The Genitive That Is Not a Karaka, and a Bahuvrihi That Changes the Referent
In a +2 grammar exercise, students are given the sentence 'गुरोः पुत्राय पुस्तकं ददाति' and asked: (a) identify the karaka of 'गुरोः' and justify it; (b) split the compound in the next sentence, 'राजपुरुषः आगतः', and name the samasa. For (a), Script A says 'karma' because it is the object; Script B says 'sambandha' because it is the possessor; Script C says 'karta' because it comes first in the sentence. For (b), the key expects 'राज्ञः पुरुषः', a shashti-tatpurusha. Script D writes 'राजपुरुषेण युक्तः' and calls it bahuvrihi, arguing that the sentence describes a man who is with the king's man. The teacher must mark both parts and explain the principle to the class.
1. Resolve part (a): what is the status of 'गुरोः'?
Read the worked answer
'Guroh' is genitive (shashthi), expressing sambandha, the teacher's son; it is not one of the six karakas. The karta is the understood giver, the karma is 'pustakam', and the sampradana is 'putraya'. Script B is closest, but the answer should say 'shashthi/sambandha, not a karaka'; if the question insists on a karaka label, the correct response is that none applies. A confuses the object with the possessor; C confuses word order with agency. Award B full if it names sambandha, and A and C 0–1 for recognising a relation but mislabelling it.
2. Is Script D's bahuvrihi defensible in 'राजपुरुषः आगतः'?
Read the worked answer
D's bahuvrihi is not defensible in this sentence. 'Rajapurushah agatah' denotes the king's man himself; the split is 'rajnah purushah', a shashti-tatpurusha. A bahuvrihi would denote someone possessing or characterised by the king's man, which is not what the sentence says. D's split 'rajapurushena yuktah' changes the referent and adds a relation not in the text. Context, gender and number agreement, and the predicate decide the analysis; D may get one mark for seeing a possessive relation but not the samasa mark.
3. A student asks: 'Can't the same compound be both tatpurusha and bahuvrihi?' Give a principled answer with one example.
Read the worked answer
Yes, the same surface compound can be analysed differently, but not arbitrarily: the analysis must fit the referent in the sentence. 'नीलकण्ठः' can be a bahuvrihi naming Shiva, 'whose throat is blue', or, in another context, a karmadharaya describing a blue-throated bird. The examiner should require the student to state the referent and the vigraha-vakya; if both fit, accept either with justification. If the student's analysis produces a different referent from the sentence, it is wrong.