Same Compound, Two Samāsa Labels
In a 4-mark samāsa question, students must classify nīlotpala- in two different sentences: (1) nīlotpalaṃ sarasi phullati; (2) nīlotpalaḥ rājā gacchati. The instruction says samāsaṃ vijñāya nāma likhata - identify the compound type after understanding the sense. A student, Rakesh, knows nīlotpala is a karmadhāraya compound ‘blue lotus’ and writes that for both. The teacher marks the second wrong. Rakesh argues that the words are identical. He has 5 minutes to revise and must also give a vigraha-vākya for each. The textbook lists tatpuruṣa, karmadhāraya, bahuvrīhi, dvigu, dvandva, and avyayībhāva. He remembers that bahuvrīhi is anyapadārtha-pradhāna but struggles to apply it to a masculine ending. The marking scheme gives 1 mark for the name, 2 for the vigraha, and 1 for the reason.
1. Explain why the same string **nīlotpala-** is classified differently in the two sentences, and give the vigraha for each.
Read the worked answer
In nīlotpalaṃ sarasi phullati, the compound denotes the lotus itself: nīlam utpalam ‘a blue lotus’. It is a karmadhāraya (viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya) compound, and its gender/number follow the final member: neuter singular. In nīlotpalaḥ rājā gacchati, the compound does not denote a lotus; it qualifies rājā. Its vigraha is nīlāni utpalāni yasya saḥ ‘he whose lotuses are blue’ (or ‘possessing blue lotuses’), a bahuvrīhi. The same lexical string can belong to different compound types because classification depends on what the compound denotes in the sentence, not on the letters alone.
2. What formal clue in the sentence confirms the bahuvrīhi reading, apart from context?
Read the worked answer
The ending -aḥ in nīlotpalaḥ is masculine nominative singular, agreeing with rājā. A karmadhāraya nīlotpala ‘blue lotus’ is neuter, so it would appear as nīlotpalam if it were the thing denoted. The masculine agreement shows that the compound has taken the gender and number of an external noun, rājā, which is the hallmark of a bahuvrīhi. In the first sentence, by contrast, nīlotpalam is neuter singular and is itself the subject with phullati. Agreement is therefore a formal test that Rakesh can use even before he writes the vigraha.
3. If the sentence were **nīlotpalāni phullanti**, which classification would be correct, and why?
Read the worked answer
nīlotpalāni is neuter nominative plural and phullanti is third-person plural; the lotuses themselves are blooming. The compound is therefore karmadhāraya, vigraha nīlāni utpalāni. It is not bahuvrīhi, because there is no external noun for the compound to qualify; it is the subject. If Rakesh wanted a bahuvrīhi, he would need a noun outside the compound, e.g. nīlotpalāni vanāni ‘forests having blue lotuses’, where the compound agrees with vanāni. The test is whether the compound names the thing or describes something else by possession.