Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Dr. Pind,

> ... it has no implications whatever for phonetics.

On that point we certainly agree; I was just reporting Senart's views
for the sake of discussion.

> The author of the Nyaasa explains that adho.thitam denotes a consonant
> devoid of its vowel (assara.m katvaa), not exactly illuminating.

Actually, it may well be illuminating *if* the point of this verse
turns specifically on Nigghahitta Sandhi, viz., if what we're talking
about here is specifically "...a.m u..." becoming "...amu", etc. (and,
in verse 10, the two remaining distinct in some circumstances).

>The
> commentators were clearly unaware of the fact that the rule addresses a
> particular way of writing, different from the one en vogue in SE Asia at the
> time when they composed their commentaries.

I will indeed take your opinion quite seriously, and spend some time
staring at the word "Naye" in 1-1-11, as you suggest.

E.M.