Lakshmana Row had, no doubt, opposed the second resolution; but I presume, Prof. Ranga Chariar hoped that the members of the Sub-Committee would loyally attempt to give effect to the 2nd resolution laying aside, for a moment, their allegiance to opinions to which they were committed in the past, or to their literary work which was moulded on those opinions. But it was only natural and right that the majority of the Sub-Committee gave expression and effect to their own convictions.
9. It was equally natural that they should cast about to find some justification for their procedure. They resorted to the expedient of reading the 4th resolution into the 3rd resolution, and so reading, they hoped to be absolved from all obligation to admit into their classification polite spoken forms which do not conform to ‘accepted grammar.’
10. The third resolution clearly defined the scope of the Sub Committee’s work which was to “prepare a list of archaic and current forms” in accordance with the second resolution and there is no mention in it of the 4th resolution. The 4th resolution was brought up after the 3rd resolution had passed, and if the former were meant to regulate the classification set forth in the 2nd resolution, Prof. Ranga Chariar, who moved the 4th resolution, would have introduced into it a clause to that effect. As I can understand it, the 4th resolution has application only to slang and other similar forms; that is, to non-polite forms which may be described by the Sanskrit word అసభ్య. If, on the other hand, it was meant to exclude all forms except Mr. Lakshmana Rao’s ‘grammatical forms,’ then the 2nd clause of Prof. Ranga Chariar’s amendment to the 2nd resolution would be purposeless.
But as I have shown above, the meaning of the 2nd resolution is abundantly clear, and any attempt to get round it must fail. The form ‘వస్తాడు’ which Prof. Ranga Chariar instanced as an
