in the School-Final and Intermediate examination, he would leave the candidate’s choice either to conform or to violate the rules of grammar.” (Vide page 7).
76. In his memorandum on Telugu Prose, Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row recognises but one grammar, which he calls the traditional grammar. In the P7th paragraph he speaks of polite Telugu which he calls ‘gramyam’ as “non-grammatical, dialectal and slang.” Its forms are “foreign to grammar.” (Vide page 7). In para II he says that the new School of linguistic reform has no grammar of its own. Here he probably means a treatise on grammar. This statement is somewhat surprising when we consider that modern standard Telugu has received a more thorough and scientific treatment from modern scholars like Campbell, Caldwell and Sten Konow than the old poetic dialect did at the hands of orthodox grammarians.
77. While dividing polite speech into innumerable dialects, some writers of the Old school refuse to recognise, explicitly or by implication, the existence of two distinct dialects like an old literary and a modern spoken. Such of them as taken an extreme position are at least consistent when they speak of one grammar for Telugu, but Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu believes in different dialects and one grammar. At a conference of Pandits held in May 12tI in Madras which was organised by Mr. Ramayya Pantulu and his friends, a resolution was passed which stated that there were no essential differences between literary or grandhika Telugu and spoken or Vyavaharika Telugu. In a report of the pandits’ Conference which appeared in the Madras Times of 17d idem, a writer said, “The speakers were unanimous in declaring that there was no need for the reform as there was, strictly speaking, no such thing as spoken as different from written Telugu.” In a memorial to Government which Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu proposed for adoption at a meeting held in Madras for that purpose appears this somewhat startling
