of a sentence with a view to making his meaning clear, his periods balanced and his diction forcible’.
The whole argument is a tangle of fallacies and misstatements of fact. That traditional Telugu grammar considered itself a kind of Prakrit grammar, if it means anything, means that traditional grammar is a bad grammar. The grammatical structure and idiom of Telugu are so different from those of Sanskrit and the Prakrits, that their grammars cannot be considered to be identical or similar.
129. The pandits whom Mr. K. Lakshmana Row taxes with ignorance are not really ignorant of Sanskrit grammatical tradition “governing sandhi”. The Pandit rightly understands o The rule means as one grammarian puts it ‘g (what is not stated here may be taken from elsewhere). It is explained by two rules in the Telugu grammar Andhra Kaumidi (1) (2) o Where Telugu grammarians have laid down definite rules, the rules of Sanskrit grammarians have no application. Telugu grammarians have ruled that omission of sandhi is not permissible except at the end of a sentence. Early poets made sandhi even between sentences. So the Adharvana karika runs.
(At the end of a sentence even the omission of sandhi is not a fault)
130. Traditional Telugu grammars being defective, has Mr. K.V. Lakshman Row considered the logical consequences of the application of the rules of Sanskrit grammarians to all formations and usages which Telugu grammarians failed to note?
131. It is well known that the option allowed by Sanskrit grammarians in the matter of sandhi has no application to literary
