72. And yet the following resolution (6) of 2 August last which was proposed by Mr. K.V. Lakshman Row and seconded by Mr. Jayanti Ramayya Pantulu pins its faith on Chinnaya Suns grammar.
“That under para 3 of the reference from the Syndicate No. 2873 dated the 18tI September 1911, this Committee is bound to proceed on the basis of the existing Telugu grammar, such as followed by standard grammarians like Chinnaya Sun and Sitaramacharlu and to consider in what respects, if any, the strict rules of that grammar may be departed from, in the interests of simplicity and clearness of expression.”
73. The wording of the resolution betrays a strange ignorance of the nature and functions of grammar. A good grammar is based on usage which a bad grammar cannot adequately represent. Until that usage changes grammar cannot change. To change the rules of grammar first and to seek to change usage in accordance with such change is an impossible process in respect of a living language and wanton vandalism in respect of a language that is dead.
74. Much of the inconsistency which characterises the pronouncements of the Old school is due to a vain attempt to treat a highly archaic and artificial literary dialect as a living tongue.
75. The confusion between the grammars of two dialects, one ancient, and the other modern, is apparent everywhere in the writings and pronouncements of the leaders of the Old school. Refeffing to my attitude in this controversy, Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu wrote as follows, in his pamphlet entitled “A defence of Literary Telugu” (which was reprinted by the University and circulated to the members of the Composition Committee). “As a member of Text-book Committee, Mr. Appa Row would approve books written in accordance with the rules of accepted usage and grammar as well as books which contravene those rules. In writing composition
