165. Here I must point out another fallacy of the old school. They seem to think that the only condition which a literary language need fulfil is intelligibility. They think that intelligible prose can be written in the Kavya dialect if it is divested of learned Sanskrit and very obsolete Telugu. They forget that it is not easy, to reproduce an archaic dialect in composition, and that few writers have succeeded in writing fairly intelligible prose in the Kavya dialect with correctness or with elegance.
166. They forget the standpoint of the learner and the writer. The literary dialect is very difficult to master. That is the reason why Telugus who have received the best Western culture are unable to cultivate composition in Telugu. They are afraid or committing blunders, and give up the attempt in despair. Spontaneous writing is out of the question, when one has to write a language which he has to learn from books and is in mortal dread of violating grammar or usage at every step.
167. Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row hardly seems to be aware that the question of Telugu prose diction affects a great educational problem viz. Elementary Education. Under the influence of the pandit the educational department was long violating a fundamental principle of educational method by compelling little urchins at elementary schools to learn readers written in a wretched variety of the literary dialect. The badness of these readers some of which bear the honoured name of Rao Bahadur K. Veeresalingam Pantulu Garu is a scandal to which the advocates of orthodoxy in literature choose to be blind. With rare exceptions elementary school teachers are ignorant of the poetic dialect. Vernacular teaching in elementary schools has long been, therefore, a tragic farce. (vide Appendix H.)
168. To a writer, the kavya dialect has decided advantages over the Neo-Kavya dialect. One who applies himself to the cultivation of the Neo-Kavya dialect is not relieved from the necessity of
