Re: a "natural language" ?

Roger Mills wrote:

>Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>
>>I keep running across that term "sandhi".  Does that just mean the rules
>>that determine which allophone is chosen in a given phonetic
>>environment, or is something else going on?
>>
>>
>>
>It can be purely phonetic, but also morphophonemic (changes to the base
>form). In most cases, it probably involves assimilation of one sort or
>another.
>
>Consider:
>Skt. root {ruc} 'shine': present (with guna ="add -a- to root") >
>rocati
>r-a-uc+a+ti
>r.guna.uc+theme V+3pers.
>
>root {bhu} 'be' :
>present bhavati = bh.guna.u+a+ti in this case the a-u > av because a vowel
>follows.
>
>
I've never heard that bit described as Sandhi (though the Buddha example
below, yes).  However, the above example is just an example of the
equivalence of  <av> and <o>.