Naming Samasa When the Item Has No Context
A 3-mark समास question asks: 'विग्रहं कृत्वा समासस्य नाम लिखत - चतुर्मुखः, नीलकमलम्, राजपुत्रः.' The key gives चतुर्मुखः = बहुव्रीहिः, नीलकमलम् = कर्मधारयः, राजपुत्रः = षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः. Scripts offer: चतुर्मुखः as द्विगुः with the विग्रह चतुर्णां मुखानां समाहारः; नीलकमलम् as बहुव्रीहिः with नीलं कमलं यस्य सः; राजपुत्रः as कर्मधारयः with राजा चासौ पुत्रः. Two markers have already given different marks to identical answers, and a parent has written to the school. The head examiner says the key is final but asks for a reasoned note explaining why each alternative is accepted or rejected, so that the same note can be read out at the next marking camp.
1. Can द्विगुः be defended for चतुर्मुखः? What should the marker do with that script?
Read the worked answer
Yes, if the pupil supplies the विग्रह चतुर्णां मुखानां समाहारः. As a neuter noun meaning 'an aggregate of four faces', the compound is द्विगु. As the well-known name of Brahmā - चत्वारि मुखानि यस्य सः - it is बहुव्रीहि. The item stands alone with no sentence, so nothing in the question fixes the reading. The honest ruling is to accept द्विगु when the विग्रह is coherent and the pupil has not simply guessed the label, and to tell the camp that the key assumes the Brahmā sense. If the head examiner keeps the key final, the note must still record that the alternative is grammatically defensible, otherwise the same dispute returns at re-check.
2. A pupil analyses नीलकमलम् as बहुव्रीहिः. Accept or reject, and on what principle?
Read the worked answer
Reject full credit, but read the विग्रह first. The natural analysis is कर्मधारय: नीलं कमलम्, 'a blue lotus', where the adjective determines the same referent as the noun. बहुव्रीहि requires the compound to denote something other than its members - नीलं कमलं यस्य सः, 'one whose lotus is blue' - and that requires a stated referent outside the word, which the bare item does not supply. If the pupil writes a coherent विग्रह and names the referent (for example a person so named), the answer is unusual but internally sound and may be given half credit; if the pupil merely writes बहुव्रीहिः with no विग्रह, award nothing. The principle is that the विग्रह, not the label alone, carries the mark.
3. Rewrite the question and key so that this dispute cannot recur, keeping it to 3 marks.
Read the worked answer
Two changes. First, give context: 'राज्ञः पुत्रः' as a phrase to be compounded, or 'चतुर्मुखः देवः' with the deity named, so the intended sense is fixed. Second, shift the mark weight from the label to the analysis: 1 mark for a correct विग्रह, 1 for the name, 1 for justifying that the name fits the विग्रह. Add the instruction 'यः समासः समर्थितेन विग्रेहेण सङ्गच्छते सः ग्राह्यः' - any name consistent with the candidate's own विग्रह is acceptable. This preserves the key's preferred answers while making the item test analysis rather than the recall of one label; it also gives markers a written basis for the identical-answer problem already reported.