.073
With punctuation, I can choose
to change the meaning of a phrase.

00:03:56.097 --> 00:04:01.522
With punctuation, I can impose
a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

00:04:01.546 --> 00:04:03.785
but not with spelling.

00:04:03.809 --> 00:04:07.386
When it comes to spelling,
it's either wrong or right,

00:04:07.410 --> 00:04:11.004
according to whether it conforms
or not to the current rules.

00:04:11.694 --> 00:04:17.048
But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

00:04:17.072 --> 00:04:23.044
so it would be easier to teach, learn
and use spelling correctly?

00:04:23.678 --> 00:04:28.185
Wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

00:04:28.209 --> 00:04:33.561
so that all the time we devote today
to teaching spelling,

00:04:33.585 --> 00:04:36.653
we could devote to other language issues

00:04:36.677 --> 00:04:40.644
whose complexities do, in fact,
deserve the time and effort?

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:42.433 --> 00:04:47.397
What I propose is not to abolish spelling,

00:04:47.421 --> 00:04:51.413
and have everyone write however they want.

00:04:51.878 --> 00:04:55.798
Language is a tool of common usage,

00:04:55.822 --> 00:05:01.154
and so I believe it's fundamental
that we use it following common criteria.

00:05:01.609 --> 00:05:03.781
But I also find it fundamental

00:05:03.805 --> 00:05:08.151
that those common criteria
be as simple as possible,

00:05:08.175 --> 00:05:12.009
especially because
if we simplify our spelling,

00:05:12.033 --> 00:05:14.846
we're not leveling it down;

00:05:14.870 --> 00:05:17.543
when spelling is simplified,

00:05:17.567 --> 00:05:21.345
the quality of the language
doesn't suffer at all.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:22.109 --> 00:05:26.018
I work every day with Spanish
Golden Age literature,

00:05:26.042 --> 00:05:29.646
I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
Góngora, Quevedo,

00:05:29.670 --> 00:05:32.617
who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

00:05:32.641 --> 00:05:35.869
sometimes write "escribir" with V,

00:05:35.893 --> 00:05:38.332
and it's absolutely clear to me

00:05:38.356 --> 00:05:43.757
that the difference between those texts
and ours is one of convention,

00:05:43.781 --> 00:05:47.374
or rather, a lack of convention
during their time.

00:05:47.398 --> 00:05:49.427
But it's not a difference of quality.

00:05:50.344 --> 00:05:52.768
But let me go back to the masters,

00:05:52.792 --> 00:05:56.146
because they're key characters
in this story.

00:05:56.170 --> 00:06:01.611
Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
thoughtless insistence

00:06:01.635 --> 00:06:04.549
with which teachers pester and pester us

00:06:04.573 --> 00:06:06.073
over spelling.

00:06:06.097 --> 00:06:09.569
But the truth is,
things being as they are,

00:06:09.593 --> 00:06:11.885
this makes perfect sense.

00:06:11.909 --> 00:06:17.248
In our society, spelling serves
as an index of privilege,

00:06:17.272 --> 00:06:21.660
separating the cultured from the brute,
the educated from the ignorant,

00:06:21.684 --> 00:06:26.672
independent of the content
that's being written.

00:06:26.696 --> 00:06:30.007
One can get or not get a job

00:06:30.031 --> 00:06:32.700
because of an H that one put or did not.

00:06:32.724 --> 00:06:35.913
One can become
an object of public ridicule

00:06:35.937 --> 00:06:38.588
because of a misplaced B.

00:06:38.612 --> 00:06:40.788
Therefore, in this context,

00:06:40.812 --> 00:06:45.885
of course, it makes sense to dedicate
all this time to spelling.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:45.909 --> 00:06:48.447
But we shouldn't forget

00:06:48.471 --> 00:06:50.671
that throughout the history
of our language,

00:06:50.695 --> 00:06:52.635
it has always been teachers

00:06:52.659 --> 00:06:56.584
or people involved
in the early learning of language

00:06:56.608 --> 00:06:59.128
who promoted spelling reforms,

00:06:59.152 --> 00:07:03.591
who realized that in our spelling
there was often an obstacle

00:07:03.615 --> 00:07:06.004
to the transmission of knowledge.

