We lost a lot of time at school learning spelling. Kids are still losing a lot of time at school with spelling. That's why I want to share a question with you: Do we need new spelling rules? I believe that yes, we do. Or even better, I think we need to simplify the ones we already have.
我们上学的时候浪费了 许多时间学习拼写, 现在的孩子也一样。 所以我想问一个问题, 我们是否需要一套新的拼写规则? 我认为答案是肯定的,我们需要。 或者更好的方法是简化 现有的拼写规则,
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 guide 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 was to correspond to one letter, each letter was to represent a single sound, and those which did not represent any sound should be removed. This approach, the phonetic approach, which says we have to write words as we pronounce them, both is and isn't at the root of spelling as we practice it today. It is, because the Spanish language, in contrast to English, French or others, always strongly resisted writing words too differently to how we pronounce them.
这个问题及答案并不是 第一次出现在西班牙语历史上, 人们已经反复讨论了几个世纪, 1492年,第一部语法指南面世, 安东尼奥·德·内夫里哈为我们 制定了一套简洁明了的拼写规则, 因此,我们需要在读出单词 的同时将其拼写出来, 反之亦然, 每一读音都对应一个字母, 每一字母都代表一个读音, 不代表任一读音的字母则应移除, 这个发音方法, 就是在我们读出单词的时候 就能够将其拼写出来, 正如我们今天实践中一样, 这个方法既是也不是拼写的根源, 这是因为西班牙语同 其他语言相比,像英语或法语, 它的拼写, 与发音差别过大。 但这一发音方法在今天并不常见,
But the phonetic approach is also absent today, 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. It was the etymological approach, 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 ended up with silent H's, which we write but don't pronounce. That's how we have B's and V's that, contrary to what many people believe, were never differentiated in Spanish pronunciation. That's how we wound up with G's, that are sometimes aspirated, as in "gente," and other times unaspirated, as in "gato." That's how we ended up 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.
因为18世纪,我们就决定将书写 规范化, 有另外一种方法促成了这个决定, 那就是词源法, 也就是根据单词, 源语言(拉丁语,希腊语)的书写形式, 来确定单词写法, 所以有些单词结尾有字母H却不发音, b和v许多人都以为的发音却完全不同, 但是在西班牙语中的发音 却是完全一样的。 带有G的单词, 有时是送气音,例如gente。 有时是非送气音,例如gato。 带有CSZ的单词, 有的时候都发同一个音, 有时候发成两个音 不过没有第三种读音,
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 pliant, childlike brain time in dictation, in the memorization of spelling rules filled, nevertheless, with exceptions. We were told in many ways, implicitly and explicitly, that in spelling, something fundamental to 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 is the purpose of spelling? What do we need spelling for?
我在这不是为了给你们 讲一些生活中用不到的理论。 大家都上过学, 都花费大把的时间学习,顺从家长, 听写、 记忆拼写规则不过也有例外, 别人一直有意无意的 向我们渗透着一个观念, 那就是拼写在我们成长过程中 扮演着非常基础重要的角色, 但是,我发觉 老师从来不问问自己 为什么拼写如此重要? 实际上,他们没有给自己先提个问题, 学习拼写的目的是什么? 要拼写有何用?
And the truth is, when someone asks themselves this question, the answer is much simpler 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, making it easier for us to understand when we read to each other. But unlike in other aspects of language such as punctuation, in spelling, there's no individual expression involved. In punctuation, there is. 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 would be easier to teach, learn and use spelling correctly? Wouldn't it be more sensible to simplify the current rules so that all the time we devote today to teaching spelling, we could devote to other language issues whose complexities do, in fact, deserve the time and effort?
