"telusa" has become very dull (my personal opinion!) and nowadays we only see
"avadhaanaalu". Let me throw some flames, hoping to see something other than
the "ChandO" stuff also on this mailing list.
In school days Chinnaya Suri was a holy person, whose contributions to Telugu
grammar and literature are invaluable. We had his "panchatantra kathalu" in
the prose sections of Telugu text books and they were really "odd" and hard
to follow.
Years later I had the oppurtunity to read the works of Gidugu Ramamurthy and
Tapi Dharmarao, (strongly) critisizing Chinnayya's "baala vyaakaraNam". Also
they attacked his "graanthika bhaasha". I personally found their comments to
be correct and the criticism justified.
Tapi was more severe in his criticism, saying that an immense damage was done
to Telugu language in 1857 with the appointment of Chinnayya as Telugu
lecturer and compared the damage done with the 1757 Plasi war. He also said:
"graamyam ani anaTam aatma naichyam laanTidi. gataanni gurinchi SOkinchi
prayOjanam lEdu."
Infact the language was until then socalled "vyaavahaarikam". He was the
first (?) to introduce "graanthikam" in prose writing. One of the worst
consequences was the "rewriting" of "original" texts of olden days (i.e.
prabandhaalu, kaavyaalu of pre-1857 era. Here esp. those on palm leaves.)
following Chinnayya's (grammar) rules. Here old texts went under surgery,
partly losing their originality and flow. So, theres no guarantee that
today we are reading original peddana, pingaLi, chEmakoora etc. etc. Also,
a Telugu translation of "panchatantra" existed in prose (of Ravipati
Gurumurthy, in addition to the two versions of Doobagunta Narayana and
Baicharaju Venkatanathudu in poetry.),and in "vyaavahaarikam" prior to
Chinnayya's version. Did he intentionally do it again to prove the
"superiority" of "graanthikam"?
Now, my question is: how important is "baala vyaakaraNam" today? Is it still
THE standard book on Telugu grammar? Why don't they talk loud about drawbacks
in Chinnayya's version of Telugu?
Now, coming to giDugu and his (IMHO) crusade, he wrote:
laukikabhaasha SishTajana vyavahaara siddhamayinadi ganuka poojyamE gaani
enta maatramoo nindyamu kaadani maa matamu. SishTajana vyavahaara
siddhamayinaa laukika bhaasha graamyamE aninnee granthamulalO vaaDuTaku
taginadi kaadaninnee kondaru vaadistunnaaru. alaaguna vaadinchEvaari matamu
maa matamunaku viruddhamayinadi ganuka vaaritO maaku vivaadamu kaliginadi.
But, did he ever define whats "graamyam" and what is "vyaavahaarikam"? If
"printed" language is the earlier and the "spoken" is the later of the above
terms, and if "spoken" is printed, then it 'd also be called "graanthikam".
Does it make sense?
Probably he meant the "sanskritised" language as "graanthikam". I also read
that there were strong pro and contra lobbies of "graanthikam" (there was a
3rd too. The moderates.) as late as in 1960s. Could the elders on the net
enlighten me about the Telugu text books they had in 50s and 60s!
Regards,
Sreenivas