The same compound, two samāsa labels: context decides
A 3-mark grammar question gives the sentence 'nīlotpalam ānaya' and asks: 'Identify the samāsa in nīlotpalam and justify your answer.' The marking scheme gives 1 mark for the correct samāsa name, 1 for the vigraha, and 1 for the contextual reason. A candidate writes: 'It is bahuvrīhi, because nīlotpalam means "that which has blue lotuses"; the compound points to something other than its members, so it is bahuvrīhi.' The candidate's definition of bahuvrīhi is correct in general, and the vigraha is formally possible. But in the sentence, nīlotpalam is the object of ānaya and means a single blue lotus, so the compound is a karmadhāraya with a qualifying first member. The teacher must decide whether to award the vigraha mark, whether the candidate's reasoning is a genuine alternative or a context error, and how to explain that a compound's class depends on its use in the sentence.
1. Award the 3 marks and explain why the candidate's general definition does not save the answer.
Read the worked answer
Award 1/3: 0/1 for the name, because bahuvrīhi is wrong in this sentence; 1/1 for the vigraha only if the scheme rewards a formally possible analysis; 0/1 for contextual reason. The vigraha offered, 'one having blue lotuses', is not the vigraha of the given sentence; it belongs to a different use of the same sequence. A stricter reading gives 0/3. The key is to separate 'the candidate knows what bahuvrīhi means' from 'the candidate has analysed this occurrence'. The question asks the latter.
2. Give the correct vigraha and explain the test that distinguishes karmadhāraya from bahuvrīhi here.
Read the worked answer
Correct vigraha: nīlam utpalam = karmadhāraya, 'a blue lotus'. Test: in 'nīlotpalam ānaya', the compound denotes the lotus itself, the object of ānaya. A bahuvrīhi denotes a possessor different from its members, e.g. nīlotpalaṃ sarasī, 'a lake with blue lotuses'. Since the sentence asks someone to bring the lotus, not a lotus-possessor, karmadhāraya is required.
3. The candidate asks: 'But can't nīlotpalam ever be bahuvrīhi?' Answer in two sentences.
Read the worked answer
Yes. In 'nīlotpalaṃ sarasī' the same sequence can be bahuvrīhi because it modifies 'lake'; samāsa class is a syntactic function, not a fixed property of the letters.