characters, I mean pandits and persons who have received English culture. Fortunately for the students, Mr. K. Veeresalingam Pantulu does not generally vary his language with the social status of his characters and their language may be taken as the language whose use which Mr. Veeresalingam approves.
202. Students may be given freedom to use archaic forms, but they should be warned to use them coffectly.
203. Rao Saheb Mr. G. V. Ramamurti has examined the SubCommittee’s lists in his note. Therefore, I content myself with remarking that the lists do not contain the verbal forms which Mr. K. Veeresalingam Pantulu and other writers employ.
204. The pandits and scholars who formed the Upayukuta Grandhakarana Sabha, who began fifty six years ago a reform of the literary dialect were more liberal than the majority of the SubCommittee who drew up the lists of current and archaic forms. In their school books they made some very important deviations from grammar. They affiliated the third personal neuter plural base 5 (‘), There is no form in the literary dialect coffesponding to this. Among other deviations made by them are , In 1834 P. Sitharama Sastri who was Sanskrit pandit to the Hindu Educational Society (ocSo gS) published a Telugu grammar at the request of Mr. Kallo. He freely used modern forms in it.
205. Before I close this minute, I should notice at the risk of repetition some objections raised by Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu in his ‘A Defence of Literary Telugu” (Addison & Co., 1913 Madras) to the literary cultivation of Modern Telugu. It will be seen from what I have said in the preceding paragraphs that Literary Telugu has nothing to fear from the modern school. On the other hand, the modern school stand for its integrity and for a rational study of
