WEBVTT

00:00:10.417 --> 00:00:14.584
We have lost a lot of time
at the school, learning spelling.

00:00:15.234 --> 00:00:21.239
Kids are still losing a lot of time
at school with spelling.

00:00:22.149 --> 00:00:25.801
That's why I want to share
with you a question:

00:00:27.125 --> 00:00:31.071
"Do we need a new spelling?"

00:00:31.072 --> 00:00:33.389
I believe that yes, we do.

00:00:33.390 --> 00:00:38.268
Or even better, I think we need
to simplify the one we already have.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:38.269 --> 00:00:42.639
Neither the question nor the answer
are new in the Spanish language.

00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:47.334
They have been bouncing around
from century to century

00:00:47.336 --> 00:00:52.249
since 1492, when in the first grammar
of the Spanish language,

00:00:52.250 --> 00:00:58.415
Antonio de Nebrija set a clear and simple
principle for our spelling:

00:00:58.416 --> 00:01:00.816
"Thus, we have to write words
as we pronounce them,

00:01:00.816 --> 00:01:03.816
and pronounce words
as we write them."

00:01:03.816 --> 00:01:07.292
Each sound had to answer to a letter,

00:01:07.293 --> 00:01:10.292
and each letter had to represent
a single sound,

00:01:10.293 --> 00:01:15.496
and those which did not represent
any sound should be removed.

00:01:16.533 --> 00:01:19.495
This approach, the phonetic approach,

00:01:19.496 --> 00:01:23.136
-the one that says we have to write
words as we pronounce them-

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.

00:01:27.977 --> 00:01:33.920
It is, because the Spanish language,
in contrast to English, French or others,

00:01:33.926 --> 00:01:36.364
always had a strong resistance

00:01:36.365 --> 00:01:40.708
to writing words too differently
to how we pronounce them.

00:01:40.709 --> 00:01:44.083
But it is not present, because
when in the 18th century

00:01:44.083 --> 00:01:47.468
we decided how we would
standardize our writing,

00:01:47.469 --> 00:01:51.908
there was another approach which guided
a good part of the decisions.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:51.909 --> 00:01:54.915
This approach was the etymological one,

00:01:54.915 --> 00:01:57.130
the one that says we have to write words

00:01:57.131 --> 00:02:00.169
according to how they were written
in their original language,

00:02:00.170 --> 00:02:01.735
in Latin, in Greek.

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.

00:02:06.134 --> 00:02:09.501
That's how we're left with B's and V's,

00:02:09.506 --> 00:02:11.871
that contrary to what many people believe,

00:02:11.872 --> 00:02:15.310
were never differentiated
in Spanish pronunciation.

00:02:15.905 --> 00:02:20.283
That's how we're left with G's,
that sound hard as in "gente",

00:02:20.284 --> 00:02:23.141
and other times soft as in "gato".

00:02:23.142 --> 00:02:26.433
That's how we're left
with C's, S's, and Z's,

00:02:27.490 --> 00:02:30.741
three letters that in some places
correspond to one sound,

00:02:30.742 --> 00:02:33.323
and in others to two,
but nowhere to three.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:35.420 --> 00:02:39.828
I'm not here to tell you anything
you don't know from your own experience.

00:02:40.466 --> 00:02:43.437
We all went to school,

00:02:43.438 --> 00:02:48.275
we all invested big amounts
of learning time,

00:02:48.277 --> 00:02:53.102
big amounts of that plastic
and childlike brain time

00:02:53.103 --> 00:02:54.578
in dictation,

00:02:54.581 --> 00:02:59.505
in the memorization of spelling rules
filled, however, with exceptions.

00:03:00.420 --> 00:03:04.229
We were conveyed in many ways,
implicitly and explicitly,

00:03:04.230 --> 00:03:06.415
the idea that in spelling,

00:03:06.416 --> 00:03:09.823
something fundamental
of our upbringing was at stake.

00:03:10.719 --> 00:03:12.836
Yet, I have the feeling

00:03:12.837 --> 00:03:16.744
that teachers didn't ask themselves
why it was so important.

00:03:16.745 --> 00:03:19.896
In fact, they didn't ask themselves
a previous question:

00:03:19.897 --> 00:03:22.439
what was the purpose that spelling played?