而事实就是, 当你问自己这个问题的时候, 答案要比我们想象中, 要简单轻松得多。 我们用拼写规则来规范书写形式, 这样大家都保持书写一致, 也更容易在交谈过程中理解对方, 但是拼写与语言的 其他方面不同,例如标点符号。 拼写中不涉及个人情感的表达, 标点符号则相反, 利用不同的标点符号, 可以改变一句话的意思, 还可以给一句话加上特定的韵律, 拼写则不尽然, 说到拼写只有对错之分, 通过判断是否符合 现有拼写规则区分对错, 所以简化拼写规则不是更合理吗? 教学学习和正确使用拼写 规则就会变得更简单不是吗? 简化拼写规则更合理, 这样我们用在教学生 拼写规则的时间就可以 用在学习语言的其他方面了。 那些值得我们花费时间和 精力研究的较复杂的方面, 我并不是提倡废除拼写规则, 大家想怎么写就怎么写,
What I propose is not to abolish spelling, and have everyone write however they want. Language is a tool of common usage, and so 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 possible, especially because if we simplify our spelling, we're not leveling it down; when spelling is simplified, the quality of the language doesn't suffer at all.
语言是一种常用的工具, 所以我认为在使用时要 遵循一个常用的标准这是基础, 我还认为标准应该尽量保持越简单越好。 这一点也很重要, 因为如果我们简化了拼写规则, 并不代表是其水平下降, 拼写简化, 语言的质量丝毫不受影响, 我每天都在研究西班牙黄金时代的文学, 我读加西拉索、塞万提斯、 龚果拉、克维多的作品, 他们的作品中hombre 这个单词有时候不写h, 单词escribir中加上v, 我非常清楚, 这些单词和我们现在的 单词的差别在于拼写规则, 或者更准确的说 他们的年代缺少拼写规则,
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, a lack of convention during their time. But it's not a difference of quality. But let me go back to the masters, because they're key characters in this story. Earlier, I mentioned this slightly thoughtless insistence with which teachers pester and pester us over spelling. But the truth is, things being as they are, this makes perfect sense. In our society, spelling serves as an index of privilege, separating the cultured from the brute, the educated from the ignorant, independent of 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.
但是这并不影响文字质量。 我们再回到大师们这里, 因为他们是这个故事的主角, 之前我提到老师们不假思索的坚持, 要我们学习, 拼写规则, 但这就是事实, 完全合情合理。 在我们的社会, 掌握拼写就是掌握了特权, 将有教养和粗鲁的人, 知识分子和文盲区分开来, 完全与写作内容无关 一个人能否找到工作 取决于他是否在单词中 写出不发音的H, 一个人可能成为大家的笑柄, 只因为他把字母B写错了地方, 由此而论, 花费再多的时间 学习拼写也是有道理的, 但是别忘了, 我们的语言在发展历史中, 总是有 第一批学习语言的老师和人们, 他们促进了拼写的改革进程, 也意识到在传授知识的过程中, 我们的拼写规则总会遇到障碍。 举个例子,
But we shouldn't forget that throughout the history of our language, it has always been teachers or people involved in the early learning of language who promoted spelling reforms, 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, spearheaded the biggest spelling reform to take place in the Spanish language: the mid-19th century Chilean reform. Then, why not take over the task of those teachers and start making progress in our spelling? Here, in this intimate group of 10,000, I'd like to bring to the table some changes that I find reasonable to start discussing.
萨米安托和安德雷斯贝略发起了, 西班牙语历史上最大的一场拼写改革, 也就是19世纪中叶智利改革, 那为何不接替那些老师的任务, 开始为我们的拼写改革做出贡献呢? 这里在座的有一万人, 我想要跟大家分享的是, 我觉得值得讨论做出的一些改变, 我们把不发音的H, 从单词中去除吧。 不要再写H, (鼓掌) 我很难想象一个人得多喜欢字母H, 才能将它造成的不便忽略不计, 字母B和V的发音我们之前提到过, 在西班牙语中完全一样。
Let's remove the silent H. In places where we write an H but pronounce nothing, let's not write anything.
