Given '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??.', does 'The character for the word Buddha is now pronounced 'foobiwat' because it is easier to understand.' present an opposing view?
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??.###The character for the word Buddha is now pronounced 'foobiwat' because it is easier to understand.