00:03:23.009 --> 00:03:26.264
What do we need spelling for?

00:03:27.575 --> 00:03:30.630
And the truth is that when someone
asks themselves this question

00:03:30.630 --> 00:03:34.173
the answer is much more simple
and less momentous

00:03:34.173 --> 00:03:35.529
than we'd usually believe.

NOTE Paragraph

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.

00:03:42.915 --> 00:03:47.072
So it is easier for us to understand
when we read each other.

00:03:47.776 --> 00:03:50.997
But opposed to other aspects of language,

00:03:50.999 --> 00:03:53.313
such as punctuation,

00:03:53.313 --> 00:03:59.443
there is no individual expressive ability
involved in spelling.

00:03:59.444 --> 00:04:00.888
In contrast to punctuation.

00:04:01.617 --> 00:04:05.596
With punctuation, I can choose
to change the meaning of a phrase.

00:04:05.597 --> 00:04:10.944
With punctuation I can impose
a particular rhythm to what I am writing,

00:04:10.944 --> 00:04:13.572
but not with spelling.

00:04:13.573 --> 00:04:16.909
When it comes to spelling,
it's either wrong or right,

00:04:16.910 --> 00:04:20.255
according to whether it conforms
or not to the current rules.

00:04:21.194 --> 00:04:26.427
But then, wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

00:04:26.428 --> 00:04:32.209
so it is easier to teach, learn,
and use spelling correctly?

00:04:32.993 --> 00:04:37.110
Wouldn't it be more sensible
to simplify the current rules

00:04:37.111 --> 00:04:42.729
so that all that time we devote today
to teaching spelling,

00:04:42.729 --> 00:04:46.176
we can devote it
to other issues of language

00:04:46.177 --> 00:04:49.815
whose complexities do deserve
the time and effort?

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:51.933 --> 00:04:56.920
What I propose is not
to abolish spelling,

00:04:56.921 --> 00:05:00.516
not that everyone writes as they like.

00:05:01.455 --> 00:05:06.085
Language is a tool of common use,
and therefore

00:05:06.085 --> 00:05:10.365
I believe it's fundamental that we use it
following common criteria.

00:05:11.109 --> 00:05:13.198
But I also find it fundamental

00:05:13.199 --> 00:05:17.551
that those common criteria
be as simple as they can be,

00:05:17.552 --> 00:05:21.203
especially because
if we simplify our spelling

00:05:21.204 --> 00:05:24.440
we're not leveling down;

00:05:24.442 --> 00:05:26.923
when spelling is simplified,

00:05:26.924 --> 00:05:30.545
the quality of the language
doesn't suffer at all.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:31.609 --> 00:05:35.540
I work every day with Spanish
Golden Age literature,

00:05:35.542 --> 00:05:39.029
I read Garcilaso, Cervantes,
Góngora, Quevedo,

00:05:39.030 --> 00:05:42.140
who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

00:05:42.141 --> 00:05:44.932
sometimes write "escribir" with V,

00:05:44.933 --> 00:05:48.016
and it's absolutely clear to me

00:05:48.029 --> 00:05:53.279
that the difference between those texts
and ours is one of convention,

00:05:53.281 --> 00:05:56.897
or rather, of a lack of convention
during their time.

00:05:56.898 --> 00:05:58.580
But not one of quality.

00:05:59.908 --> 00:06:02.354
But let me go back to the masters,

00:06:02.355 --> 00:06:05.180
because they are key characters
in this story.

00:06:05.789 --> 00:06:10.686
Earlier, I mentioned this slightly
thoughtless insistence

00:06:10.687 --> 00:06:13.643
with which teachers
pester and pester us

00:06:13.644 --> 00:06:15.265
with spelling.

00:06:15.266 --> 00:06:19.092
But the truth is that,
being things as they are,

00:06:19.093 --> 00:06:21.404
this makes perfect sense.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:21.409 --> 00:06:26.772
In our society, spelling works
as a privileged index

00:06:26.772 --> 00:06:31.178
that tells the cultured from the brute,
the educated from the ignorant,

00:06:31.184 --> 00:06:36.093
independently from the content
that's being written.

