We lost a lot of time at school learning spelling.

我們過去在學校 花了很多時間學習拼字，

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

現在孩子們仍然在學校 花很多時間學習拼字。

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

這就是為什麼我要 與各位分享一個問題：

Do we need new spelling rules?

我們是否需要新的拼字規則？

I believe that yes, we do.

我相信是的，我們需要。

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

我認為更好的做法的是， 我們要簡化既有的拼字規則。

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

對於西班牙語而言， 這個問題和答案都不是新的。

They have been bouncing around from century to century

一個世紀接著一個世紀， 它們一直在被討論著。

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

1492 年，安東尼奧德內布里亞 在其所著的第一本

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

西班牙語語法指南中，制定了 清晰且簡單的拼字原則：

"... thus, we have to write words as we pronounce them,

「...因此，我們寫出字詞的方式 必須和讀出它們的方式一樣，

and pronounce words as we write them."

讀出字詞的方式也要 和寫出它們的方式一樣。」

Each sound was to correspond to one letter,

每一個音對應一個字母，

each letter was to represent a single sound,

每一個字母代表單一個音，

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

而那些沒有代表任何音的字母 都應該被刪除。

This approach, the phonetic approach,

這個語音學方法，

which says we have to write words as we pronounce them,

指的是字詞的寫法 應該要依據它們的讀法，

both is and isn't at the root of spelling as we practice it today.

這個方法同時是也不是 我們現今拼字的根源。

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

「是」的原因，是因為 相對於英語、法語及其他語言，

always strongly resisted writing words too differently

西班牙語總是強烈抗拒用 和字詞讀法很不同的方式

to how we pronounce them.

來寫出它們。

But the phonetic approach is also absent today,

但現今，語音學方法也消失了，

because when, in the 18th century, we decided how we would standardize

因為，在十八世紀， 當我們在決定如何將我們的寫法

our writing,

給標準化時，

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

有另一種方法大大影響了那個決定，

It was the etymological approach,

就是詞源學方法，

the one that says we have to write words

這個方法主張，字詞的寫法

according to how they were written in their original language,

應該要根據它們在原始語言中的寫法，

in Latin, in Greek.

比如拉丁語、希臘語。

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

這是為什麼我們的字詞中會有 H， 但 H 卻不用發音；

That's how we have B's and V's that, contrary to what many people believe,

這就是為什麼 B 和 V 這兩字母 在西班牙語的發音是一樣的；

were never differentiated in Spanish pronunciation.

這與許多人的認知相反。

That's how we wound up with G's,

這就是為什麼我們的字詞中會有 G，

that are sometimes aspirated, as in "gente,"

G 有時是送氣音，如 gente（ㄏ），

and other times unaspirated, as in "gato."

其他時候則是不送氣音，如 gato（類似ㄍ）；

That's how we ended up with C's, S's and Z's,

這就是為什麼我們的字詞中 會有 C、S、Z，

three letters that in some places correspond to one sound,

在某些地方，這三個 字母的發音是一樣的。

and in others, to two, but nowhere to three.

在其他地方，會有兩種不同的發音， 但沒有任何地方是有三種不同發音的。

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

我在此要告訴各位的事 各位從自身經驗中其實都能知道。

We all went to school,

我們都曾上過學，

we all invested big amounts of learning time,

我們都曾投資大量時間學習時間、

big amounts of pliant, childlike brain time

許多容易受影響的、兒時的大腦時間

in dictation,

在聽寫上，

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

花在背誦拼字規則， 不過這些規則又存在許多例外，

We were told in many ways, implicitly and explicitly,

我們被以許多方式告知， 或隱誨的或明確的，

that in spelling, something fundamental to our upbringing was at stake.

告知說，拼字中有某種東西 對我們的教養是很重要的。

Yet, I have the feeling

然而，我感覺到

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

連老師都沒有自問過 為什麼拼字這麼重要。

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

事實上，他們也沒自問 再更前面的一個問題：

What is the purpose of spelling?

拼字的目的是什麼？

What do we need spelling for?

我們為什麼需要拼字？

And the truth is, when someone asks themselves this question,

事實是，當有人自問這個問題，

the answer is much simpler and less momentous

答案比我們通常相信的

than we'd usually believe.

