Nine Syllables in an Eight-Syllable Line: Whose Scansion Is Right?
In a 5-mark Padya question, students must scan a prescribed four-pada verse and name its metre. The verse is normally Anuṭṭhubha, eight syllables per pada. In the second pada the printed text reads ... ti eva ..., but sandhi in recitation yields ... tyeva ... . Script A marks the padas as 8-8-9-8 and writes 'Anuṭṭhubha with a hypermetric second pada'. Script B marks 8-7-8-8 and writes 'not Anuṭṭhubha; a broken metre'. Script C marks 8-8-8-8 and notes that the written sequence must be resolved by sandhi before counting. The marking scheme says 2 marks for correct syllable count, 2 for metre name, 1 for noting sandhi. You have 30 scripts; 18 resemble A, 7 resemble B, 5 resemble C. The textbook's metrical appendix says that a pada may be hypermetric only in rare cases and that sandhi is normally resolved for scansion.
1. Which script's syllable count is metrically defensible, and what mark should Script A receive under the 2+2+1 scheme?
Read the worked answer
Script C is defensible. In recitation the sequence written as ti eva undergoes sandhi to tyeva, which reduces the syllable count by one; the line then has eight syllables, not nine. Script A counted written units rather than sounded syllables, so its 8-8-9-8 count is not a valid scansion. Under the scheme: syllable count 0/2, because the count is wrong in pada 2; metre name 2/2, because Anuṭṭhubha is correct once the sandhi is resolved; sandhi 0/1, because the student did not note the resolution. Total 2/5. I would not award the 'hypermetric' label because the textbook appendix reserves hypermetric padas for rare cases and says sandhi is normally resolved; a student cannot convert a resolvable sandhi into a metrical licence without evidence. Feedback should ask A to write the line in sandhi-resolved form, mark syllable heads, and count again.
2. Script B gives 8-7-8-8 and calls the verse 'broken'. Is there any way to credit it, and how would you diagnose the error?
Read the worked answer
There is little to credit beyond the metre name if B has correctly named Anuṭṭhubha, but B's count is not a defensible scansion: 8-7-8-8 does not correspond to the sounded line and suggests that B deleted a syllable, perhaps by treating a vowel as silent or by misreading a conjunct. I would award 1/5 only if the metre name is present and the student has not claimed a different metre; otherwise 0. Diagnosis: B is counting letters, not syllables, and may be confusing the written sequence with the recitation. The remedy is not more metre theory but a phonics-style drill: mark syllable heads, resolve sandhi aloud, and only then count. In moderation, record B as a 'prosodic counting' error, not a 'metre identification' error, so that the intervention targets the right skill. If B's paper also shows the correct name Anuṭṭhubha, the diagnosis is specifically about counting rather than about metre recognition.
3. What principle about written form versus recited form should the class take from this item?
Read the worked answer
The principle is that Pali metre is a property of sounded syllables, not of the written page. Sandhi is not cosmetic; it changes the count. Students should routinely do three things: read the pada aloud as a continuous string, apply the sandhi that the recitation requires, and count the resulting syllables before naming the metre. The written form can preserve an older or analytical spelling, but the scansion must reflect the recited form unless the examiner explicitly asks for a written-form count. This also explains why two apparently different counts can both be 'faithful' to different representations: the exam's metrical appendix chooses recitation. Teach students to state their assumption - 'after sandhi' - in one line so the marker can see the reasoning. That one-line convention also makes moderation faster, because an unexpected count can be diagnosed from the student's stated assumption rather than guessed at from a bare number.