Some spelling changes may be coming to the Spanish language — and not everyone is happy about it.
According to articles recently appearing in BBC Mundo, El Universal of Mexico City, Bio-Bio La Radio of Chile, among numerous other sources, the proposed changes are subject to ratification later this month in Guadalajara, Mexico. The changes have become a hot topic of debate across the Spanish-speaking world, with critics claiming decrying the loss of the traditional rules. As one Twitter user, Ricardo Ortiz, put it today in the ongoing debate on that social network, "Aora ke la #RAE elimina reglas ansestrales dejemos de preokuparnos por la forma de eskrivir: todo sera correto en el futuro." Loosely translated: "Nou that the Academi iz gitting ridd of tradishonal rools lets kwit worying about hou to right: Awl wil be write in the fuchure."
Among the planned changes:
- The ch and ll would no longer be considered separate letters of the alphabet, giving it 27 letters (the English alphabet plus ñ). The names of some letters would also be clarified or changed: B would become be, v would become uve, and y would become ye instead of i griega.
- Orthographic accents could be dropped in words such as sólo (alone) as an adverb, truhán (rogue) and guión (hyphen or movie script).
- Ex would be considered a prefix that can be attached to words: Thus "ex-president" would become expresidente rather than ex presidente. However, if ex refers to a two-or-more-word phrase, it would be retained separately: ex ministro de defensa (former defense minister). The same would go for pro and anti.
- Use of the q would be dropped in words of foreign origin: Iraq would become Irak (it's already spelled that way in some areas), quórum would become cuórum, and Qatar would become Catar.
Comments
What is the rationale for these changes? As someone who is still trying to learn the language, after many years of on and off lessons, it makes things a bit more confusing, thinking there may be yet more rules to learn…..
As an English person and (non-fluent) Spanish speaker (Castillano) I object to these changes to a beautiful, pure language. Don’t let us drag the language down the way US English has been degraded.
It seems to me that spanish-speaker doesn’t like it very much! Look at this link:
http://portal.bibliotecasvirtuales.com/foros/humor-nuevas-reglas-de-gramatica-castellana
While I disagree with many of the recommended changes, what I do find interesting is that there doesn’t seem to be an explanation as to why these changes are being brought before the RAE.
What is the purpose of doing away with the letters “ch” and ll” when the purpose of keeping them separate is due to their pronunciation.
Doing away with the accent on “solo” again makes no sense when the reason it is there is to differentiate between the meaning of the word.
It appears that many of these changes are to find middle group between the variations of the language instead of maintaining the history of the language.
I am sure some of my linguistic professors are not happy with these changes as well because they are basically changing linguistic theory with this as well.
Someone may not realize this is destroying the cultural heritage of all native Spanish speakers; and in the process, destroys the patrimony of these people.
May saner heads prevail.
Melanie — To answer your question, the main rationale as I understand it is to simplify the written language. And I agree that the changes do that to some extent.
But there are also some drawbacks. Especially for non-native speakers, the changes would actually make the language a bit more difficult, especially with the elimination of the accents.
For someone fairly new to the language, the accents can be helpful.
And has already been pointed out, there is some loss of, for lack of a better word, heritage — just as there would be in English if we started writing our language more phonetically. Simpler, yes — but there is a loss as well, intangible but still definite.
I don’t really think the loss of the ch and ll as official letters is that big of a deal, especially since they haven’t been used for alphabetization purposes for years. I don’t know what real purpose it serves to call them letters. And calling the b and the v ve and uve, if done consistently, would make some sense (although any change wouldn’t come about instantly in real life).
But I kind of like calling the y the i griega. (Calling the y the “Greek y” is done to distinguish it from the “Latin i” or i latina.)
It has been interesting to read the action in the Spanish media. Some people are definitely passionate about their language, and that’s not a bad thing.
If I may add, language is a manifestation and expression of a culture. To take away the uniqueness of a language is to take away part of that culture’s heritage.
A living language evolves and its expression must evolve with the changes in the people in that culture; but to take away what identifies a language as distinct is to take away part of its substance.