00:06:36.094 --> 00:06:39.530
One can get or not get a job

00:06:39.531 --> 00:06:42.223
because of an h that one put or did not.

00:06:42.224 --> 00:06:45.352
One can become an object
of public ridicule

00:06:45.353 --> 00:06:48.229
because of a misplaced B.

00:06:48.230 --> 00:06:50.310
Therefore, in this context,

00:06:50.311 --> 00:06:55.041
of course, it makes sense to dedicate
all this time to spelling.

00:06:55.044 --> 00:06:57.452
But we don't have to forget

00:06:57.453 --> 00:07:00.171
that throughout the history
of our language

00:07:00.181 --> 00:07:02.141
it was always teachers

00:07:02.159 --> 00:07:05.870
or people linked
to the early learning of language

00:07:05.871 --> 00:07:08.652
those who promoted spelling reforms,

00:07:08.653 --> 00:07:11.184
those who realized that in our spelling

00:07:11.185 --> 00:07:15.431
there was often an obstacle
to the transmission of knowledge.

00:07:15.432 --> 00:07:17.071
In our case, for example,

00:07:17.071 --> 00:07:21.643
Sarmiento, together with Andrés Bello,
promoted the biggest spelling reform

00:07:21.652 --> 00:07:25.224
that effectively took place
in the Spanish language:

00:07:25.225 --> 00:07:29.360
the Chilean one in mid-19th century.

00:07:31.302 --> 00:07:35.333
Then, why not take over
the task of those teachers

00:07:35.334 --> 00:07:39.209
and start making progress
in our spelling?

00:07:39.210 --> 00:07:42.571
Here, in the intimacy of us 10,000,

00:07:42.572 --> 00:07:44.149
I'd like to bring to the table

00:07:44.150 --> 00:07:48.417
some changes that I find reasonable
to start discussing.

00:07:49.707 --> 00:07:52.014
Let's remove the silent H.

00:07:52.014 --> 00:07:56.990
There where we write an H,
but pronounce nothing,

00:07:56.990 --> 00:07:58.211
let's not write anything.

00:07:58.211 --> 00:07:59.193
(Applause)

00:07:59.193 --> 00:08:01.853
It's hard for me to think
what sentimental attachment

00:08:01.854 --> 00:08:06.867
can justify to someone all
the hassle caused by the silent H.

00:08:06.868 --> 00:08:09.612
B and V, as we said before,

00:08:09.612 --> 00:08:12.182
were never distinguished
in the Spanish language,

00:08:12.182 --> 00:08:12.995
(Applause)

00:08:12.995 --> 00:08:16.740
let's choose one, it could be either,
we can discuss it, talk it over,

00:08:16.741 --> 00:08:20.189
each will have their preferences,
each can have their arguments.

00:08:20.190 --> 00:08:23.249
Let's keep one, remove the other.

00:08:23.250 --> 00:08:26.427
G and J, let's separate their roles,

00:08:26.429 --> 00:08:30.874
G should keep the soft sound,
"gato", "mago", "águila",

00:08:30.875 --> 00:08:33.727
and J should keep the hard sound,

00:08:33.729 --> 00:08:39.089
"jarabe", "jirafa", "gente", "argentino".

00:08:40.029 --> 00:08:44.512
The case of C, S, and Z is interesting,

00:08:45.151 --> 00:08:48.541
because it shows that the phonetic
approach must be a guide,

00:08:49.250 --> 00:08:52.305
but can't be an absolute principle.

00:08:52.306 --> 00:08:57.025
In some cases, the differences
in pronunciation must be addressed.

00:08:57.026 --> 00:08:59.955
As I said before, C, S, and Z

00:08:59.956 --> 00:09:03.321
in some places correspond
to one sound, in others to two.

00:09:03.322 --> 00:09:08.508
If we lower it down from three letters
to two, we're all better.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:09.655 --> 00:09:14.305
To some, these changes
may seem a bit drastic.

00:09:14.306 --> 00:09:16.698
They are not so much.

