uniform literary dialect out of a number of heterogeneous local dialects. Where such a literary language already exists as in Telugu, no local dialect should be employed for literary purposes.
208. Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu’s general proposition is not correct. Many languages have lived and died without developing literary dialects. There exist even now languages spoken by civilised communities which have not developed a literary dialect. As I have stated in previous paragraphs, it is the archaic and artificial character of old literary Telugu that necessitates the cultivation of modern standard Telugu, and it was single favoured dialects that developed, generally, into literary languages. English and French literary dialects, as well as standard speech, developed mainly out of London and Paris dialects.
As time went, forms from other dialects made their way into the standard, owing to causes which it is not necessary to detail here.
209. Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu says that Rao Sahib G.V. Ramamurti misunderstood the case of Italian. Prof. Whitney will answer for him. “The Italian was, in like manner the popular idiom of ‘Tuscany’ (Language and the study of Language, page 165)
210. Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu, likewise, thinks that the Modern School misapply the analogy of Bengali to Telugu (Vide page 61 of his pamphlet). Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu imports the question of foreign words into the discussion which is quite irrelevant. Modern standard Bengali is the dialect of Calcutta and the surrounding districts, and it was formed in the last century. It had no grammar or dictionary about a hundred years ago.
211. Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu wholly misunderstands the analogy of English and his quotation from Lounsbury* of passages which go against his own contentions is amusing (Vide pp. 38-40).
