The RAE faces a “tumultuous” plenary session this Thursday following the “solo” tilde controversy

The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) will hold its usual plenary meeting today with academics who sIt’s expected to be “stormy,” as writer Arturo Pérez-Reverte predicted last weekbecause of the controversy that arose over the tilde with the adverb ‘solo’.

As reported by Europa Press, last week, after the plenary session, the RAE clarified that it used the adverb ‘solo’, as well as the demonstrative pronouns ‘este’, ‘ese’ and ‘aquel’, with their feminine and plural expressions. it can only be used in contexts where the writer perceives a risk of ambiguity, according to cultural institution sources for Europa Press.

With that, the plenary session “unanimously” accepted the new wording, which will be published in the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts (DPD), which “does not modify the norm, but makes it clearer”, said the mentioned sources.

So, The RAE explained that “it is mandatory not to place the emphasis if there is no ambiguity” and that it is “optional” put it in a context where the person writing sees the risk of ambiguity.

In the latest update to the general rules on accentuation, the RAE pointed out that the word ‘solo’, both when it is an adverb and is equivalent to only when it is an adjective; Like the demonstratives ‘este’, ‘ese’ and ‘aquel’, with their feminine and plural forms, whether they act as pronouns or determiners, they must not have an accent mark, because they are two-syllable words. ends in a vowel or in ‘-s’; well, in the case of the first one, because it is acute and ends in a consonant other than ‘n’ or ‘s’.

In addition, in another explanation, the RAE insisted that “the possibility of marking or not marking these words should be retained when there is a risk of ambiguity” and the phrase “in the opinion of the writer” was introduced so that the writer could assess “if there is ambiguity or not.

Therefore, he emphasized that the speaker “will have to justify” the use of the tilde if he sees a risk of ambiguity”. “The norm leaves the possibility that neither the adverb ‘only’ nor the administrative pronouns are ever marked, which is most desirable,” they pointed out on social networks.

However, this clarification received a response from the writer and academic Arturo Pérez-Reverte, accusing the RAE of providing “biased and inaccurate” information with the plenary decision.

The journalist, as he criticized in a message on social networks, questioned the RAE’s arguments in explaining the use of emphasis, where they repeated that what was approved at the plenary session on March 2 “does not change” the doctrine of “spelling” from 2010 and even is its use expressed “in a clearer way”.

In this context, Pérez-Reverte described the RAE’s explanations on Twitter. »”Nothing new added”? Will he have to justify himself? I regret to say that the RAE, directed by an anti-Tildis academic, provides biased and incorrect information,” said the writer, later clarifying that he was not referring to the director of the institution, but Santiago Munoz Machado.

In addition, the former correspondent insisted that the RAE had “approved an important amendment” regarding the emphasis on ‘solo’ at its last plenary session, noting that the next plenary session would be “tumultuous”.