Calling a letter in a consistent way has merits so long as doing so does not detract from its identity. I like ‘i griega’ for ‘y’ myself because of the same reason SG expressed.
I think most of the changes that are proposed are good. The new name for y seems a bit unnecessary, but not necessarily bad, and I’m torn regarding the accents. I’d be inclined to leave the one on solo, but where it doesn’t change the pronunciation of the word (I believe that’s the motivation for the other two examples), I’d say it’s good. On the issue of solo, my dictionary (Oxford) tells me that dropping the accent is already the recommended practice.
I think it has to be taken into account that the reason that Spanish has such simple spelling is a whole bunch of earlier spelling reforms that give it the simple, consistent spelling that it has today.
RE: Dropping accent
Perhaps I’m missing something from proposed changes to the Spanish language. I haven’t read the proposals.
Here are two lines from a poem:
Y cuando en noche oscura se envuelva el cementerio
Y solos sólo muertos queden velando allí,
Were ‘muerto’ singular, how does one distinguish the first ’solo’ from the second ’solo’ without the accent?
Y cuando en noche oscura se envuelva el cementerio
Y solo solo muerto quede velando allí,
Perhaps there may be exceptions?
Thanks.
Leave a beautiful language as it is!
As the language changes, so should its spelling conventions. Look at French and English, horrible spelling systems because no one ever updates them. Spanish and German, on the other hand, have very transparent spelling systems. Yet they seem not to have lost their cultures. Further, a system closer to the phonology of the language makes literacy easier to achieve. The beauty and relevance of _Don Quixote_ isn’t diminished because the Ch section has been redistributed in the dictionary (really, those words are all still there, and in the same order, even!). Language conventions can be messy. They need to be tidied up. Speech is primary folks, writing is a technology. We should make it work for us!
Of course, living languages change with time. However, if there is a strong reaction against proposed changes to the rules of a language, it would seem to suggest that the majority (or the group yelling loudest, anyway) doesn’t view these changes as correct and therefore to force this opinion on them is the wrong decision.
With regard to the proposed changes themselves, in my opinion, they make the language harder to read.
I would have no clue what “cuórum” meant unless I said it out loud. “Quórum” however, is instantly recognizable, at least for me, as a cognate, shared with english from latin. More subjectively, I find all of those spelling changes to be hideous.
I’m curious, why is “iraq” being replaced with “irak”? I thought that “k” was itself only used in recently imported words? (The only spanish word with a “k” in it that I can think of right now is “karate”.)
Also, I don’t understand. I could have sworn that that kind of accent-dropping was already tolerated by the RAE? Was that not the case? I’m fairly sure the RAE page even used “sólo/solo” as its example…
On the matter of dropping the accent in the word ’solo’ when that word replaces ’solamente’, the Academies were quite clear: the use of the accent in ’solo’ is optional.
About ch and ll, the elimination was done 9 years ago and what the academies are doing now is just ratifying that decision. Guion, truhan, hui (among others) are monosyllabic words but in some Latin American countries those words were regarded as if they were two-syllable words, therefore what the Academies are doing is just advising not to put accent on those monosyllables. As a Spanish teacher I fully support the changes. One must understand that languages are always in a process of evolution and if a language does not change with the times it runs the risk of becoming obsolete. Gracias!
I thought the RAE got rid of “ch” and “ll” back in 1994?
I thought the RAE got rid of “ch” and “ll” back in 1994?
Most of the comments that I have read about the proposed changes are negative. Why is this happening? I know that in English words have been approved and added to the dictionary, but I don’t know of any grammatical changes. I just don’t understand. The Spanish language is beautiful just the way it is, so why change it.
I’m okay with the changes, but I still think of Jupiter as a planet.