00:09:16.699 --> 00:09:20.132
The Royal Spanish Academy,
all of language academies,

00:09:20.133 --> 00:09:24.722
also believe that spelling
should be progressively modified,

00:09:24.723 --> 00:09:29.971
that language is linked to history,
tradition and custom,

00:09:29.972 --> 00:09:34.115
but that at the same time
it is a practical everyday tool

00:09:34.116 --> 00:09:39.021
and that sometimes this attachment
to history, tradition and custom

00:09:39.022 --> 00:09:44.106
turns into an obstacle
for its current usage.

00:09:45.238 --> 00:09:48.156
Indeed, this explains the fact

00:09:48.157 --> 00:09:53.585
that our language, much more than
the others we are geographically close to,

00:09:53.586 --> 00:09:57.541
has been historically
modifying itself based on us,

00:09:57.542 --> 00:10:01.458
for example, we went from
"ortographia" to "ortografía",

00:10:01.459 --> 00:10:05.582
we went from "theatro" to "teatro",
we went from "quantidad" to "cantidad",

00:10:05.584 --> 00:10:08.067
we went from "symbolo" to "símbolo",

00:10:08.068 --> 00:10:13.265
and slowly some silent H's
are being stealthily removed,

00:10:13.266 --> 00:10:15.690
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy

00:10:15.691 --> 00:10:21.308
"arpa", "armonía" can be written
with or without H

00:10:21.309 --> 00:10:22.809
and we're all okay.

NOTE Paragraph

00:10:24.889 --> 00:10:27.543
I also believe

00:10:27.544 --> 00:10:33.669
that this is a particularly appropriate
moment to face this discussion.

00:10:34.918 --> 00:10:38.931
It's always said that language
changes spontaneously,

00:10:38.932 --> 00:10:40.821
from the bottom up,

00:10:40.822 --> 00:10:43.987
that users are the ones
that incorporate new words,

00:10:43.988 --> 00:10:47.677
the ones that introduce
grammatical changes,

00:10:47.678 --> 00:10:51.518
and that the authority,
in some places an academy,

00:10:51.519 --> 00:10:55.636
in others a dictionary
in others a ministry,

00:10:55.637 --> 00:10:59.245
a long time after, accepts them
and incorporates them.

00:11:00.315 --> 00:11:04.087
This is true only
for some levels of language,

00:11:04.088 --> 00:11:07.476
it is true for the lexical level,
for the level of words,

00:11:07.477 --> 00:11:10.896
it is less true for the grammatical level,

00:11:10.897 --> 00:11:14.954
and almost, I would say, it is not true
for the spelling level,

00:11:14.955 --> 00:11:18.851
that has historically changed
from top to bottom.

00:11:18.852 --> 00:11:25.040
Institutions have always been those
who set the rules and proposed changes.

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:26.438 --> 00:11:31.456
Why do I say this is a particularly
appropriate moment?

00:11:31.457 --> 00:11:33.035
Until today,

00:11:33.036 --> 00:11:39.199
writing always had a much more restricted
and private use than speech,

00:11:39.200 --> 00:11:43.846
but in our time,
the age of social networks,

00:11:43.847 --> 00:11:47.229
this is going through
a revolutionary change.

00:11:48.200 --> 00:11:50.774
Never before have people written so much,

00:11:51.308 --> 00:11:55.626
never before have people written
for so many others.

00:11:56.536 --> 00:11:59.675
And in these social networks,
for the first time,

00:11:59.676 --> 00:12:04.414
we're seeing at a large scale
innovative uses of spelling

00:12:04.417 --> 00:12:08.957
where even people of impeccable,
more than educated spelling,

00:12:08.958 --> 00:12:14.956
when using social networks,
behave a lot like the majority of users

00:12:14.956 --> 00:12:16.898
in social networks behave.

00:12:16.899 --> 00:12:20.603
That is to say, they loosen spellchecking

00:12:20.604 --> 00:12:25.439
and prioritize speed and efficacy
in communicating.

00:12:26.151 --> 00:12:31.414
For now, over there, there are 
chaotic, individual usages,

00:12:31.415 --> 00:12:34.454
but I think we have
to pay attention to them

00:12:34.455 --> 00:12:36.974
as they're probably telling us

00:12:36.975 --> 00:12:41.417
that a time that assigns
a new place to writing

00:12:41.418 --> 00:12:45.445
is asking new criteria for that writing.