00:07:06.028 --> 00:07:07.695
In our case, for example,

00:07:07.719 --> 00:07:12.272
Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
spearheaded the biggest spelling reform

00:07:12.296 --> 00:07:15.701
to take place in the Spanish language:

00:07:15.725 --> 00:07:20.235
the mid-19th century Chilean reform.

00:07:21.894 --> 00:07:26.355
Then, why not take over
the task of those teachers

00:07:26.379 --> 00:07:29.772
and start making progress in our spelling?

00:07:29.796 --> 00:07:33.048
Here, in this intimate group of 10,000,

00:07:33.072 --> 00:07:34.626
I'd like to bring to the table

00:07:34.650 --> 00:07:39.121
some changes that I find reasonable
to start discussing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:40.207 --> 00:07:42.575
Let's remove the silent H.

00:07:42.599 --> 00:07:47.687
In places where we write an H
but pronounce nothing,

00:07:47.711 --> 00:07:49.002
let's not write anything.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:49.026 --> 00:07:50.042
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:50.066 --> 00:07:52.704
It's hard for me to imagine
what sentimental attachment

00:07:52.728 --> 00:07:57.719
can justify to someone
all the hassle caused by the silent H.

00:07:57.743 --> 00:08:00.088
B and V, as we said before,

00:08:00.112 --> 00:08:02.982
were never differentiated
in the Spanish language --

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:03.006 --> 00:08:04.023
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:04.047 --> 00:08:07.352
Let's choose one; it could be either.
We can discuss it, talk it over.

00:08:07.376 --> 00:08:11.006
Everyone will have their preferences
and can make their arguments.

00:08:11.030 --> 00:08:13.874
Let's keep one, remove the other.

00:08:13.898 --> 00:08:16.905
G and J, let's separate their roles.

00:08:16.929 --> 00:08:21.351
G should keep the unaspirated sound,
like in "gato," "mago," and "águila,"

00:08:21.375 --> 00:08:24.671
and J should keep the aspirated sound,

00:08:24.695 --> 00:08:29.589
as in "jarabe," "jirafa,"
"gente," "argentino."

00:08:30.441 --> 00:08:35.769
The case of C, S and Z is interesting,

00:08:35.793 --> 00:08:39.630
because it shows that the phonetic
approach must be a guide,

00:08:39.654 --> 00:08:42.719
but it can't be an absolute principle.

00:08:42.743 --> 00:08:47.502
In some cases, the differences
in pronunciation must be addressed.

00:08:47.526 --> 00:08:50.432
As I said before, C, S and Z,

00:08:50.456 --> 00:08:53.798
in some places, correspond
to one sound, in others to two.

00:08:53.822 --> 00:08:59.008
If we go from three letters
to two, we're all better off.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:00.247 --> 00:09:05.117
To some, these changes
may seem a bit drastic.

00:09:05.141 --> 00:09:07.322
They're really not.

00:09:07.346 --> 00:09:10.609
The Royal Spanish Academy,
all of language academies,

00:09:10.633 --> 00:09:15.538
also believes that spelling
should be progressively modified;

00:09:15.562 --> 00:09:20.448
that language is linked to history,
tradition and custom,

00:09:20.472 --> 00:09:25.095
but that at the same time,
it is a practical everyday tool

00:09:25.119 --> 00:09:30.013
and that sometimes this attachment
to history, tradition and custom

00:09:30.037 --> 00:09:35.121
becomes an obstacle for its current usage.

00:09:35.619 --> 00:09:37.728
Indeed, this explains the fact

00:09:37.752 --> 00:09:44.705
that our language, much more than
the others we are geographically close to,

00:09:44.729 --> 00:09:48.257
has been historically
modifying itself based on us,

00:09:48.281 --> 00:09:51.935
for example, we went
from "ortographia" to "ortografía,"

00:09:51.959 --> 00:09:56.060
from "theatro" to "teatro,"
from "quantidad" to "cantidad,"

00:09:56.084 --> 00:09:58.472
from "symbolo" to "símbolo."

