Permission, Optative, and the Over-Sanskritised Translation
A 5-mark translation item asks students to render into Pali: 'A monk who is ill may eat in the afternoon.' The marking scheme awards 2 marks for grammar, 2 for vocabulary, and 1 for idiomatic naturalness. Script 5 writes: 'Sace bhikkhu gilāno hoti, sāyaṃ bhuñjeyya.' Script 11 writes: 'Bhikkhu gilāno sāyaṃ bhuñjati.' Script 19 writes: 'Gilāno bhikkhu sāyaṃ bhuñjituṃ labhati.' A colleague argues that only the optative bhuñjeyya expresses permission and that labhati is a Marathi-influenced calque. Another argues that bhuñjati is acceptable because the English 'may' can be read as a statement of fact. The prescribed grammar treats the optative as the normal mood for permission and also notes labhati with an infinitive as a common idiom. You have to apply the rubric consistently across 40 scripts.
1. Rank Scripts 5, 11, and 19 on the 2+2+1 rubric and justify the marks.
Read the worked answer
Script 19: 5/5. Grammar 2: bhuñjituṃ labhati is a well-formed infinitive-plus-verb construction; vocabulary 2: gilāno, sāyaṃ, and bhuñjituṃ are accurate; idiom 1: labhati with an infinitive is a standard way to express permission, so the sentence reads naturally. Script 5: 4/5. Grammar 2: the optative bhuñjeyya is correct for permission and the conditional clause is well formed; vocabulary 2: all lexical items are appropriate; idiom 0: the added sace ('if') changes the English sentence's presupposition. The English says 'a monk who is ill may eat', not 'if a monk is ill, he may eat', so the student has added a condition and lost the idiomatic mark. Script 11: 3/5. Grammar 1: bhuñjati is formally correct but the indicative does not express permission; vocabulary 2: the lexical items are right; idiom 0: the sentence states that an ill monk eats in the afternoon, which is not the same as saying he may. The ranking is therefore 19, then 5, then 11.
2. A colleague calls labhati a Marathi-influenced calque. How do you adjudicate?
Read the worked answer
I would reject the 'calque' objection on the evidence of the prescribed grammar, which lists labhati with an infinitive as a common idiom. A construction is not a calque merely because Marathi has a similar pattern; the relevant test is whether it is attested in the prescribed Pali corpus and described in the grammar. Here it is. The colleague's argument also proves too much: the optative is not the only Pali way to express permission, and treating one idiom as the only 'real' Pali would penalise accurate, idiomatic usage. I would, however, require the student to use the construction in a full sentence with a clear subject, because labhati can be ambiguous without one. In moderation, record the decision: 'labhati + infinitive accepted as prescribed idiom; not a calque.' The same principle should be applied consistently to other constructions that resemble Marathi but are independently attested in Pali.
3. What feedback would you give to the class about translating 'may'?
Read the worked answer
Teach 'may' as a modal with several Pali realisations, not a one-to-one gloss. In this item, permission is expressed by the optative (bhuñjeyya) or by labhati with an infinitive (bhuñjituṃ labhati); a bare indicative (bhuñjati) states the act, not the permission. Students should ask: is the English sentence about ability, permission, possibility, or a wish? Then choose the Pali mood or idiom accordingly. A useful drill is to give four English sentences with 'may' and ask for a Pali rendering plus a one-line justification: 'may eat' (permission), 'may be ill' (possibility), 'may you be well' (blessing), and 'it may rain' (possibility). This prevents the common error of treating 'may' as always optative and also prevents the opposite error of using the indicative for permission. It also gives students a transferable procedure for other modals such as 'should' and 'must'.