142. One need not go far to test the validity of Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row’s dictum. He has given side by side a passage from Nannayya and a translation of it into the Neo-Kavya dialect. One wonders why it did not strike Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row that there is between the two, all the difference that exists between good language and bad language, good prose and bad prose. It does not require much discrimination to see that the rhythm of Nannayya has been utterly destroyed in the translation and that the diction has become weak.
143. Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row does not give any new values to Telugu vowel symbols like Mr. V. Venkataraya Sastry Garu. In the absence of such innovation there is unpleasant hiatus where sandhi has been omitted - Witness: + e.)o + .)
Does Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row believe that either intelligibility or rhythm required the breaking-up of c5 into ? ?
144. As I have said in another place, breach of sandhi has become a fashion, an end in itself, and even an eminent scholar like Mr. V. Venkataraya Sastry makes which is justified, in my humble opinion, neither by considerations of rhythm nor by the consideration of intelligibility —Witness:
