The ’tilde war’ is accentuated in the RAE: the two sides face each other again for ‘only’

by time news

It seemed that the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) had put an end, thirteen years later, to the battle that has faced academic lexicographers and writers for the use of the tilde ‘only’ when it is synonymous with ‘only’. But the truce, that “possible agreement” that some academics celebrated for the decriminalization of “only”, has barely lasted 24 hours. The writer and member of the RAE Arturo PĂ©rez-Reverte exploded yesterday against the way in which the institution communicated that the next Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts will collect this question: «I am sorry to say that @RAEinforma, directed by an anti-tildista academic [en referencia al lexicĂłgrafo Salvador GutiĂ©rrez Ordóñez ], is giving biased and inaccurate information. In the writer’s opinion, the plenary session of the RAE approved on Thursday “an important modification” that revokes what is established by the Spelling of 2010, and not only a wording change to clarify the norm, as the institution officially maintained yesterday. “Next Thursday’s plenary session will be stormy,” PĂ©rez-Reverte advanced. Desktop Code “Nothing new is added”? “You will have to justify it”? I’m sorry to say that @RAEinforma, run by an anti-tildista academic, is giving biased and inaccurate information. Yesterday, the plenary session of the RAE approved an important modification. Next Thursday’s plenary session will be stormy. pic.twitter.com/5DYLCaQn9u— Arturo PĂ©rez-Reverte (@perezreverte) March 3, 2023 Image for mobile, amp and app Mobile code “Nothing new is added”? “Will you have to justify it”? I’m sorry to say that @RAEinforma, run by an anti-tildista academic, is giving biased and inaccurate information. Yesterday, the plenary session of the RAE approved an important modification. Next Thursday’s plenary session will be stormy. pic.twitter.com/5DYLCaQn9u— Arturo PĂ©rez-Reverte (@perezreverte) March 3, 2023 AMP Code “Nothing new is added”? “Will you have to justify it”? I’m sorry to say that @RAEinforma, run by an anti-tildista academic, is giving biased and inaccurate information. Yesterday, the plenary session of the RAE approved an important modification. Next Thursday’s plenary session will be stormy. pic.twitter.com/5DYLCaQn9u— Arturo PĂ©rez-Reverte (@perezreverte) March 3, 2023 APP Code “Nothing new is added”? “Will you have to justify it”? I’m sorry to say that @RAEinforma, run by an anti-tildista academic, is giving biased and inaccurate information. Yesterday, the plenary session of the RAE approved an important modification. Next Thursday’s plenary session will be stormy. pic.twitter.com/5DYLCaQn9u— Arturo PĂ©rez-Reverte (@perezreverte) March 3, 2023 The war drums sound again between the two souls that live together in the RAE (once again cheered by viral hunters, columnists and tweeters who have turned the word ‘only’ into a crusade). On one side, the writers, led by PĂ©rez-Reverte, supporters of the tilde and, even more, that they are the ones who set the tone of the language; on the other, the lexicographers, headed by GutiĂ©rrez Ordóñez, guardians of orthographic orthodoxy. The novelist, in statements to ABC, explained yesterday that these two souls often clash at the Academy because lexicographers are “language technicians.” They are more concerned with the anatomy of words, the mechanism of language, than with efficacy. «And we writers tell things, we use language to tell stories. We have to be effective. I need efficiency, not theories. For me, a tilde or a semicolon are effective ways to tell what I want to tell ». GutiĂ©rrez Ordóñez, director of the School of Hispanic Lexicography and coordinator of Spelling and the New Basic Grammar of 2010, for his part, pointed out through the communication department of the RAE that what the plenary session on Thursday approved was “a more clara”, and not so much a “modification” that will be published in the next edition of PanhispĂĄnico, a work that answers the most common doubts raised by the use of Spanish, whose only edition dates back to 2005. The approved wording is the following: a) It is mandatory to write the adverb ‘only’ without tilde in contexts where its use does not entail a risk of ambiguity. b) It is optional to label the adverb ‘only’ in contexts where, in the opinion of the writer, its use entails a risk of ambiguity. Related News standard No The RAE rectifies and returns the accent to only thirteen years later JesĂșs GarcĂ­a Calero standard No PĂ©rez-Reverte attacks the RAE for denying the rectification of the accent on only ABC In addition to this, the RAE, on its Twitter profile , published that “if the speaker perceives that there is a risk of ambiguity and writes that tilde, he will have to justify it”. “Where do you have to do it, in a footnote to a novel?” asks PĂ©rez-Reverte. None of this was agreed upon in plenary session and the Docta Casa did not officially say anything to this newspaper. The novelty, with respect to the Spelling of 2010, is that the “judgment of the writer” prevails. As the lexicographer and academic Pedro Álvarez de Miranda defended in an article, in 2010 “the siege of those accents was tightened even more” and the Academy was “one step away from prohibiting all accents” in words like ‘only’: “Until it would be said that he wanted to give it. But he doesn’t get to do it.” Although the RAE continued to allow use of it in case of ambiguity, the somewhat confusing wording of the latest OrtografĂ­a caused the thirteen-year revolt of the ‘solotildistas’, which on Thursday had been closed with a possible agreement between academics that will allow writers to use ‘only’ without suspicion of incorrectness weighing on them. Clarity This is what the film director and academic Manuel GutiĂ©rrez AragĂłn believes: «I have always