Two pītāmbaras: One Compound, Two Analyses
A three-mark grammar question in the II PUC paper asks: 'In the sentences pītāmbaro hariḥ and pītāmbaram vastram, identify the samāsa in each and justify your answer.' The first sentence describes Kṛṣṇa; the second describes a cloth lying on a shop counter. Candidate X writes 'karmadhāraya' for both, arguing that pīta (yellow) qualifies ambara (garment) in both places. Candidate Y writes 'bahuvrīhi' for both, arguing that the same compound cannot change its name from sentence to sentence. The key gives one mark for the correct name and two marks for the reason. The teacher must decide how the same surface compound can receive two analyses, and must also decide whether Candidate X's observation that pīta qualifies ambara deserves any credit.
1. Classify each occurrence and state the test that decides between the two analyses.
Read the worked answer
In pītāmbaro hariḥ, the compound is a bahuvrīhi: it denotes Hari, the possessor of a yellow garment, not the garment itself. In pītāmbaram vastram, the compound is a karmadhāraya: it denotes the cloth, and pīta qualifies ambara within the same referent. The decisive test is the referent of the whole compound in context. If the compound denotes the final member qualified by the first, it is karmadhāraya. If it denotes something else that possesses the final member, it is bahuvrīhi. The gender and number of the whole compound follow the referent in a bahuvrīhi, which is why pītāmbaraḥ is masculine when it refers to Hari; in a karmadhāraya the gender follows the final member, which is why pītāmbaram is neuter when it refers to cloth. Gender is a clue, not the definition.
2. Candidate X says 'pīta qualifies ambara in both, so both are karmadhāraya.' What is right and what is wrong in that reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Candidate X is right that the first member qualifies the second at the level of word meaning; that is true in both compounds. The error is to treat qualification alone as the definition of karmadhāraya. In a bahuvrīhi the same internal qualification is present, but the compound as a whole shifts reference to the possessor. The question is not 'does the first word qualify the second?' but 'what does the whole compound denote?' In pītāmbaro hariḥ the sentence is not saying that Hari is a garment; it is saying that Hari possesses a yellow garment. Candidate X has stopped at the internal structure and has not tested the external referent. This is a partial insight, not a complete analysis.
3. How would you score Candidate X out of 3, and what parallel example would you give as feedback?
Read the worked answer
Candidate X should receive one mark out of three: the internal qualification is correctly observed, but the classification of the first occurrence is wrong and the justification does not apply the referent test. The feedback should use a fresh parallel: dīrghabāhuḥ rāmaḥ ('Rāma of the long arms') is a bahuvrīhi, while dīrghaṃ bāhuṃ paśyati ('he sees a long arm') is not a compound of the same type. Ask the candidate: 'Who or what does the whole word point to?' If it points to the final member, think karmadhāraya; if it points to a possessor outside the compound, think bahuvrīhi. This gives the candidate a procedure, not just a corrected label.