There Are Too Many Letters; Remove C
By Hawthorne Tarry
What I am about to suggest would likely be the most significant change to our culture within a millennium.
At the very least.
I am not boasting. I say this with reason and discretion.
Further, for those of you who are convinced of the certainty of global warming, my proposal might, literally, save the world.
I expected to be mocked. I expect to be laughed at.
But duty compels me.
There are too many letters. I propose removing the letter “c”.
Do we need it? Ask yourself, the “k” perfectly replaces the hard sound while there is no difference between a soft “c” and the sound represented by the letter “s”.
And we don’t have to stop with “c”. How pointless is the letter “q”.
The sound voiced by “qu” is no different than that voiced by “kw”.
Kwik like a bunny, hop, hop, hop. Barney Frank is a kweeeeeen.
See? Greater efficiency — what a stupid way to spell a word — without the loss of utility.
Children, innocent children, would not longer be burdened with having to learn 26 letters. This advance in education alone would be worth the small aggravation of change. Yes, traditions would have to end — the ABCs would become the ABDs; CNN would become KNN — but those would be minor prices well worth paying even without consideration of the greatest benefit.
And that of course, would be to the environment. Yes, the squirrels and the bambies and the butterflys will be the true beneficiaries (another stupidly spelled word) of my plan. It would take far fewer bits to transmit the same amount of data and that, obviously, means less fossil few used. And, of course, considering the old media fewer trees would have to used in publishing their stories.
Yes, the world could very well be saved. Think of the redundancies that would be eliminated. Buck would become buk; luck would be luk; and of course what is one of the most widely used words in English, the first one almost always learned by foreign students of our language
Ed note: Rant’s over Hawthorne. Konsider yourself sensored.