(鼓掌) 就从中选一个字母留下 哪个都行我们可以讨论讨论, 每个人的偏好不一样可以各抒己见,
(Applause)
我们只留下一个,
It's hard for me to imagine what sentimental attachment can justify to someone all the hassle caused by the silent H. B and V, as we said before, were never differentiated in the Spanish language --
字母G和J,我们来明确 一下两个字母的分工, G应该保留非送气音, 例如在“gato”“mago”"aguila"中的发音, J应该保留为送气音, 例如在“jarabe”“jirafa” “gente”"argentino"中的发音,
(Applause)
字母C,S,Z的发音规则很有趣,
Let's choose one; it could be either. We can discuss it, talk it over. Everyone will have their preferences and can make their arguments. Let's keep one, remove the other. G and J, let's separate their roles. G should keep the unaspirated sound, like in "gato," "mago," and "águila," and J should keep the aspirated sound, as in "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 it 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 go from three letters to two, we're all better off.
因为其表明发音方法是引导, 但并不是绝对的规则, 在某些情况下, 要指出发音的区别, 像之前提到的CSZ的发音, 在一个单词的不同位置 发音有时是一个音,有时是两个音, 如果三个字母只用两个,这样更好 对于一些人来说, 这些变化或许有点突然, 事实并不是这样, 皇家西班牙语学院中 所有语言学院的老师, 都认为拼写规则应该逐渐调整, 语言同历史,传统习俗密切相关, 与此同时也是每天用得到的实用工具。 不过有时语言同历史, 传统习俗之间的联系, 会变成使用中的障碍,
To some, these changes may seem a bit drastic. They're really not. The Royal Spanish Academy, all of language academies, also believes 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 becomes 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," from "theatro" to "teatro," from "quantidad" to "cantidad," from "symbolo" to "símbolo." And some silent H's are slowly being stealthily removed: in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy, "arpa" and "armonía" can be written with or without an H. And everybody is OK.
的确,这也解释了, 语言,与我们的生活距离最近,密切相关。 长久以来基于我们自身需求而改变, 例如 "ortographia" 变为"ortografía", "theatro" 变为 "teatro," "quantidad" 变为"cantidad" "symbolo" 变为"símbolo" 一些不发音的H逐渐不写出来了, 在皇家学院的字典中, "arpa" "armonía"两个单词写不写H都可以, 大家都可以接受。 我还认为, 现在来谈论这个问题时机尤其恰当, 人们常说语言的变化很随意, 是自下而上的改变, 语言使用者才是吸收新单词的人, 才是提出改变语法的人, 而语言权威--可能是学院, 也可能是一本词典或者政府部门,
I also believe that this is a particularly appropriate moment to have this discussion. It's always said that language changes spontaneously, from the bottom up, that its users are the ones who incorporate new words and who introduce grammatical changes, and that the authority -- in some places an academy, in others a dictionary, in others a ministry -- accepts and incorporates them long after the fact. This is true only for some levels of language. It is true on the lexical level, the level of words. It is less true on the grammatical level, and I would almost say it is not true for the spelling level, that has historically changed from the top down. Institutions have always been the ones to establish the rules and propose changes.
会在很久之后才接受这些改变, 以上事实仅限于语言的一些方面, 例如词汇方面, 在语法方面就差了一些, 在拼写方面我会说完全不是这样, 拼写是自上而下的改变。 语言机构立下规则, 提出改变, 那我为什么说现在这个时机尤其合适呢? 一直以来, 书写往往比言语限制多,更私密, 但现在是网络时代, 我们正在经历变革, 人们从来没有书写过这么多的时候, 人们从来没有写过 这么多文字给其他人看, 在社交网络中,我们第一次看到,
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 to see. And in these social networks, for the first time, we're seeing innovative uses of spelling on a large scale, where even more-than-educated people with impeccable spelling, when using social networks, behave a lot like the majority of users of social networks behave. That is to say, they slack on spell-checking and prioritize speed and efficacy in communication. For now, on social networks, we see chaotic, individual usages. But I think we have to pay attention to them, because they're probably telling us that an era that designates a new place for writing seeks new criteria for that writing. I think we'd be wrong to reject them, to discard them, because we identify them as symptoms of the cultural decay of our times. No, I believe we have to observe them, organize them and channel them within guidelines that better correspond to the needs of our times.
