Dear Florent,

You're right, the two rules (Kacc 30 & 31) concern euphonic
combinations. And, yes, the two words are a result of sandhi although
I find some difficulty understanding some of the commentarial remarks
on Kacc 30 (a.m bya~njane niggahita.m) which I think applies to
"sa.mgha". With Kacc 31 (vagganta.m vaa vagge) it is easier to see
that .m is changed to "n before gh in the case of "sa"ngha". It is
possible that "vaa" may not have the meaning that I've been thinking
it has.

Jim

> 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