kept up an artificial life in a written dialect after they had died out of living speech.
THE TRADITION OF AN IMMEMORIAL PROSE DIALECT
31. This written dialect was not the ‘kavya’ or poetical dialect. It was the dialect of prose and we have recorded evidence of its existence for at least seven centuries. It was a blend of obsolete and current forms. In inscriptions, the scribes freely employed spoken forms which did not conform to the usage of the poets. The feeling that such forms were vulgar or undignified, or out of place in prose composition was foreign to them. On the other hand, they must have felt that they contributed to the dignity of prose by employing obsolete forms like ఇస్తిమి which had once lived a vigorous life, and became obsolete without finding admission into the poetic dialect. The standing of these forms must have been very high to secure them an artificial cuency in old world prose, when they had died out of living speech.
32. Not only are verbal forms with tu and st most widely current, the corresponding literary forms with chu or tsu are not current in standard speech2, and linger only in the fast disappearing old pandits’ slang to which Brown refers in his grammar under Gramya or vulgar forms (Vide Brown’s Grammar, P. 358)
33. To summarise: The present participle in tu and the verbal forms with st fulfil conditions of affiliation which must satisfy the most exacting critic if only he concedes the principle of affiliation.
- 1. They have almost universal currency.
- 2. The corresponding literary forms have no currency.
- 3. They are as regularly formed as the corresponding literary forms.