要簡單許多且沒那麼重要。

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

我們使用拼字，來統一我們的書寫方式， 這樣我們才能以同樣的方式寫字，

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

使我們在把文字 讀給任何人聽時，更容易理解。

But unlike in other aspects of language such as punctuation,

但不同於語言的其他方面， 如標點符號，

in spelling, there's no individual expression involved.

拼字不會涉及到任何個人表達，

In punctuation, there is.

標點符號就會涉及到。

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

我可以選擇不同的標點符號， 來改變措辭的含義。

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

我可以用標點符號在我寫的文句裡 加入特定的節奏，

but not with spelling.

但是拼寫就無法這樣做。

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

拼寫是對錯分明的，

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

它是否符合目前的規則， 就決定了它的對錯。

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

但，正因如此，把目前的規則 簡化不就很合理嗎？

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

這麼一來，就能更容易正確地 教導、學習、使用拼字，不是嗎？

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

把目前的規則簡化不就很合理嗎？

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

這麼一來，我們就能把現今 所有花在教導拼字的時間，

we could devote to other language issues

用來處理其他的語言問題，

whose complexities do, in fact, deserve the time and effort?

其他那些複雜度真的高到 值得花時間和精力的問題？

What I propose is not to abolish spelling,

我提議的並不是廢除拼字、

and have everyone write however they want.

不是讓大家以自己想要的方式寫字。

Language is a tool of common usage,

語言是一種常用的工具，

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

所以我相信， 遵循共同準則是很重要的。

But I also find it fundamental

但還有一點我也覺得很重要，

that those common criteria be as simple as possible,

就是那些共同準則要越簡單越好，

especially because if we simplify our spelling,

特別是因為，如果我們把拼字簡化，

we're not leveling it down;

並不會讓它變差；

when spelling is simplified,

當拼字被簡化時，

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

語言的品質完全不會受到影響。

I work every day with Spanish Golden Age literature,

我的工作每天要接觸 西班牙黃金時代的文學，

I read Garcilaso, Cervantes, Góngora, Quevedo,

我閱讀加爾西拉索、塞凡提斯、 科多瓦、奎維多的著作，

who sometimes write "hombre" without H,

他們有時候寫 hombre 沒有加 H，

sometimes write "escribir" with V,

他們有時寫 escribir 會用 V 代替 B。

and it's absolutely clear to me

我非常清楚知道，

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

這些文本和我們的文本之間， 差異只是在常規，

or rather, a lack of convention during their time.

或者說，差異是 在他們的時代裡沒有常規。

But it's not a difference of quality.

但文本的品質上並沒有差異。

But let me go back to the masters,

但讓我回到這些大師作家們，

because they're key characters in this story.

因為他們是這個故事中的關鍵人物。

Earlier, I mentioned this slightly thoughtless insistence

先前，我提到了這個 有點缺乏考慮的堅持，

with which teachers pester and pester us

在拼字上，老師們不斷用這種堅持

over spelling.

在灌輸我們。

But the truth is, things being as they are,

但事實是，依照現在的狀況，

this makes perfect sense.

這是完全合理的。

In our society, spelling serves as an index of privilege,

在我們的社會中，拼字的功能 是做為特權的指標，

separating the cultured from the brute, the educated from the ignorant,

將受教化的人與粗鄙的人區別開， 將受過教育的人與無知的人區別開，

independent of the content that's being written.

與寫了什麼內容無關。

One can get or not get a job

一個人是否能得到一份工作，

because of an H that one put or did not.

取決於他拼字會不會漏掉 H。

One can become an object of public ridicule

一個人可能會成為公眾嘲笑的對象，

because of a misplaced B.

只是因為錯置了一個 B。

Therefore, in this context,

因此，在這種情境下，

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

當然，把所有的時間 花在拼字上是合理的。

But we shouldn't forget

但我們不該忘記，

that throughout the history of our language,

貫穿整個語言史，

it has always been teachers

一直都是老師

or people involved in the early learning of language

或較早學習語言的人，

who promoted spelling reforms,

提倡拼字的改革，

who realized that in our spelling there was often an obstacle

他們意識到，用拼字來傳播知識時，

to the transmission of knowledge.

常常會遇到障礙。

In our case, for example,

比如，在我們的例子中，

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

薩米恩托與安德烈斯貝洛 引領了西班牙語史上

to take place in the Spanish language:

最大的拼字改革：

the mid-19th century Chilean reform.

