does not grow; nor on the other hand does it diminish, being fixed and crystallised in its existing literature. Because it is thus fixed it does not take hold as does a living language; the spirit has gone out of it, so that at best its life can be only galvanised life.’
“In a living language there are always many words on the frontiers of the too new or too old whose use is a matter of uncertainty and debate; and has to be determined by a general consensus of literary usage and authority, in which not only refined speech but the relative rank of authors has to be taken into account.” (Vide The Working principles of Rhetoric pp. 6 1-62)
70. Here it is necessary to invite attention to a fallacy, which vitiates the reasoning of many writers on the Telugu Controversy. They seek to apply to Telugu the principles of standard of usage laid down by English writers without necessary qualification. The usage of the best speakers and the best writers is the standard in English. It is so because the language of literature in English has kept pace with the changes undergone by standard speech, but did not acquire practical fixity like the ancient literary languages of the East. In other words in English there is nothing like the cleavage, which exists in Telugu between the spoken and the written idiom. Therefore in Telugu the usage of the great writers who wrote in the poetic dialect, can set the standard only for that dialect. On the other hand, for the new literature in Modern Telugu the usage of the best speakers alone can set the standard until a literature develops as in Modern Bengali. While laying stress on the usage of great writers as the standard of usage for Telugu, the Old school carefully avoid all reference to the other English standard of usage, namely, the usage of the best speakers.
71. Members of the old school generally treat Telugu as but one language with but one grammar which they call traditional grammar, accepted grammar or existing grammar. This belief is
