Talk:Real Academia Española
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. |
Contents |
[edit] Confusion about wording
- For instance in 1994 it ruled that the Spanish consonants ch and ll would be alphabetized normally, and not as separate letters as in the past.
I find this sentence incredibly confusing. The most obvious interpretation, for me, of normally would be placing ch after cz and ll after lz, as I learned to do it a few years ago when I took Spanish (and I can only assume most of the native Spanish speakers learned to do as well). The most obvious interpretation, for me, of as separate letters would be that c and h are separate letters, resulting in placing ch after cg. Only the phrase in the past hints that the situation is in fact the exact opposite of the one I would have otherwise surmised. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone agree? Can we think of a better way to say this? 66.32.73.115 01:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Where are you from? What the author was saying was that the entity 'ch' was thought of as a (1) letter. A single letter. If it weren't a separate letter, its parts would fall into the normal alphabetical order of the dictionary. As a separate letter, it had its own place after the letter c. Don't let the fact that the letter 'ch' was composed of two characters confuse you. The same goes for 'll'. --Djacobs 18:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is a quite logical and reasonable confusion. That isn't a terminology in general use. And it isn't essential to characterize it as being "one letter" in order to alphabetize it as if it were. Gene Nygaard 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non neutrality
I find this article to be a little bit non neutral and certain statements, just like the one that says that its goal is "to assure that Spanish speakers will always be able to read Cervantes". It does not have any documentation or reference.
On the other hand, I am a native spanish speaker from Latin America and I have never perceived that it receives criticism from us for being too conservative. People just talk the way they want to as long as we understand ourselves no matter what the dictionary says; even though we recognize when we are not speaking in a correct manner.
It looks to me the article is incomplete and needs revision. A good source to add a few things (even though that isn't a really complete article either) is the spanish version of the article. Dominican 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Connotation of the English translation of "fija".
I changed the translation of the motto "Limpia, fija y da esplendor", from '[The academy] cleans, fixes and gives splendor' to 'cleans steadies and gives splendor' because in English, the verb "to fix" can mean either to fix something which is incorrect or to fix something which is not anchored. The latter is a more accurate interpretation of the Spanish use of "fija". NichCharles 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've checked this with a friend who is a linguist in Spain and whose native language is Spanish. I asked her what the motto meant in English, and she says that "fija" in that motto means "it settles" or "it establishes", which sounds more precise in English than "steadies" or "affixes". (Also, as hinted to above: the verb "fijar" never means "to correct" or "to repair" like "to fix" does in English. "Fijar" always means "to fix in place" as in "to nail down".) --Closeapple 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification on purpose and recognition
I am commenting here because of a minor heated debate in the "Spanish Language" discussion page (don't know if any of the same folks read this discussion as well). There has been some debate about the role of the RAE with regard to the Spanish language which this article does not directly address. It occurs to me that it is worth addressing this (or at least more acknowledge the controversy).
The debate is basically how widely the RAE's authority extends in defining the language. That is to say, is it fair to say that the RAE's definition of Spanish is considered the "correct language" by the majority of the Spanish-speaking world or is it more fair to say that the RAE defines a standard that is recognized as only applying to a minority of the Spanish-speaking populous. The article seems to imply the former but does not directly answer the question.
One particular reason to ask this question is so as to answer the following question. When writing about the contemporary Spanish language in general, is it more appropriate to write about the RAE standard and mention the colloquial dialects (as presumably the RAE would recommend) or is it more appropriate to write about the colloquial use of the language and mention the RAE as one attempt at standardization (as usually is done with English since there is no well established standard)? --Mcorazao 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is actually more complicated than that. For things like including words in the Diccionario de la Lengua, the RAE sends word suggestions to the national academies for approval/comments before including them. On the other hand, for things like ortography and semantics they tend to be rather more prescriptive, though they do note local variants when it is pertinent to do so. Finally, the RAE also tends to update their own manuals to reflect (more or less) current usage of the language so in that sense it is also descriptive. Then you also have to consider the role of the national academies... I know this doesn't really answer your question, but hopefully will help you realize this is not a black/white situation. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
