> All languages, to the extent they are to be read in print, need punctuation
> and Telugu is no exception.
> Old texts in all languges did not need punctuation because the reader was
> trained to read them without punctuational help. That sitution does not
> continue in the age of print.
The above two statements seem to be contradictory. I am not sure I understand
how change of media; tAllapatram to it's pulp :-) (paper) would contribute to
this 'need for punctiation'. If old texts did not need it(punctuation) and
the reader was trained to read without it(P)... how did this situation change
in the age of print?
> In other words, need of punctuation is not language-related. It is related
> to the level of development of printed books.
Could you please(when you find time) elaborate on what Venu suggested(SOV vs
SVO languages), SOV(Sunject, Object, Verb) languages being more(apparently)
freeform(in the order of words i.e.,) that might make one form better than
the other w.r.t. this 'need for punctuation'. This may explain if style is a
factor(and one form, eg., SOV provides better room for it). And I hope media
isn't.
> Some one mentioned Kadambari in Sanskrit with its proverbially long
> sentences, and the gadya sections in Telugu Bhagavata. As all old texts,
> these texts do not have punctuation marks. But you should be trianed to
> read them - in other words it's performer's job.
This(performer's job) is true for long sentences even when punctuated properly,
independent of the language. Most legal lingo has this trait. Hence the high
fees for the performer(and subsequent interpretation). :-)
> VNR
Regards,
Ramakrishna. P(idaparti).