Is there a neutral relationship between 'The word Buddha itself came to be represented by a character which at one time had a pronunciation something like b'iwat and now, after a long process of phonological change, is pronounced f??.' and 'b'iwat was the original pronunciation for the character representing the word Buddha, prior to a long period of phonological evolution.', lacking direct logical ties?
The word Buddha itself came to be represented by a character which at one time had a pronunciation something like b'iwat and now, after a long process of phonological change, is pronounced f??.###b'iwat was the original pronunciation for the character representing the word Buddha, prior to a long period of phonological evolution.