believed that, whatever the solution, it had to be clear for the user of the language. The new explanation achieves this: it can be branded in some cases and the fact of doing so is not disapproved ». GutiĂ©rrez AragĂłn considers that this agreement will be good, for example, for those who want to appear in an opposition, where they could be suspended for incorrect use. Soledad PuĂ©rtolas, writer and academic, adds that this will also give security to the educational system, since it will not be possible to lower grades for ‘solotildista’ students: «I, as a creator, feel free. Creation is a territory of absolute freedom. But this does open up the possibility of something being distressed. It’s fine to leave things as they were in the 1999 rule, which left it to the discretion of the user.” Indeed, the OrtografĂ­a of 1999 indicated that ‘only’, “when the writer perceives a risk of ambiguity, he will carry an orthographic accent in his adverbial use”. Examples: “I will spend this summer alone here (‘alone, without company’)” / “I will spend only this summer here (‘alone, only’)”. This is what the OrtografĂ­a of 1959 already said. Contrary to what has been thought for decades -and contrary to what has been taught in schools-, it was not mandatory to mark ‘only’ when it was synonymous with ‘only’ . «The word ‘solo’, in adverbial function, may carry an orthographic accent if with this an amphibology is to be avoided», said the norm of half of the last century. And yet, the PanhispĂĄnico of 2005 established that the tilde should be used “compulsorily” in adverbial use. A mess that, according to InĂ©s FernĂĄndez Ordóñez, a linguist and academic at the RAE, would be avoided if the accent was never used. «I don’t use the tilde, I don’t see it as necessary. The most logical thing is to delete it for consistency with the spelling» InĂ©s FernĂĄndez Ordóñez Linguist «I don’t use the accent, I don’t think it’s necessary. The most logical thing is to delete it for consistency with the spelling rules. But if there are people who consider that sometimes it is necessary, go ahead. Now the option already existing in 2010 is written more clearly -putting it in cases of ambiguity-, but I consider that it would only be necessary in very extreme situations”, says FernĂĄndez Ordóñez, who assures that the easiest way to resolve those doubts that some academics raise about the penalty to the students it would be fixed not putting it. And she argues that this may raise doubts in other uses. For example, with the word ‘lento’: «Juan was slow» (verb to be, I use as an adjective) / «Juan was slow» (verb to go, slow as an adverb, slowly. According to the rule of ‘only’, this second example should be labeled ‘slow’). But there are even academics who think that the RAE has fallen short in the new wording. This is the case of JosĂ© Manuel SĂĄnchez Ron, scientific historian and deputy director of the Docta Casa: «What has been approved is progress in the sense that it does not penalize those who decide to remove the adverb, but from my point of view I am not satisfied. It must be marked in all cases when it is used as an adverb. Do everything possible to avoid ambiguity of words. In science there are cases in which ambiguities can invalidate a theory. Also, I think that students will always take the easiest path, and this is an impoverishment of the language». JosĂ© Manuel SĂĄnchez Ron “What has been approved is progress in the sense that it does not penalize those who decide to remove the adverb, but from my point of view I am not satisfied” Historian of science In any case, in the background of In this controversy there is a more important question: to whom does the language belong: to the writers or to the scientists of the language? PĂ©rez-Reverte is clear about it. «This goes beyond the tilde. It will happen more times. Lexicographers are now proposing to write ‘balĂ©’ instead of ‘ballet’. No normal writer is going to use a word that the reader has perfectly assumed, even if it is a word of French origin. The rules that lexicographers try to establish for the language do not always coincide with the real needs that a writer has when he uses the language ». Otherwise, who should have the last word: Vargas Llosa or a linguist? PĂ©rez-Reverte is clear: Vargas Llosa. DarĂ­o Villanueva, director of the RAE between 2014 and 2018, prefers to be more contemplative: «The resolution we have taken represents very well the collective thinking of an academy where there are people of different origins. From different positions, academics have arrived at a formulation that is neither revolutionary nor groundbreaking at all. Simply, an issue that seemed to have been obscured and confused among public opinion is clarified. It would be shameful if this meant the formation of factions in an entity of such prestige. The Academy is one and the objective of the work is one; and to it we contribute as much the linguists and philologists as the poets, playwrights and novelists». The swords, held high The RAE, it is clear, is a living organism, and the enormous interest aroused by the return of ‘only’ proves it. “In plenary session, the subject was reborn, which had been somewhat forgotten,” says JosĂ© MarĂ­a Merino, an academic due to his status as a writer. When it makes sense, then it is put, and if not, it is not put». In his opinion, he is going to end up imposing the use without accents: «I have some books from the early 19th century and everything had accents. They have been disappearing.” All this noise affects Merino little. “I’m going to keep using it when I think it’s necessary to use it,” says he-he, and if I’m wrong I’ll have a great proofreader to correct it for me. All these sensitivities will collide again next Thursday in the RAE plenary session. Will the agreement reached continue in force? The swords are on high.

You may also like

Leave a Comment