words ‘from’ and ‘be classified.” The same amendment was proposed by Mr. G. Venkataranga Row and seconded by Mr. V. Venkataraya Sastri at the meeting of the 2nd of August, fortified by the additional clause “it being understood that no form not sanctioned by literary usage be permitted”. In fact, the second resolution as modified by Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu’s amendment was one of the draft resolutions, which Mr. G. Venkataranga Row placed before the reconstituted committee on the first day of its meeting.
4. The language of Prof. M. Ranga Chariar’s amendment was clear, and the speech with which he introduced it, left no room for doubt. He mentioned 'వస్తాడు' (Vastadu) as an instance of “polite speech prevailing among the educated Telugu people.’ The very fact that Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu’s amendment was lost showed that the sense of the Committee was against the exclusion of all polite forms, which did not conform to the grammar of the literary dialect or the usage of the poets.
5. As Prof. M. Ranga Chariar explained to the committee, the Syndicate felt that the literary dialect in each of the principal Dravidian Languages had diverged too far from polite speech and thought it desirable to bring them closer together by ‘fixing if possible a standard of colloquiality’ in vernacular composition. Committees were constituted to carry out this object. As defined by the Syndicate, “to seek to establish a standard of colloquiality in composition for each language” was the primary function of the committees. Mr. Lakshmana Row evidently picked up the term colloquiality from the Syndicate’s reference in this connection and utilised it to coin a nickname for the Modern School. His memorandum on modern standard Telugu prose which was circulated to the members of the Telugu Committee, is a violent attack on what he calls the colloquiality school and contains a
