Thorny problems and big misunderstandings

Fleet the idea that the language is in danger. The postulation seems reckless and a little paranoid. This error is due to the unprecedented plasticity that the written word knows in smartphones, tablets and social networks. Product of a technological revolution of great acceleration, these contortions represent however no danger. We are simply before new uses, and even if many of them are errors from a grammatical, syntactical or orthographic point of view, and it must be emphasized, the truth is that it is a current linked to temporary and temporary devices: we will have to see how far this reach remains to see what are the perennial metamorphoses of our language. This, far from being immutable, it changes, adapts to the time and is constantly growing.

For the moment, we can observe a strong progression of orality, which corresponds not only to the Internet, but also to the vast audiovisual culture, which has become strongly established in recent decades against traditional graphic culture. The oral language permeates the written language. And digital writing then adopts a certain informality and relativisation in terms of rules and errors. We usually write about solid materials. Today, we do it on liquid materials: the digital then allows a certain
freedom (a lightness) because it has a temporary sense, it de-dramatizes the precision. And that, it seems to me, is negative, especially with regard to journalism and the veracity of the facts in a democracy that needs the hard and true truth. Before, an error in a diary or an errata in a book was a tragedy. Today, with digital culture, this gravity has diminished. All this degrades the press and, therefore, a little language. For the rest, worrying about the tricks of instant communication (linguistic economy, abbreviations, neologisms, symbols and emojis) or their transformation into a new language seems just as imprudent and premature. I insist: today, we find something modern and innovative that, in two years, could be anachronistic.

Just as I think schools need to modernize, because conventional tools are obsolete, I believe that orthodoxy of language should be taught in the same way as mathematics, without shortcuts or condescensions. Learning to think is a fundamental teaching. In the world of work, good grammar, careful expression and excellent spelling are needed. And on the territory of networks and romantic relationships, curiously too: sometimes a woman evaluates an appointment according to the prose of her candidate. A misspelling or syntactical record seems as insurmountable as an explosion. This is not an everyday affair is anecdotal; Always writing well is even more important than we think.

Another controversial element is the one called
inclusive language. Whoever writes a dictionary collects popular speech. A dictionary is a compendium of these consolidated expressions. That is, ripe fruits are harvested from the bottom up. People work their language and the notary emphasizes it. To claim an ideology, however positive, to impose this language from top to bottom and to want it to be indoctrinated in a dictionary or an academy goes against academic methodology and meaning. common. The egalitarian revolution is one of the good news of today's world, and if ever the so-called
inclusive language he becomes mbadive, the dictionary will gather his words. Now, if we yield to this suggestion today, lobbyists may feel empowered to impose their own language. Dictionaries would no longer be a collection of reality, but a product of simple offers. The Córdoba Language Congress, which will place Argentina in a global window, will be very important to discuss all these issues face to face.

(*) The author is a member of the Argentine Academy of Letters.