15. In the past, non-literary forms used to attain affiliation from time to time though very sparingly. The process was due in some cases, to the inadvertent blunders of old poets; but more often, it was due to the conscious sanction of writers whom metrical exigencies drove to violation of precedent. Later grammarians and rhetoricians accepted those blunders and violations as authoritative precedents. But this process is now to cease at the bidding of the majority. Their report says, “any further attempt to introduce spoken forms into the literary dialect will certainly hinder the growth of a dignified healthy prose literature”. The word further may seem to imply that the Sub-Committee propose to give the literary dialect a fresh accession of non-literary spoken forms to any appreciable extent. But an examination of the lists shows that only one solitary ‘ungrammatical form’ has struggled into the sacred precincts. It is the emphatic particle ఏ (e) followed by the affirmative particle ను (nu) in the case of two demonstrative pronouns వాడేనా (vadena = Is it really he?) వీడేనా (videna = Is it really this man?) This use of the particle ‘nu’ is not recognised by traditional grammar. The corresponding literary forms would be వాడేయా (vadeya) and వీడేయా (videya). Considering that the difference between the two pairs of forms is confined to a single letter, the concession is wondrous small; and I fail to understand why for its sake an important rule of grammar of the literary dialect should have been violated.
16. Let us try to realize what exactly is this spoken language with which the majority of the Sub-Committee have shown a solicitude to harmonize the literary dialect-this spoken language which is used in the Telugu Country as a whole and is not the speech either confined to any particular area or to particular clan or tribe. Here Mr. Lakshmana Row’s memorandum must again come to our help. It says, “the contention that all the gramya (nongrammatical, dialectal and slang) forms are to be found current in
