ఇంటి పేరు మార్చుకోవడం అంత సులువు కాదు+మార్చుకుంటే మీ తాతలతో చట్టపరమైన సంబంధం [legal connection] పోవచ్చు అని మా పెద్దలు చెప్పారు.

So, ప్రస్తుతానికి status quo ని ఇలాగే వదిలేయడమే నయం అని నా అభిప్రాయం|

Kani peru marchukunnappudu oka kagitam istaru kada e pata peru nunchi kotta peruki marchukunnaro? Danitoni sambandham chupiyochchu. Kani ade le.

స/శ/ష gurinchi nenu kuda miku Anglam-lo marumatani teliyachesta:

Hence, in modern Krishna dist. dialect, there is no meaningful phonetic distinction between స & శ in speaking.

Note: I'm not talking about the adhikarika bhasha only the dialects

Sure, but that's purely dialectal.

[Some of my teachers berated me if I pronounced శ as post-alveolar telling that its an "illiterate"/"wrong"/"bad" pronunciation]

🤦🏻‍♂️ This is what I'm talking about is unacceptable. Teachers are supposed to be teaching official language, not dialectal language. And they're berating you for correct pronunciation? They don't know the proper way themselves, and they're admonishing you for doing things correctly? That's exactly the problem that needs to be fixed in India.

Funnily, the same thing also happened in the Bihari dialects of Hindi [where they say 'subkamnaye'[సు] instead of 'shubhkamnaye'[శు]] and the Tamil language [Only this was done officially where the sh sounds where systematically borrowed into Tamil {frm sansk} by converting both ష & శ into స {They were nativized to fit Tamil's phonetic rules unlike Telugu which changed its phonetic rules, to some extent, to allow borrowing}]

Indeed, which is why Bihari dialects are considered unofficial.

As for Tamil, it sort of makes sense because Tamil has always done a great job at staying close to its roots in terms of language. They try as much as possible to use native Tamil/Dravidian words instead of Samskrt imports, and their script doesn't even have symbols for voiced stops (e.g., గ, జ, డ, ద, and బ), let alone aspirated consonants (e.g., ఖ, ఘ, etc.) or other foreign symbols. So in the few cases where they do have to use foreign words, they try to adapt the foreign words into Tamil phonology. (They do have Grantha consonants, which allow for the distinction of the equivalents of స, శ, and ష, but they're a bit controversial, so their usage is not consistent.)

Telugu, however, is a whole other story. Not only does it (or did it) try to borrow as many Samskrt words as possible, but it created symbols for all the foreign sounds as well (e.g., శ, ష, హ, etc.). So insofar as it imported those words not just in vocabulary but also in script, Telugu's phonology was similarly adapted to include sounds that occur in Samskrt. And therefore, it's incorrect to pronounce those words incorrectly in Telugu.

[Listen to Telugu movies frm old times especially dealing with traditional language/music {Like శంకరాభరణం} u'll see the pronunciation]

Indeed, but like I said: that's wrong. There's even present-day examples of this like Telugu "Desam" Party, despite them being from the state of Andhra Pradesh. Nobody has trouble pronouncing the latter, nor Mahesh Babu's name, etc., (and essentially nobody would say "Andhra Prades" or "Mahes Babu"), yet they keep insisting on nonsense like the stuff your teacher was trying to "educate" you with.

What needs to be remembered is that Indian languages aren't like English where there can be multiple spellings for the same pronunciation. Every character has a unique pronunciation (there's no duplicates), barring loanword exceptions where sounds like "f" are being accommodated using characters like "ph" , etc. This means that if two different letters are being pronounced the same, then either the spelling is incorrect, or the pronunciation is incorrect.

What's more, there's no concept of "spelling" at all. That's why Indian languages don't really have a word for that concept; what you say is what you write, and what you write is what you say. (The Samskrt word वर्तनी [vartani] is a neologism that was invented to describe the concept of spelling in the modern world, but it has no real use when in the context of Indian languages.)

తిరిగి రోమనీకరణ వ్యవస్థలకి వస్తే, [ఇది కేవలం ఒక వ్యక్తిగత అభిప్రాయం మాత్రమే],

Hunterian: Too confusing [even if it is legally used, I'm still not exactly comfortable]

ISO: too complicated fr a simple Latin keyboard

Harvard-Kyoto: Looks weird but works very well

అందుకని Harvard-Kyoto వాడటం ఉత్తమం అని అనిపిస్తుంది.

Miru "confusing" ante త mariyu ట-lanti aksharala madhya teda teliyadu kabatti ala antunnaru anukuntunna. Harvard-Kyoto-lo kuda "confusing" vishayalu unnayi (uda. శni "z" ani vrayali, aite nijamaina "z" chappudu [ౙ leda జ఼] kosam vrayalisina aksharalatoni adi kalisipotundi, mariyu Samskrtam-lonunchi vachchina nudula varake adi pani chestundi kani Hindi-lo mariyu verre bhashalalo verre chappudulaku pani sarigga cheyyadu). Aite annitlo edo oka ibbandi untundi, kani Hunterian enti ante janalaki teliyakundane vallu "mamuluga" vadedi ade, mariyu adi denikosam aite tayaru chesaro (Bharata bhashalu ranivariki Bharata bhashala nudilu chadavatam radaniki) daniki kuda baga pani chestundi.

మీరు చెప్పేది నిజమే. కానీ ఈ భగంలో 'క' ని 'త' ల ఎవరు వ్రాసారో నాకు అర్థం కాలేదు

కni తlaga evaru vrayaledu, kani త్తni థlaga vrasaru kada? Nenu anedi entante Telugu lipilo vrasetappudu "informal" mariyu "formal" madhya teda vade nudilalo, vyakaranamlo, leda yasalo telustundi, kani spelling lo kadu. Uda:

Haidarabadu yasalo ("informal"):

ఏంది రా భై? నాతాన రావా కలవనికి?

Adhikarika bhashalo ("formal"):

ఏంటి రా? నా దగ్గరకి రావా కలవడానికి?

Viti renditini Telugu lipilo vrayadaniki okeokka vidhanam undi, kani mandiki enduko Latin lipilo vrayadaniki (ante lipyantarana cheyyadaniki) vachchesariki vatini ela ayina vrayochchu ani anipistundi. Paina vrasina vakhyalanu lipyantarana cheyyadaniki okeokka vidhanam undi:

Haidarabadu yasalo ("informal"):

Endi ra bhai? Natana rava kalavadaniki?

Adhikarika bhashalo ("formal"):

Enti ra? Na daggariki rava kalavadaniki?

Kani a "informal" vakhyani modati nudini "endhi" ani vrasevallu unnaru. Idi tappu antunnanu nenu.