Restoring the Visarga in so'pi: When a Split Is Only Half Right
In a II PUC Sanskrit answer script, a two-mark sandhi item asks candidates to split the phrase so'pi te'pi ca into constituent words and to name the sandhi. The phrase comes from a short prose passage in which a teacher says that even a dull student and even a bright student will pass. The draft key prepared by a junior teacher reads: sa api + te api + ca. A reviewer objects that the first split is imprecise. Two scripts are on the table. Script A writes saḥ api, te api, ca and names the first join visarga-sandhi. Script B writes sa api, te api, ca and labels both joins visarga-sandhi. The marking scheme allots one mark for correct word-division and one mark for naming the operation. The teacher must decide whether Script B deserves full credit, partial credit, or none, and must also decide what feedback to give about the avagraha.
1. Which division of *so'pi* is correct: *saḥ api* or *sa api*? Explain the steps that produce the written form.
Read the worked answer
The correct division is saḥ api. The nominative singular masculine pronoun ends in visarga: saḥ. Before a following vowel, the visarga becomes o, giving so api; then the initial a of api is elided and marked with avagraha, giving so'pi. The avagraha therefore marks an elided a, not a missing visarga. Writing sa api treats the pronoun as if it had no visarga at the end, which is not the underlying form. For te'pi, however, te api is correct, because te is the nominative plural masculine pronoun and has no visarga. The two words look parallel on the surface but are not grammatically parallel underneath. This is exactly the kind of point a two-mark item is testing: can the candidate reconstruct the pre-sandhi forms, not merely insert an apostrophe?
2. Evaluate Script B's label 'visarga-sandhi' for both joins. What name or description should the key accept?
Read the worked answer
The blanket label is wrong. In so'pi there are two operations: visarga becomes o before a vowel, and then o + a yields o with avagraha. In te'pi there is no visarga at all; e + a yields e with avagraha. A precise key should accept 'visarga-sandhi followed by avagraha-elision' for the first and 'eṅ/pūrvarūpa elision with avagraha' for the second, or a plain-language description such as 'the initial a is elided after o/e and marked with avagraha'. It should not reward a single label applied to both. Script B shows a common overgeneralisation: the candidate has noticed the apostrophe and assumed one cause for it. The naming mark should be reserved for a candidate who distinguishes the two histories, even if the terminology is simple.
3. How would you score Script B out of 2, and what written feedback would you add?
Read the worked answer
Script B should receive partial credit, not full credit. The te api portion is correctly divided and correctly explained if the candidate says the a is elided after e; the sa api portion is not the correct reconstruction, because the visarga has been lost. If each word carries half a mark for division, award half for te api and no division mark for sa api; on the naming mark, award nothing for the blanket 'visarga-sandhi' label, or at most half if the script elsewhere distinguishes the two. Written feedback should say: 'You have understood that an avagraha marks elision, but check the pre-sandhi form of the pronoun: saḥ, not sa. Then separate the visarga change from the later elision of a.' This rewards the real insight while correcting the reconstruction.