00:09:58.496 --> 00:10:03.903
And some silent H's are slowly
being stealthily removed:

00:10:03.927 --> 00:10:06.167
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy,

00:10:06.191 --> 00:10:11.983
"arpa" and "armonía" can be written
with or without an H.

00:10:12.007 --> 00:10:13.507
And everybody is OK.

NOTE Paragraph

00:10:15.452 --> 00:10:18.200
I also believe

00:10:18.224 --> 00:10:24.169
that this is a particularly appropriate
moment to have this discussion.

00:10:25.397 --> 00:10:29.408
It's always said that language
changes spontaneously,

00:10:29.432 --> 00:10:31.298
from the bottom up,

00:10:31.322 --> 00:10:34.595
that its users are the ones
who incorporate new words

00:10:34.619 --> 00:10:38.154
and who introduce grammatical changes,

00:10:38.178 --> 00:10:41.995
and that the authority --
in some places an academy,

00:10:42.019 --> 00:10:45.930
in others a dictionary,
in others a ministry --

00:10:45.954 --> 00:10:49.780
accepts and incorporates them
long after the fact.

00:10:50.576 --> 00:10:54.224
This is true only
for some levels of language.

00:10:54.248 --> 00:10:57.643
It is true on the lexical level,
the level of words.

00:10:57.667 --> 00:11:00.921
It is less true on the grammatical level,

00:11:00.945 --> 00:11:05.131
and I would almost say
it is not true for the spelling level,

00:11:05.155 --> 00:11:09.196
that has historically changed
from the top down.

00:11:09.220 --> 00:11:13.255
Institutions have always been the ones
to establish the rules

00:11:13.279 --> 00:11:15.619
and propose changes.

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:17.143 --> 00:11:21.933
Why do I say this is a particularly
appropriate moment?

00:11:21.957 --> 00:11:23.325
Until today,

00:11:23.349 --> 00:11:29.489
writing always had a much more restricted
and private use than speech.

00:11:30.118 --> 00:11:34.592
But in our time,
the age of social networks,

00:11:34.616 --> 00:11:37.763
this is going through
a revolutionary change.

00:11:38.311 --> 00:11:41.355
Never before have people written so much;

00:11:41.379 --> 00:11:45.927
never before have people written
for so many others to see.

00:11:46.536 --> 00:11:49.653
And in these social networks,
for the first time,

00:11:49.677 --> 00:11:54.717
we're seeing innovative uses
of spelling on a large scale,

00:11:54.741 --> 00:11:59.350
where even more-than-educated people
with impeccable spelling,

00:11:59.374 --> 00:12:01.654
when using social networks,

00:12:01.678 --> 00:12:07.227
behave a lot like the majority of users
of social networks behave.

00:12:07.251 --> 00:12:10.933
That is to say, they slack
on spell-checking

00:12:10.957 --> 00:12:15.792
and prioritize speed and efficacy
in communication.

00:12:16.309 --> 00:12:21.740
For now, on social networks,
we see chaotic, individual usages.

00:12:21.764 --> 00:12:24.781
But I think we have
to pay attention to them,

00:12:24.805 --> 00:12:27.152
because they're probably telling us

00:12:27.176 --> 00:12:31.774
that an era that designates
a new place for writing

00:12:31.798 --> 00:12:36.107
seeks new criteria for that writing.

00:12:36.448 --> 00:12:41.566
I think we'd be wrong
to reject them, to discard them,

00:12:41.590 --> 00:12:46.562
because we identify them as symptoms
of the cultural decay of our times.

00:12:46.586 --> 00:12:51.524
No, I believe we have to observe them,
organize them and channel them

00:12:51.548 --> 00:12:57.210
within guidelines that better correspond
to the needs of our times.

