Literal or Idiomatic? Moderating a Translation and a Two-Sentence Composition
A 10-mark question has two parts. Part A: translate into English: 'grāme ekaḥ vṛddhaḥ vaidyaḥ vasati. saḥ rogibhyaḥ auṣadhaṃ dadāti, na tu mūlyam ādatte. janāḥ tam "dānavaidyaḥ" iti vadanti.' Part B: compose two Sanskrit sentences about a morning routine using 'prātaḥ' and 'tataḥ'. Student X translates Part A: 'In the village an old doctor lives. He gives medicine to patients, but does not take money. People call him "donation doctor".' Student Y translates: 'An elderly physician lives in the village. He gives medicine to the sick but accepts no fee. People call him the "charitable doctor".' Student Z translates: 'A old doctor lives in village. He give medicine to sick, not take price. People say him "gift doctor".' For Part B, X writes 'prātaḥ ahaṃ uttiṣṭhāmi. tataḥ ahaṃ bhojanaṃ karomi.' Y writes 'prātaḥ mayā utthīyate. tataḥ bhojanaṃ kriyate.' Z writes 'prātaḥ ahaṃ utthāya, tataḥ bhojanaṃ khādāmi.' The rubric awards 5 for translation accuracy and 5 for composition (2 for grammar, 2 for coherence, 1 for vocabulary). You are moderating.
1. Rank X, Y, and Z on Part A and justify with specific choices such as vaidyaḥ, mūlyam ādatte, and dānavaidyaḥ.
Read the worked answer
Y > X > Z. Y renders vaidyaḥ as 'physician' (more precise than 'doctor' for a traditional healer), mūlyam ādatte as 'accepts no fee' (ādatte = accepts/takes; mūlyam = price/fee), and dānavaidyaḥ as 'charitable doctor', which conveys the compound's sense rather than calquing it. X is accurate but flat: 'donation doctor' is understandable yet unnatural, and 'old doctor' is less precise than 'elderly physician'. Z has article and agreement errors ('A old'), a subject-verb error ('He give'), and mistranslates dānavaidyaḥ as 'gift doctor', losing the sense of giving care. So Y gets full accuracy; X most of it; Z little.
2. Evaluate Part B: which composition is grammatically safest, and which is stylistically better? Consider prātaḥ, tataḥ, and the verb forms.
Read the worked answer
X is safest: prātaḥ ahaṃ uttiṣṭhāmi ('in the morning I get up') and tataḥ ahaṃ bhojanaṃ karomi ('then I eat') are simple, correct, and coherent. Z is also correct and stylistically more compact: utthāya is an absolutive ('having got up'), and khādāmi ('I eat') is fine, though bhojanaṃ karomi is more idiomatic for 'take a meal'. Y's passive mayā utthīyate is awkward and unnecessary; the passive of ut + sthā is not the natural way to express 'I get up', and bhojanaṃ kriyate changes the subject to 'food is done'. For a Class X composition, reward X's control, but give Z credit for the absolutive if the syllabus has taught it.
3. Propose a 5-mark rubric for Part A that rewards meaning over word-for-word translation.
Read the worked answer
5 = all three sentences accurately conveyed, including the contrast na tu ('but not') and the nickname's sense; natural English; no omissions. 4 = meaning clear with one lexical slip (e.g., 'donation doctor') but no structural error. 3 = main idea correct, but one sentence mistranslated or a key term lost. 2 = two or more sentences distorted, though some content survives. 1 = isolated words correct. 0 = blank or incomprehensible. Under this rubric X = 3–4, Y = 5, Z = 1–2. The rubric should explicitly state that 'charitable doctor' and 'doctor who gives free treatment' are both acceptable for dānavaidyaḥ.