The consultants of the CVC declare our point of view to the rest of
the members of the CVC:
We consider that the text presented by the Board to the CVC does not
constitute a judgement but a political negotiation. It neither represents a
consensus nor a linguistic pact, because the institutions implicitly
representative of the two linguistic positions have neither arrived to a
situation of an agreement nor to a minimal approximation of judgement.
The request of the Valencian Parliament tried to find out a solution to the
Valencian linguistic conflict, we supposed (and this point was widely assumed)
that the CVC would do an effective analysis and diagnosis of this conflict.
But, paradoxically, this analysis, completely necessary to the credibility of
the report, has systematically been boycotted and it has not even been started
yet. More over, arguing that the CVC members were not specialized in issues of
History, Philology, Grammar, or Linguistic. These "scientific and historical"
elements in which the request of the CVC specified the basis of the report have
been excluded without any kind of debate, not even in one of the capital
questions: the effective existence of a differential structure of our Valencian
language that, supposedly, explains the conclusions of the final report.
We want to clarify, however, that from the first moment of the process, we have
been proposing elements of scientific reflection (linguistic or historical) and
providing the necessary information without getting any acceptance on a debate
over these terms.
With these antecedents, the text presented does not response to the request of
the Valencian Parliament of the 17th September 1997, but it is an agreement
without content, and orientated to satisfy the political interest of the
creation of a new normative institution. This decision already taken before
the request was made.
We think that the validity of an authentic report depends on the following
- That, scientifically, the report should refer to the specific linguistic
system known historically as Valencian language; the report should recognize
to be based in the native linguistic code of the actual Valencian people;
never in an odd code strange to the particular evolution of our Valencian
That, socially, the report should make a reference to the general linguistic
awareness of Valencian language users, manifested through a reliable diagnostic
mechanisms; no by external, partials, confusing, and manipulating pressures.
- That, the report should deeply refer to debate over all the important
questions (norm, language, idiomatic records, linguistic awareness, synchronic
grammar, native code, substitutive code, etc) that, it is no possible to avoid
their discussion if it really helps for a definitive clarification of the
problem. But, we consider that on the basis of a confusing definition, the
voiding reference to a differential system and the forced proposal of a
regulatory organism without conceptual conditions, the Valencian people will
loss all the future guarantees of respect and preservation of the authentic
Valencian language, which the Valencian people are the only owner and heir.
Finally, we consider that the creation of a new normative linguistic
institution does not solve in any case the problem which the CVC was asked
for to study, and we reject by these reasons:
- For the illogical replacement of the unique institution legitimated to
codify the Valencian language; the ¨Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana¨, a
centenary institution with the same functions that other normative academies
in their domain territories;
- Because, proposing the creation of a new institution, the CVC limits
itself to transfer all the debate and solution of a problem that it has not
been studied neither resolved.
- Because it is difficult to understand that these people and institutions,
who explicitly deny the specific existence of the Valencian language, could
compose a normative institution of a language in which they do not clearly
For these reasons, after putting all of our energies to drive this process
in the unique way that we consider valid, and knowing the content of the
proposal of the definitive judgement, we express our negative vote asking for
this reasonable explanation to attach this vote to the judgement.