看到拼写被如此大规模的革新使用, 许多知识分子对拼写规则了如指掌, 在使用社交网络的时候, 和大多数用户一样, 懒得检查拼写, 只注重沟通速度和效率, 现在,社交网络上出现 拼写混乱的使用现象, 我认为我们应该关注这个问题。 因为这一问题可能是在告诉我们, 在这个社交网络上书写的年代, 需要新的拼写规则, 我认为拒绝和放弃是错误的, 因为我们把这个现象 看作当今时代文化退步的标志, 不,我认为我们要留心观察, 积极组织引导, 遵循符合时代需求的规则, 我能想到有人反对, 会有一些人说, 如果简化拼写规则,我们会丢掉语源。 严格来讲,如果我们要保留语源, 那就不仅仅涉及拼写规则了, 我们还要学习拉丁语, 希腊语,阿拉伯语, 简化拼写, 我们还会在语源词典中, 将语源标准化,
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 would go beyond just spelling. We'd also have to learn Latin, Greek, Arabic. With simplified spelling, we would normalize etymology in the same place we do now: in etymological dictionaries. A second objection will come from those who say: "If we simplify spelling, we'll stop distinguishing between words that differ in just one letter." That is true, but it's not a problem. Our language has homonyms, words with more than one meaning, yet we don't confuse the "banco" where we sit with the "banco" where we deposit money, or the "traje" that we wear with the things we "trajimos." In the vast majority of situations, context dispels any confusion.
第二批反对的声音是, 如果简化拼写规则就无法区分, 只有一个不同字母的单词了, 这点没错,但是并不是 解决不了的问题, 我们的语言中有同音异义词, 这些词还不止一个意思, 我们并没有混淆坐在banco课桌, 和存钱的banco银行啊, 也没有混淆我们穿的礼服traje和trajimos。 大多数情况语境会消除混淆, 还有一些人会反对, 对我而言, 这是我最能理解的理由了, 这些人会说 我不想改变, 我从小到大就是 这么学的,都已经习惯了, 要我读简化后的拼写,我眼睛疼, (笑声) 最后这个反对观点我们都会有一点, 那我们该怎么办呢?
But there's a third objection. To me, it's the most understandable, even the most moving. It's the people who'll say: "I don't want to change. I was brought up like this, I got used to doing it this way, when I read a written word in simplified spelling, my eyes hurt."
和这类问题的解决方法一样, 改变是未来的事情, 孩子们学习新规则 不想学习新规则的人们 可以使用从前的拼写规则, 希望时间会巩固这些新规则, 每一次成功的拼写改革, 深切影响书写的习惯, 都依赖于谨慎,大众一致, 渐进,和忍耐,
(Laughter)
与此同时,也不要依赖于从前的习惯,
This objection is, in part, in all of us. What do I think we should do? The same thing that's always done in these cases: changes are made looking forward; children are taught the new rules, those of us who don't want to adapt can write the way we're used to writing, and hopefully, time will cement the new rules in place. The success of every spelling reform that affects deeply rooted habits lies in caution, agreement, gradualism and tolerance. At the same time, can't allow the attachment to old customs impede us from moving forward. The best tribute we can pay to the past is to improve upon what it's given us.
会妨碍我们前进, 我们对过去最好的致敬, 就是改善现状,
So I believe that we must reach an agreement, that academies must reach an agreement, and purge from our spelling rules all the habits we practice just for the sake of tradition, even if they are useless now. I'm convinced that if we do that in the humble but extremely important realm of language, we'll be leaving a better future to the next generations.
所以我认为我们一定要达成一致, 语言学院也要达成一致, 简化我们的拼写规则, 我们现有的拼写习惯都是过去保留下来的, 即使他们现在毫无用处, 我确信如果我们, 对语言的重要领域 改变这些习惯的话, 我们会给下一代留下 更美好的未来。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)