(When speaking of a modern prose, I exclude emotional or imaginative prose which in the matter of diction, partakes of the character of poetry). The use of acrhaisms to a limited extent is permitted in English poetry. But archaisms are considered to be incompatible with a prose style. A modern prose must be based on present usage.
88. The recommendations of the Tamil Composition Committee acknowledge this fundamental principle. The following passage occurs in a letter addressed by Rao Bahadur Professor M. Ranga Chariar as convener to the members of the Tamil Composition Committee, indicating the lines on which it was to work. ‘The other point relates to archaic forms of inflexion. It will perhaps be good to classify the inflexional forms of the language into obsolete, obsolescent and cuffent forms, and prohibit the use of all obsolete forms in modern prose as well as poetry, permit to some extent obsolescent forms in modern poetry, and allow only the cuffent forms in modern prose. In this respect also the object to be kept in view is to make the written (prose) language be as near as possible to spoken speech.” (Vide p.36 of the Report).
89. In support of this principle, I have made citations from English writers in Appendix B.
90. Let us examine the claims of rival schools of prose. To avoid misconception it is necessary to revise the names which are given to them. The opponents of the modern school are all grouped under one name, the conservative, traditional or orthodox school. But there are such radical differences in literary doctrine and in practice among the various groups which comprise it, that it is necessary to distinguish them.
91. Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu recognises but two schools, a classical and a modern. Mr. K.V. Lakshman Row concedes that there are three “differing widely from one another on the question