I completely agree with Steve. It would be an unmitigated disaster if Spanish were to be changed to suit those who either are too lazy to learn the language as it is,
or too stupid to see the damage their proposals could
inflict on such a beautiful language.
a mi no me gusta los cambios en la lengua
Someone mentioned that, by comparison with English where there are no grammatical changes…….I stop there. If you listen to the English language we are losing “I have …… done” for “I’ve…..done” which may sound like no change at all. But to teach the present perfect to students who are not aware that “I have done” exists, they don’t “get” the present perfect and instead use the preterite. Another ongoing change in English is the use of “there’s” for “there is” AND for “there are”, just like “hay” in Spanish. Everyone says “there’s” all the time. Just listen to the news, to the movies, to your friends. So language is a fluid event in our lives.The accent came off “este” a while back but recently. I think it must have come off “fui” because I have seen “fui” with an accent on the in older booksi. Shift happens.
I like to know why is the RAE making changes to our language. I am a native speaker and I often wonder, Why these changes? Whom is going to benefit from these changes? Certainly not the Spanish speaking people. As it’s, spelling in any language is not an easy skill to acquire; thus, stop messing with our language. Say no to whomever is trying to influence you to make changes. Tell them to make changes to their language not ours.
Manuel,
You’re right that the accent is optional regarding “sólo”. However the use of the accent persists.
Help me out here. I, being a new student of Spanish, am not good at it. So please look at this definition of “solamente” from RAE.
solamente.
1. adv. m. De un solo modo, en una sola cosa, o sin otra cosa.
Do you think “solo” represents “solamente” ?
This definition, I think, will be circular. Don’t you think so?
Thanks.
When I learned my Spanish grammar “fui y fue” had accents. I have been teaching Spanish for over 40 years and each time I teach the preterit I mention this. The only constant in life is change; it does not always make us happy. I don’t agree with all the new changes but must bow to the greater wisdom of the RAE.
Languages change, that’s life. It’s really not that big a deal.
For many people the change will go unnoticed, they will still continue to speak using the rules they learned growing up, despite any changes.
Nothing is going to change overnight in regard to how people speak and write. I imagine that until the next generation of Spanish speakers have completed high school and college, you’ll barely even notice the changes.
Besides, I thik a few of the changes are good, like with B and V. ‘uve’ has already been in use, they’re just making it official.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Por favor, no lo toques. Si quieres hacer el riesco de corromper una legua preciosa, usa otra. Como ingles.
The changes had been made, like in our ‘democracies’, we may not like the new laws but we are civilised and accept the change. If we feel they are wrong, we must work to make them change in the next opportunity. Just complaining after the milk has been spilled is a waste of time. After all, they are not very drastic changes and you will be forgiven for using the old grammar. Personally I love to call the Y ‘i griega’. After all that is where it comes from, the Greek language . Let’s be constructive and go with it. No wonder the World is in such a mess, we complain more than cooperate.
Love you all!
I have very few issues with this changes:
With respect to the the accents and whether we will or we will not be able to understand the written word, my answer is: Are you able to understand the spoken word? Because those accents do not affect the pronunciation at all. If you can understand the spoken word, then why wouldn’t you understand the written one? The RAE is simply removing exceptions to the rules on when to place accent marks and when not to. They have been doing this for as long as I remember. little by little.
My real main issue is with “uve”. Growing up in Latin America where phonetically “b” and “v” are almost undistinguishable, we used to refer to them at school as “b de burro” y “v de vaca”; so I can see the renaming as good. The bad side effect is that I have heard in some places the “W” being called “doble uve” which to me sounds atrocious (as oppose to “doble ve”).
This is even worst in the context of the modern world and the World-Wide-Web with people reading URLs as: “doble uve doble uve doble uve punto …” sounds like a tongue twister to me.
I never saw the point for “ch” and “ll” to have their own entry in the dictionary, so junk it.
All this time I took trying to learn the Spanish language I now have to learn these new changes…..my grammer and spelling are bad enough without the changes. Rrrr……Could it be possible to go back to the original one?
The accents are there to do their job, leave them where they’ve always been.
Like Anthony said (comment 25) don’t destroy this beautiful language.
Another thing is destroying languages in general is the text messages, we are going to end with all the grammar and spelling in the rubbish bin.
Don’t let this to happen please.
Also I don’t agree with what the author of this article said: “The names of some letters would also be clarified or changed: B would become be, v would become uve…I’m from Spain and B an V always have been pronounced BE and UVE