Naming a compound by what it denotes, not by word order
Class 11 Sanskrit, second term. The samāsa question carries 12 marks: six compounds from the prescribed prose passage, 1 mark for the vigraha and 1 for the name. Fifty-two scripts have been marked once, and the moderation note records one systematic habit - students name a compound from the position of its words rather than from what the compound denotes. Three items are contested. पीताम्बरः: 38 students wrote karmadhāraya, 11 wrote bahuvrīhi, 3 left it blank; the passage line describes the deity, whose garment is yellow. चतुर्बाहुः: 22 wrote dvigu, 19 wrote bahuvrīhi, 11 wrote tatpuruṣa. राजपुत्रः: most wrote ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa, but 9 wrote karmadhāraya with the vigraha राजा पुत्रः. The school's printed key gives one bare label per item and no vigraha. You must decide whether that key can stand.
1. Decide पीताम्बरः. Can the key's single label be defended, and how are the 38 karmadhāraya answers marked?
Read the worked answer
A bahuvrīhi is defined by reference: it denotes something other than its members (anyapadārthe). The passage describes the deity, so पीताम्बरः means the one whose garments are yellow, vigraha पीते अम्बरे यस्य सः, and bahuvrīhi is the label that fits the passage. कर्मधारय would be right only if the word denoted the cloth itself - पीतम् अम्बरम्, both members in the same case with one referent - as in a line about dyeing or buying a garment.
The 38 answers are therefore not bad grammar; they are a wrong reading of the referent. Since the vigraha is the evidence, award the vigraha mark where the student's own vigraha is well formed (पीतम् अम्बरम् is a legitimate karmadhāraya vigraha) and withhold the name mark, because the name contradicts the passage. A bare key with no vigraha cannot stand: change it to a two-line key giving both vigrahas and the condition (denotes the wearer → bahuvrīhi; denotes the cloth → karmadhāraya).
2. Decide चतुर्बाहुः. Dvigu and bahuvrīhi both appear in the scripts; which do you credit, and why is tatpuruṣa excluded?
Read the worked answer
The prior member is a numeral (saṅkhyā), which is precisely the defining mark of dvigu; that is why 22 students reached for it. But in the passage the word denotes the four-armed deity, a person, so the compound as used is bahuvrīhi: चत्वारो बाहवो यस्य सः. Dvigu is the inner numeral compound चत्वारो बाहवः, an aggregate stated in the singular.
Credit therefore depends on what the script claims the word does. Bahuvrīhi with the yasya-vigraha earns both marks. Dvigu earns both marks only if the script shows the numeral aggregate and does not claim the word names a person; a script that writes dvigu but then glosses it as 'the four-armed one' has answered bahuvrīhi under the wrong name, so give the vigraha mark and withhold the name. Tatpuruṣa is excluded outright: no case relation is expressed between the members and neither determines the other, so the name is not merely a variant but a different analysis. Put this dependency into the key in one sentence rather than printing a single label.
3. Decide राजपुत्रः. What exactly is wrong with the vigraha राजा पुत्रः, and what should those nine students score?
Read the worked answer
राजपुत्रः = राज्ञः पुत्रः: the prior member stands in the genitive in the vigraha, and the compound denotes the second member - a son who is of the king. That is ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa, and the majority answer is right on both counts.
The vigraha राजा पुत्रः fails twice over. First, it puts both members in the nominative as if they were in apposition, which is the signature of karmadhāraya; second, it produces a meaning the word cannot carry, since a prince is not a king. Karmadhāraya needs viśeṣaṇa and viśeṣya with one referent, as in नीलोत्पलम् = नीलम् उत्पलम्, where the qualifier and the qualified are the same thing. Here the king and the son are two different people, so the same-referent test fails at once.
Because the vigraha is the gatekeeper in a 1 + 1 scheme, a wrong vigraha means the name mark cannot be earned either: zero of two. Write the correct vigraha in the margin so the error is corrected rather than merely punished, and add the same-referent test to the marking scheme so future scripts can be judged without re-arguing the point.