即十九世紀中期的智利安改革。

Then, why not take over the task of those teachers

那麼，為什麼不接繼這些老師的任務，

and start making progress in our spelling?

開始在我們的拼寫上做出進展？

Here, in this intimate group of 10,000,

這裡，在這個融洽的一萬人團體中，

I'd like to bring to the table

我想要提出

some changes that I find reasonable to start discussing.

一些我認為合理的變化， 做為討論的開端。

Let's remove the silent H.

在我們拼字時該寫 H

In places where we write an H but pronounce nothing,

但 H 又不用發音的情況下， 就把不發音的 H 刪除吧，

let's not write anything.

不用發音就不用寫了。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

It's hard for me to imagine what sentimental attachment

我很難想像有什麼感傷的依附

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

可以把不發音的 H 所造成的所有麻煩給正當化。.

B and V, as we said before,

至於 B 和 V，如我們之前所說，

were never differentiated in the Spanish language --

在西班牙語中從來就沒有任何區別…

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Let's choose one; it could be either. We can discuss it, talk it over.

讓我們從中選一個就好，哪一個都可以。 我們可以討論、研究如何選。

Everyone will have their preferences and can make their arguments.

每個人都會有自己的偏好 並可以提出他們的論點。

Let's keep one, remove the other.

讓我們留下其中一個，刪除另一個。

G and J, let's separate their roles.

至於 G 和 J，讓我們分開他們的角色。

G should keep the unaspirated sound, like in "gato," "mago," and "águila,"

G 應該保持不送氣的發音（類似ㄍ）， 像 gato、mago、águila，

and J should keep the aspirated sound,

而 J 應保持送氣的發音（ㄏ），

as in "jarabe," "jirafa," "gente," "argentino."

如 jarabe、jirafa、gente、argentino。

The case of C, S and Z is interesting,

至於 C、S、Z，則很有意思，

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

因為它們的狀況顯示出， 語音學方法是一種指南，

but it can't be an absolute principle.

但並不是絕對的原則。

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

在某些情況下， 發音差異的問題必須要處理。

As I said before, C, S and Z,

如我先前說的，C、S、Z

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

在某些地方會對應到同一個發音， 其他地方則對應兩個發音。

If we go from three letters to two, we're all better off.

如果我們把三個字母縮為兩個， 狀況就會變得比較好。

To some, these changes may seem a bit drastic.

對一些人而言， 這些改變可能看似有些極端，

They're really not.

其實不然。

The Royal Spanish Academy, all of language academies,

西班牙皇家語言學院， 所有的語言學院，

also believes that spelling should be progressively modified;

也都相信拼字應該漸漸修改；

that language is linked to history, tradition and custom,

相信語言與歷史、傳統、習俗相關；

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

但也相信語言亦是日常實用工具，

and that sometimes this attachment to history, tradition and custom

且有時對於歷史、傳統、習俗的依附，

becomes an obstacle for its current usage.

反而會阻礙語言在現今的使用。

Indeed, this explains the fact

的確，這就解釋了

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

比起其他在地理上 鄰近的語言，我們的語言

has been historically modifying itself based on us,

在歷史上一直根據我們而在調整，

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

比如，從 ortographia 改成 ortografía、

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

從 theatro 改成 teatro、 從 quantidad 改成 cantidad、

from "symbolo" to "símbolo."

從 symbolo 改成 símbolo。

And some silent H's are slowly being stealthily removed:

有些不發音的 H 已 不知不覺被刪除了：

in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy,

在皇家學院字典中，

"arpa" and "armonía" can be written with or without an H.

「arpa」及「armonía」的拼字方式， 可以加 H 也可以不加 H，

And everybody is OK.

且大家都沒異議。

I also believe

我也相信，

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

現在是特別適合討論這一點的時候，

It's always said that language changes spontaneously,

人們總是說，語言改變是自發性的，

from the bottom up,

由基層開始向上改變，

that its users are the ones who incorporate new words

新字詞是由使用者納入的，

and who introduce grammatical changes,

也是他們制定了文法的改變，

and that the authority -- in some places an academy,

而當權機關…在某些地方是學院，

in others a dictionary, in others a ministry --

在其他地方可能是字典或政府部門，

accepts and incorporates them long after the fact.

於這些改變發生很久之後， 接受並納入了它們。

This is true only for some levels of language.