NOTE Paragraph

00:12:58.741 --> 00:13:02.473
I can anticipate some objections.

00:13:03.524 --> 00:13:04.954
There will be those who'll say

00:13:04.978 --> 00:13:10.088
that if we simplify spelling
we'll lose etymology.

00:13:10.923 --> 00:13:14.013
Strictly speaking, if we wanted
to preserve etymology,

00:13:14.037 --> 00:13:16.467
it would go beyond just spelling.

00:13:16.491 --> 00:13:20.496
We'd also have to learn
Latin, Greek, Arabic.

00:13:21.239 --> 00:13:23.870
With simplified spelling,

00:13:23.894 --> 00:13:29.084
we would normalize etymology
in the same place we do now:

00:13:29.108 --> 00:13:31.457
in etymological dictionaries.

00:13:32.117 --> 00:13:35.124
A second objection will come
from those who say:

00:13:35.148 --> 00:13:38.866
"If we simplify spelling,
we'll stop distinguishing

00:13:38.890 --> 00:13:42.566
between words that differ
in just one letter."

00:13:42.590 --> 00:13:46.680
That is true, but it's not a problem.

00:13:46.704 --> 00:13:51.680
Our language has homonyms,
words with more than one meaning,

00:13:51.704 --> 00:13:54.466
yet we don't confuse
the "banco" where we sit

00:13:54.490 --> 00:13:56.562
with the "banco" where we deposit money,

00:13:56.586 --> 00:13:59.835
or the "traje" that we wear
with the things we "trajimos."

00:13:59.859 --> 00:14:06.498
In the vast majority of situations,
context dispels any confusion.

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:07.192 --> 00:14:10.145
But there's a third objection.

00:14:12.102 --> 00:14:13.274
To me,

00:14:15.053 --> 00:14:18.498
it's the most understandable,
even the most moving.

00:14:18.522 --> 00:14:21.990
It's the people who'll say:
"I don't want to change.

00:14:22.536 --> 00:14:26.245
I was brought up like this,
I got used to doing it this way,

00:14:26.269 --> 00:14:32.542
when I read a written word
in simplified spelling, my eyes hurt."

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:32.566 --> 00:14:34.367
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:34.391 --> 00:14:39.264
This objection is, in part, in all of us.

00:14:40.183 --> 00:14:41.672
What do I think we should do?

00:14:41.696 --> 00:14:44.405
The same thing that's always
done in these cases:

00:14:44.429 --> 00:14:49.842
changes are made looking forward;
children are taught the new rules,

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,

00:14:54.423 --> 00:14:58.724
and hopefully, time will cement
the new rules in place.

00:14:59.264 --> 00:15:05.771
The success of every spelling reform
that affects deeply rooted habits

00:15:05.795 --> 00:15:11.101
lies in caution, agreement,
gradualism and tolerance.

00:15:11.663 --> 00:15:15.981
At the same time, can't allow
the attachment to old customs

00:15:16.005 --> 00:15:18.320
impede us from moving forward.

00:15:18.775 --> 00:15:22.211
The best tribute we can pay to the past

00:15:22.235 --> 00:15:24.749
is to improve upon what it's given us.

NOTE Paragraph

00:15:25.255 --> 00:15:27.828
So I believe that we must
reach an agreement,

00:15:27.852 --> 00:15:30.863
that academies must reach an agreement,

00:15:30.887 --> 00:15:33.825
and purge from our spelling rules

00:15:33.849 --> 00:15:37.554
all the habits we practice
just for the sake of tradition,

00:15:37.578 --> 00:15:39.239
even if they are useless now.

00:15:39.685 --> 00:15:43.161
I'm convinced that if we do that

00:15:43.185 --> 00:15:47.185
in the humble but extremely
important realm of language,

00:15:47.209 --> 00:15:52.543
we'll be leaving a better future
to the next generations.

NOTE Paragraph

00:15:53.122 --> 00:15:56.530
(Applause)