Mijan scripsit: > Let's consider the ra+virama+ya case. In the mostpart the ra+virama+ya is > displayed as ya+reph. This obviously seems to be an > instance of ambiguous interpretation because ra+virama+ya could also represents > ra+ja-phalaa. ya+reph and ra+ja-phalaa are used in different words and have > different meaning.
I'm responding to this message in order to isolate this point. If correct, then the current model of YA PHALAA is inadequate. -- Dream projects long deferred John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --James Lileks http://www.reutershealth.com