這點只在語言的某些層面上才成立，

It is true on the lexical level, the level of words.

在詞彙和字詞的層面上 都是成立的，

It is less true on the grammatical level,

在語法文法層面上就不見得了，

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

且我會說，在拼字層面上 幾乎是不成立的，

that has historically changed from the top down.

在歷史上，拼字改變是從高層向下，

Institutions have always been the ones to establish the rules

規則向來是由機構來建立，

and propose changes.

改變也是由它們來提出。

Why do I say this is a particularly appropriate moment?

為什麼我會說現在是特別適合的時候？

Until today,

直到今天，

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

和說話相比，書寫的使用 一直都比較嚴格且私人。

But in our time, the age of social networks,

但在我們的時代，社交網路的時代，

this is going through a revolutionary change.

革命性的改變正在發生。

Never before have people written so much;

過去人們從來沒有寫這麼多的文字，

never before have people written for so many others to see.

過去人們從來沒有寫給這麼人看。

And in these social networks, for the first time,

在這些社交網路上，我們

we're seeing innovative uses of spelling on a large scale,

第一次見到大規模的創新拼音，

where even more-than-educated people with impeccable spelling,

甚至教育程度極高、 在拼字上無懈可擊的人，

when using social networks,

在使用社交網路時，

behave a lot like the majority of users of social networks behave.

行為舉止也會和社交網路的 大部份使用者一樣。

That is to say, they slack on spell-checking

也就是說，他們在 拼字檢查上也是懈怠的，

and prioritize speed and efficacy in communication.

在溝通上比較重視速度和功效。

For now, on social networks, we see chaotic, individual usages.

現在，在社交網路上，我們 看到很混亂、很個別化的用法。

But I think we have to pay attention to them,

我認為我們應該要多留意這些用法，

because they're probably telling us

因為它們可能就是在告訴我們，

that an era that designates a new place for writing

這個時代有著全新的地方 讓我們書寫文字，

seeks new criteria for that writing.

這類的書寫需要新的準則。

I think we'd be wrong to reject them, to discard them,

我認為，基於認定這些用法是

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

文化衰敗的症狀， 而拒絕、拋棄它們是不對的。

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

不，我認為我們必須在 更符合我們時代的指導原則下，

within guidelines that better correspond to the needs of our times.

來觀察、組織、傳遞它們。

I can anticipate some objections.

我預期會有反對的聲音。

There will be those who'll say

會有人說如果

that if we simplify spelling we'll lose etymology.

把拼字簡化，我們就會失去詞源。

Strictly speaking, if we wanted to preserve etymology,

嚴格來說，如果我們想保有詞源，

it would go beyond just spelling.

那不該是只在拼字上努力，

We'd also have to learn Latin, Greek, Arabic.

我們也得學習拉丁語、 希臘語、阿拉伯語。

With simplified spelling,

當拼字被簡化之後，

we would normalize etymology in the same place we do now:

我們還是會在跟現在 同樣的地方將詞源標準化：

in etymological dictionaries.

那地方就是詞源字典。

A second objection will come from those who say:

第二種反對的意見會是：

"If we simplify spelling, we'll stop distinguishing

「如果把拼字簡化， 我們將會不再能區別

between words that differ in just one letter."

那些只差一個字母的字詞。」

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

的確如此，但那不是問題。

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

我們的語言中有很多字詞 都是一字多義，

yet we don't confuse the "banco" where we sit

但我們不會把我們坐的「長凳（banco）」

with the "banco" where we deposit money,

跟我們存錢的「銀行（banco）」搞混；

or the "traje" that we wear with the things we "trajimos."

也不會把我們穿的「衣服（traje）」 跟「穿（trajimos）」的動作搞混。

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

在大部分的情況， 前後文可以協助釐清任何混淆。

But there's a third objection.

但還有第三種反對意見。

To me,

對我而言，

it's the most understandable, even the most moving.

這種反對是最可以理解， 甚至是最感人的。

It's the people who'll say: "I don't want to change.

那些反對的人會說：「我不想改變。

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

我就是這樣長大的， 我習慣用這種方式，

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

當我讀到用簡化拼字寫的文字， 就覺得眼睛好痛。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

我們所有的人可能 內在都有這種抗拒。

What do I think we should do?

你認為我們應該怎麼做？

The same thing that's always done in these cases:

跟我們在這類情況下通常會做的一樣：