16-11-2017, 09:04 PM
I note that, while he seems to note that [a] and [y] are related, he fails to really understand why they differ. I find that frustrating.
(Though I like that the equivalence of [a] and [y] now seems to be accepted wisdom. I've seen it mentioned half a dozen times in the work of others, though without attribution.)
(Though I like that the equivalence of [a] and [y] now seems to be accepted wisdom. I've seen it mentioned half a dozen times in the work of others, though without attribution.)

