Naming the samāsa when the vigraha is right but the referent is wrong
A grammar question in the 80-mark paper carries 6 marks: split each of three compounds and name the samāsa, 1 mark for the split and 1 for the name. The three are (i) rājaputraḥ, (ii) nīlotpalam, (iii) cakrapāṇiḥ. The class of 46 has just been drilled on three tests: in a tatpuruṣa the first member is related to the second by a case relation and the whole denotes the second member; in a karmadhāraya both members describe the same referent, the first qualifying the second; in a bahuvrīhi the whole denotes a possessor named by neither member. In the scripts, 22 students call rājaputraḥ a karmadhāraya, 15 call nīlotpalam a tatpuruṣa with the split nīlasya utpalam, and 6 call cakrapāṇiḥ a tatpuruṣa meaning 'hand of the discus'. A further student, given daśānanaḥ on the revision sheet, argues that it must be a tatpuruṣa because the faces are 'instrumental' in the split daśabhiḥ ānanaiḥ. The teacher must mark the six-mark question and settle the daśānanaḥ argument without simply quoting the textbook definition back at the class.
1. For each of the three compounds give the split, the name, and the test that decides it. Then say what the 22 students who called rājaputraḥ a karmadhāraya actually missed.
Read the worked answer
- rājaputraḥ = rājñaḥ putraḥ, ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa. The first member stands to the second in a case relation (genitive), and the whole denotes the second member, a son.
- nīlotpalam = nīlam utpalam, karmadhāraya. Both members share one referent; nīla only qualifies utpala. A genitive split (
nīlasya utpalam, 'the blue's lotus') is not available - which is precisely the error of the 15: they invented a case relation in order to justify a label. - cakrapāṇiḥ = cakraṃ pāṇau yasya, bahuvrīhi. The word denotes a possessor, Viṣṇu; neither 'discus' nor 'hand' is what it names. The 6 students produced a tatpuruṣa reading that is not merely wrong but meaningless as a name.
The 22 who wrote karmadhāraya for rājaputraḥ were going by the feel of 'two nouns side by side'. The same-referent test fails at once: a king and a son are two different referents, and the compound names only one of them.
2. Answer the student's argument about daśānanaḥ on its own terms: if the vigraha is daśabhiḥ ānanaiḥ, why is the compound still not a tatpuruṣa?
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses the case used inside the vigraha with the class of the compound. Inside a bahuvrīhi the members may be related by any case, because the vigraha must also supply the missing possessor: daśa ānanāni yasya saḥ, or daśabhiḥ ānanaiḥ viśiṣṭaḥ.
What decides the class is the referent of the whole word. Daśānanaḥ does not mean 'faces' or 'ten faces' as an object; it names Rāvaṇa, a person who possesses them. Substitute it in a sentence - daśānanaḥ laṅkām aśāsat - and the verb agrees with one masculine person, not with faces. A tatpuruṣa in the same slot would denote its final member, as rājaputraḥ denotes a son. Since the referent lies outside both members, the compound is bahuvrīhi, whatever case appears in the vigraha.
3. A candidate splits all three compounds correctly but names only nīlotpalam correctly. Award the 6 marks and justify the split between the two rubric lines.
Read the worked answer
3/6. Splits 3/3 - the candidate has understood the internal relation each time. Names 1/3, because the name is a separate claim about classification, and a correct vigraha does not guarantee it: cakraṃ pāṇau yasya can be written perfectly and still be labelled tatpuruṣa.
In feedback, note that the two wrong names share one cause: the candidate is classifying by the case relation inside the vigraha instead of by the referent of the whole. One sentence covers all three items - 'ask what the word names, then name the samāsa' - and it is worth more than three separate corrections, because it targets the misconception rather than its symptoms.