“This is a plenary session that the thirds of Flanders threaten with long knives.” This was predicted by an academic a few hours before the meeting that is held every Thursday at the Royal Spanish Academy. It was not be for lowerly. For a week the famous affair of the tilde in only it had ceased to be a boring thing for philologists to become almost a national debate that once again divided a country well accustomed to passionate discussions. Therefore, how could there not be a battle within those walls of number 1 Academy Street between the defenders of the accent -the writers, with a enthusiastic Arturo Pérez-Reverte at the helm (on Twitter) – and those who defended removing it (lexicographers and those who reflect the most on the language). In the end, she had to leave Santiago Munoz Machadoits director, to declare the final winner: “Today a plenary session was held that dealt with this matter, but there has not been a new discussion. The agreement of the previous plenary session is recorded, the meaning of that agreement has been collected, and the minutes of the past plenary session have been unanimously approved today”. Therefore, the philologists win. Last week this minute had been approved by consensus because an academic (Muñoz Machado has not given his name) ran against it. Today they have all ratified it.
The solo is only (or not) had been hogging headlines since last March 2 when, after another plenary session, the news broke: the adverb only (equivalent to only) could take tilde (and be careful because this conditional is important) as well as the demonstrative pronouns this one and that one, with its feminine and plural, when in the opinion of the writer (another important nuance) there is a risk of ambiguity. That is to say, according to what was said on Thursday the 2nd, the thing remained that if one checked the only (when it means only) wasn’t a misspelling, but it wasn’t if I chose not to check it either. The nuances seemed to change everything because it was left to the judgment of the one who wrote.
What was approved this Thursday is this wording. “The possibility of ticking when there was a risk of ambiguity was already there before. The problem was who decides the ambiguity, if the teacher or the writer. The change attributes to the writer if there is ambiguity or not. In contexts where there is a risk of ambiguity, the tilde can be used if the writer expresses the ambiguity. With this, the academy resolves an internal criticism and an external controversy”, said the director. Muñoz Machado has insisted that “nobody has given their arm to twist because grammarians and writers have accepted that this paragraph (that of deciding who is responsible for the ambiguity) is sufficient to satisfy their claims. There has been no winner. There have been no winners and losers.” However, he has also made it clear that the norm is not changed with respect to what was voted last week and what is in the 2010 Spelling. What changes is the wording of the standard. “Everyone is satisfied with the fact that there is a modification of the wording of the norm. Last week some academic considered that it was a modification of the norm and not a modification of the wording of the norm. And today the plenary session has decided that it is a modification of the drafting of the standard”, has confirmed the director.
When the news broke last week, the writers -and not a few journalists- were very enthusiastic as it seemed that the accent was back on the alone (only). Not so much the philologists (especially the lexicographers) who had bitterly argued the suitability of not branding this word. As it is not branded anymore this, that, that or other words like script and rogue.
But the truth is that there was not so much news behind it. The decision to remove that tilde -like the script- had been carried out in 2010 with the edition of the Spelling of the Spanish Language that had been in charge of Salvador Gutiérrez. However, as was also stated in that edition of the Ortografía, the norm indicated that if you wanted to mark it alone, no misspelling would be produced. As collected in the information that appeared that 2010, “In the new edition, which the Espasa publishing house will publish before Christmas in all Spanish-speaking countries, a further step is taken in the decision, adopted years ago, not to label the adverb only nor demonstrative pronouns, even in cases of possible ambiguity (‘I go to the movies alone’), but he does not condemn their use if someone wants to use the tilde”. In short, if someone wanted to brand, they were not being irreverent either.
The controversy had come because it was remembered that that tilde had been a penalty in exams. In fact, the writer Soledad Puertolas He told this newspaper that “the key has been the penalty. The last formulation on the accentuation of the adverb only it was very punitive. The creators, of course, have continued to do what they want, because a creator is always free to do so. But the Orthography of 2010 was, however, conditioning the career of many young people, who when taking exams were harmed by putting the check mark to only”.
The RAE came out to calm the waters that some academics wanted to water down and insist that nothing had changed compared to 2010
However, the RAE itself went out the next day to calm the waters that some academics wanted to water down and insist that nothing had changed compared to 2010. The institution argued that “it remains mandatory” not to mark the adverb only and the demonstrative administrative pronouns “when there is no risk of ambiguity”. In addition, in a second explanation, the RAE insisted that “the option to mark these words or not when there is a risk of ambiguity is maintained” and the expression “in the opinion of the writer” was introduced so that the writer can assess “if there is ambiguity or not.
For his part, Arturo Pérez-Reverte had continued with his speech and he had even made Muñoz Machado ugly on Twitter: “Nothing new is added”? “Will you have to justify it”? I’m sorry to say that the RAE, led by an anti-tildista academic, is giving biased and inaccurate information.”
Today the verdict has finally been announced and Muñoz Machado has indicated that after a plenary session from which he has emerged “safe and sound”, “it is not a modification of the rules or of the wording of the rules. The will of the academy has not been to modify the norm but to clarify it. This is the decision”. He also wanted to state that an academic asked him to say that there was a confusion in communications to the public through tweets last week, “but what the academy agreed on was the text that has been available since last Thursday and that is what which has been ratified today”.
Arturo Pérez-Reverte did not want to make statements at the exit of the plenary. When asked by journalists about the matter, he only said: “I have no idea, I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“This is a plenary session that the thirds of Flanders threaten with long knives.” This was predicted by an academic a few hours before the meeting that is held every Thursday at the Royal Spanish Academy. It was not be for lowerly. For a week the famous affair of the tilde in only it had ceased to be a boring thing for philologists to become almost a national debate that once again divided a country well accustomed to passionate discussions. Therefore, how could there not be a battle within those walls of number 1 Academy Street between the defenders of the accent -the writers, with a enthusiastic Arturo Pérez-Reverte at the helm (on Twitter) – and those who defended removing it (lexicographers and those who reflect the most on the language). In the end, she had to leave Santiago Munoz Machadoits director, to declare the final winner: “Today a plenary session was held that dealt with this matter, but there has not been a new discussion. The agreement of the previous plenary session is recorded, the meaning of that agreement has been collected, and the minutes of the past plenary session have been unanimously approved today”. Therefore, the philologists win. Last week this minute had been approved by consensus because an academic (Muñoz Machado has not given his name) ran against it. Today they have all ratified it.
