Two-Mark Sandhi and Samasa Item: A Surface Ambiguity That Must Not Earn Credit
Answer scripts from a 25-mark grammar section show a split among examiners over the item 'ନୀଳୋତ୍ପଳର ସନ୍ଧି ବିଚ୍ଛେଦ କର ଏବଂ ସମାସର ନାମ ଲେଖ' (Split the sandhi in nīlotpala and name the samasa), worth 2 marks. Of 40 students, 9 wrote 'ନୀଳା + ଉତ୍ପଳ' and 6 wrote only 'କର୍ମଧାରୟ ସମାସ' without showing the split. The key gives 'ନୀଳ + ଉତ୍ପଳ; କର୍ମଧାରୟ'. One examiner wants full marks for the 9 because 'nīḷā + utpaḷa' also yields the same written form; another wants zero because the first member must be 'ନୀଳ'. The board's instruction says sandhi answers must show the original components, and samasa answers must name the relation. The head examiner must rule on the 9 and the 6, and produce a one-line clarification for the marking guide that distinguishes sandhi from samasa without confusing students.
1. Should the nine students who wrote 'ନୀଳା + ଉତ୍ପଳ' receive the split mark? Decide and explain the linguistic test.
Read the worked answer
No. The split mark should go only to 'ନୀଳ + ଉତ୍ପଳ'. The surface form ନୀଳୋତ୍ପଳ can indeed be generated from either nīla + utpala or nīḷā + utpala, because both a/ā + u yield o. But sandhi splitting is not a string game; the test is whether the stated components are the actual morphemes in this word. Here the first member is the adjective nīla ('blue'), which agrees with the neuter noun utpala ('lotus'). 'ନୀଳା' is a feminine form or a name and would not modify utpala. The board instruction asks for the original components, so a split that changes the lexical item is wrong even if it produces the same letters. Award 0 for the split, and since the nine did not name the samasa, their total is 0/2. In feedback, acknowledge the surface ambiguity-this is a teachable point-but do not award a mark for an unstated or incorrect component. Consistency matters: the same rule applies to all 40 scripts.
2. The six who wrote only 'କର୍ମଧାରୟ ସମାସ'-what do they get, and what does that reveal about the two-mark design?
Read the worked answer
Award 1/2: one mark for the correct samasa name, zero for the missing split. The item is deliberately two-part-split (1) and name (1)-so a student who knows the compound relation but not the junction earns half. This is not a consolation mark; it is criterion-based. The pattern also reveals a design issue: the two parts test different knowledge (sandhi operation vs compound classification), and the key should say so explicitly. If the school wants a single integrated skill, it should use a 2-mark item that requires both in one sentence and state 'no split, no samasa mark'. For this paper, apply the key as written. In moderation, count the six separately from the nine: the six have the correct relation, the nine have neither correct component. Do not merge them into a general 'sandhi weak' comment; the remediation differs-junction practice for the six, lexical analysis for the nine.
3. Write the one-line marking-guide clarification distinguishing sandhi and samasa, in Odia, plus a one-sentence English gloss.
Read the worked answer
Odia line: 'ସନ୍ଧି ବର୍ଣ୍ଣର ମିଳନ-ବିଚ୍ଛେଦରେ ମୂଳ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣ/ପଦ ଦେଖାଅ; ସମାସ ପଦର ମିଳନ-ସମାସର ନାମ ଅଲଗା ଲେଖ।' Gloss: 'Sandhi is a junction of sounds-show the original sound units in the split; samasa is a compound of words-name the compound relation separately.' Why this wording: it uses the operative verbs 'ଦେଖାଅ' and 'ଲେଖ' so examiners know what to look for, and it prevents the common error of treating a samasa name as a substitute for a split. It also avoids saying 'sandhi is easier' or 'samasa is meaning', which would confuse the two levels. Add one example in the guide: 'ନୀଳ + ଉତ୍ପଳ = ନୀଳୋତ୍ପଳ; କର୍ମଧାରୟ'-split first, name second. This single line can be read aloud before marking and pasted into the guide without changing the key.