Dear Jim,

Thanks a lot for your explanation. However I thought this rule was
concerning euphonic combinations mainly (sandhi). In this case can we
also say that the word "sa.mgha" or "sa"ngha" is the result of a Sandhi?

Kind regards,

Florent

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Florent,
>
> Either spelling is acceptable according to suttas 30 & 31 of the
> Kaccaayanabyaakara.na grammar. The niggahita (.m) can become a
> nasal or vagganta consonant ("n, ~n, .n, n, or m) before a
> corresponding vagga consonant. I'm not sure if the pronuncition of the
> niggahita is constant (a pure nasal like the 'n' in French 'bon') or
> if it should sound the same as one of the five nasal consonants, e.g.,
> s~a-gha or sang-gha.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
> > Dear all,
> > I always thought the word sangha was transcribed "sa"ngha" in Pali
> > roman script. However here in Burma it is always transcribed as
> > "sa.mgha". Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess it is
> not
> > that important since the pronunciation would be the same but I just
> > wonder why that it.
> > Regards,
> > Florent
>