This letter is in response to the article written by Mr. Richard Boyle to this column on the 8th April in response to my letter on the same topic on 4th April.

At the outset I would like to emphasise that I am a medical specialist but not a language specialist. However I have penned down my personal opinion as a literary enthusiast and a reader.

I also would like to know whether what Mr Boyle has stated was his personal opinion or whether it is the opinion of the Gratiaen trust. According to the website of the trust as well as the advertisement, "The Gratiaen Prize is awarded annually to the best work of literary writing in English by a resident Sri Lankan". It does not say preference is given to creative work with Sri Lankan flavour or Sri Lankan English. The collateral consequence would be that anybody would assume that creativity and English would get preference over Sri Lankan English. A Sri Lankan might write a story based in the Middle East or in the west without having any Sri Lankan touch or even a complete fantasy story based in a mythical land. Are those creations to suffer a disadvantage simply because they lack Sri Lankan flavour? According to the Gratiaen trust website it should not be so.

To give authenticity to the creation it is not necessary to distort a language. Authenticity of Sri Lanka could be taken to the rest of the world by infusing our culture, ideas, heritage, etc, into a well woven creation.

We Sri Lankans have two well established languages. If someone learns either of these languages (Sinhala or Tamil) improperly, and subsequently claims that his or her improper knowledge is not inferior to Standard Sinhala or Tamil, I do not think many people would agree with that statement. The same goes for English. Certainly learning any language to what ever the extent should be encouraged and appreciated; but the person who masters the language should be commended more than the person who deforms it.

Though Mr. Boyle had written that, "her evaluation of Sri Lankan English and its influence on the prize requires correction", he does not seem to have supported his statement with facts sufficiently strong.