I7 His verses 500 and 521 are merely a translation of verses 41 and 42 of the first chapter of the Kur'yudursu Sr), the Southern and northern schools mentioned by Naga\arnia II do not refer to any such sy hools in Kannada hut to the Vaidarbha and Gauda so hools in Sanskrit Coming now to Bhattahalanhd. wi' find that in his Commentary on sutru 288 he recognises the custence of the southern and northern schools in Kannada and tells us that of the two forms of the pionoun of the list person mín is used by the poets of the nortlı und un lhy' tliose of the south. But this dictuin is not boine out by literature, Since we find both the forms used indiscriminately by the poets of the north and the south If according to the scholars mentioncelho e ihe nut thern school in Kannada arose ilhioliglı Telugli Influence, that language ought to have only the form ne nu of the pronoun ot the first person, but we find in it also) the other lorni ínu corresponding to the in of the southern se hool Again, if the southern school arose, de Cording to thoni, ili uglı Tamil influence, there is no reason for the 1ste un (e in that language of an, the foi ni of the northein se hool The foregoing enquiry is loci us to the conclusion that according to Nri patunga dul Brattah alanhi ilhele exist the Southern and northern schools in Kannacles, their distinguish. ing characteristics being the use of one of the recognised duplicate forms of certain verbs and the pionouli of the first person in preference to the other But a study of Kannada literature shows that these distinctions lie illore honored in the breach than in the observance by the poets Nor have we any valid grounds foi supposing that the above-mentioned schools were brought into existence by Tamil or Telugu influence. It does not therefore appear to serve any useful purpose at present to imahe too much of what is evidently a distinction without a difference and quarrel abuol the southern and northern schools in Kannada