00:12:46.250 --> 00:12:51.319
I think we'd be doing wrong
in rejecting them, in discarding them,

00:12:51.320 --> 00:12:56.315
because we identify them with symptoms
of the cultural decay of our times.

00:12:56.315 --> 00:13:01.047
No, I believe we have to observe them,
arrange them, and channel them

00:13:01.048 --> 00:13:06.570
within a regulation more related
to the needs of our times.

NOTE Paragraph

00:13:08.241 --> 00:13:11.973
I can anticipate some objections.

00:13:13.226 --> 00:13:14.659
There will be those who'll say

00:13:14.660 --> 00:13:19.701
that if we simplify spelling
we'll lose etymology.

00:13:20.535 --> 00:13:23.647
Strictly speaking, if we wanted
to preserve etymology

00:13:23.648 --> 00:13:26.328
it wouldn't be enough with spelling,

00:13:26.329 --> 00:13:30.334
we'd also have to learn Latin,
Greek, Arabic --

00:13:31.089 --> 00:13:35.850
With a simplified spelling
we'll go to recover etymology

00:13:35.851 --> 00:13:41.122
to the same place we go now,
to etymological dictionaries.

00:13:42.150 --> 00:13:44.814
A second objection will be that
of those who will say:

00:13:44.815 --> 00:13:46.630
"If we simplify spelling,

00:13:46.631 --> 00:13:48.752
we'll stop distinguishing between

00:13:48.753 --> 00:13:52.142
words that now are different
in just one letter."

00:13:52.143 --> 00:13:56.255
That is true, but it's not a problem.

00:13:56.256 --> 00:14:00.906
Our language has homonyms,
words with more than one meaning,

00:14:00.906 --> 00:14:02.816
and we don't confuse

00:14:02.816 --> 00:14:06.577
the 'banco' where we sit with the 'banco'
where we deposit money,

00:14:06.577 --> 00:14:09.849
the 'traje' that we wear
with the things we 'trajimos'.

00:14:09.849 --> 00:14:15.832
In the enormous majority of situations,
context dispels any confusion.

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:16.590 --> 00:14:19.746
But there's a third objection,

00:14:21.769 --> 00:14:28.240
to me the most understandable,
even the most moving,

00:14:28.241 --> 00:14:31.732
that is the one of those who'll say:
"I don't want to change,

00:14:31.733 --> 00:14:35.592
I was brought up like this,
I got used to this way,

00:14:35.593 --> 00:14:42.168
when I read a written word
in simplified spelling my eyes hurt."

00:14:44.201 --> 00:14:49.097
This objection is, in part, in all of us.

00:14:49.098 --> 00:14:51.186
What do I believe we have to do?

00:14:51.196 --> 00:14:54.195
Do as is always done in these cases,

00:14:54.196 --> 00:14:59.201
changes are made onwards,
children are taught the new rules;

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

00:15:04.111 --> 00:15:08.229
and it's expected that time
will cement the new rules.

00:15:09.201 --> 00:15:14.917
The success of every spelling reform
that touches upon such rooted habits

00:15:14.918 --> 00:15:20.836
lays in caution, agreement,
gradualism, and tolerance.

00:15:21.457 --> 00:15:25.346
But we still can't allow
the attachment to old costumes

00:15:25.347 --> 00:15:27.774
to impede us from moving forward.

00:15:28.410 --> 00:15:34.117
The best tribute we can pay to the past
is to improve upon what we received.

NOTE Paragraph

00:15:35.098 --> 00:15:37.684
So I believe that we must
reach an agreement,

00:15:37.685 --> 00:15:43.349
that academies must reach an agreement
and clear our spelling

00:15:43.349 --> 00:15:48.715
of the habits we use because we received
them, even if they are useless.

00:15:49.487 --> 00:15:52.583
I'm convinced that if we do that

00:15:52.584 --> 00:15:56.708
in the humble, but extremely
important sphere of language,

00:15:56.709 --> 00:16:02.043
we'll be leaving a better future
to the next generations.

NOTE Paragraph

00:16:02.924 --> 00:16:04.244
(Applause)