Telugu literature in which he held that, “No part of the language not even in the oldest poems, has become obsolete.” And Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu exclaims, “What should be said to an educated Telugu man complaining that literary Telugu is archaic, obsolete and unintelligible?” Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu does not tell us that the paragraphs in question were addressed to European students of Telugu whom Mr. Brown desired to convince of the advantages of studying popular Telugu poetry. I wonder if Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu is not aware that Mr. Brown in his grammar published later, and in the preface to his dictionary expressed quite a different opinion. “If we wish to be intelligible we must use the common dialect. The two dialects differ almost as much as ancient and modern Greek: and were a resident in Athens to attempt to transact business in ancient Greek (using likewise poetic elision!) he would not easily be understood; nor can the Telugus understand us, unless we speak and write as they do. These remarks are made in consequence of the publication, by Natives at Madras, of some small works on grammar and religion, which by using poetical rules are hard to be understood.” (page 34). Again at page 45 Mr. Brown said, “As the principal Telugu rules are used in poetry, but much neglected in common life, I have placed them at the end of this grammar to be refeffed to when questions arise in Telugu poetry. Among the Natives these rules are known to few but poets; who use them (and often break them) in writing verse.”
“Each of the Southern languages has a poetical and a vernacular dialect : which vary as widely as Saxon varies from English.” (Preface to Brown’s Telugu-English Dictionary, Page iv)
81. Like the “Little Cottage Girl” of Wordsworth, Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu disbelieves in death, in the Telugu poetic dialect. In his note on the compilation of a comprehensive etymological dictionary of the Telugu language which the Telugu Academy was
