warning to the University not to lend its support to this ‘New School’. The views of the memorandum are the views of the subcommittee’s report and its classification of forms is practically the classification adopted by the sub-committee.
6. When he moved resolution 6 of the 2 of August, Mr. Lakshmana Row expressed solicitude to adhere to the letter of the Syndicate’s reference. But in framing these lists, he disregarded the spirit of the Syndicate’s reference and the instructions conveyed in resolutions 2 and 3 of the Committee. The majority report clearly states that “the Sub-Committee have classified the grammatical forms into archaic and cuffent.” By grammatical Mr. Lakshmana Row means conforming to the grammar of the old literary dialect. Here his memorandum comes to our help. There he says, “when I say grammar and grammatical forms I mean the traditional grammar of the Telugu Language and the forms sanctioned by it and employed by modern popular prose writers like Kandukuri Veeresalingam Pantulu and Lakshminarasimham”.
7. So the majority of the Sub-Committee have dealt only with forms which have been employed by a certain school of contemporary prose writers to which they belong, and forms which have the sanction of ‘traditional grammar.’ They ignored the second part of Prof. Ranga Chariar’s amendment which extended the classification to the polite speech prevailing among the educated Telugu people; and they gave a restricted meaning to the word, literature in the first part.
8. The Sub-Committee was required to classify forms into current and archaic. The currency or archaic character of any form is a question of fact, and facts are not altered by individual prejudices or predilections. In the majority report there is no discussion of facts. Both Mr. Venkataraya Sastriar and Mr.
