Sometimes I've idly wondered why, although the first few letters of our alphabet generally parallel those of Greek and Hebrew, they differs at the third position? We have aigh, bee, dee at the start, and Greek and Hebrew have the parallel alpha, beta, delta and aleph, bet, daled at the same positions. But the parallel fails at the third position: where Greek and Hebrew have the g-sound (gamma; gimel) but we have the k-sound of the letter C.

Why? As I vaguely understand it, that letter was a G-sound until the Romans began to also use it for the k-sound in some words. Then, to avoid confusion, they reserved that letter solely for the k-sound (for the most part, discontinued the previous k-symbol), and created for the g-sound a new symbol, our G.

Ernest D. Veerwald was indignant at the perversity and usurpation by the letter C, and he struck back in the 1980 Spring/Summer issue of Journal of Peripheral Linguistics. Excerpts:

And with K and Q reduced to mere back-water letters with measly little tasks to do, you would think this gluttonous letter C would have had its fill of muscling in on the operations of other letters. But no! As a matter of fact, C's behavior had become so offensive, and it upsets me so, that as of right now, I will no longer use the letter C in any of my writing and maybe not even in speaking. I will restore the power of the phoneme [k] to K instead of using "the awful third letter," which I will no longer mention by name.

"That letter" went along with them to the British Isles to move in on the territory and livelihood of S. So not only had "the dreaded letter" eklipsed [k], now it had its klutches (well I guess I'll have to use it when I need to use the digraph CH--but no other time!) on [s]! Personally, I never really liked Q, and K is only slightly more endurable, but S! Well now, that's another story. With S being one of the only kommendable letters in the alphabet, the affront to its potency at the hands of C (I only used its name here for dramatik effekt) is intolerable. Aktually, now that I mention it, I think I'll put S bak into the plases where "you know who" has taken over S's previous okupation. To think that IT would have the audasity to even attempt to kome klose to such a karismatik letter as S.

And let us not neglekt what has been happening to O. I have notised on all too many an okasion the kareless hand of a writer kausing the hideous letter that I refuse to write to resemble an O. A konsonant resembling a vowel! What's next?! I'm sure our third letter is inkredibly pleased with itself, seeing the konfusion it has kaused by this brash display of disregard for order and kondukt. Well, I kannot overstress how unamused I am, and just to teach this upstart of a letter a lesson, I will replase it in its most prized position--that's right, the digraph CH--and I will replase it with the greatly wounded O. Maybe that will teaoh it a little humility in the fase of its "oh-so-hilarious" akts of ohikanery.

Akts whioh inklude a konfounding frequensy in the periodik table. But the oheepest shot of all is IT's okupation of the most prestigious plase in the musikal skale. Why kouldn't a ohild learn about the middle M or the middle L? Bekause "that letter" oharmed and smarmed its way into favor with whoever desided on the names of the notes--just like it oharmed its way to the beginning of the alphabet! Sure, it kould have been the twenty-third letter or even the fifteenth--but no! It had to have kontrol of the third position so that every word and ohild's name that began with IT would be kalled before the konsiderably more sinsere ohildren whose name began with V were kalled.

Well I for one am grateful for its existence. My name looks far better with a "curly k@" than a "kicking k@".

It's true that C could, strictly speaking, be erased from the alphabet as a stand-alone letter, as K and S can indeed be used instead. C could be replaced by CH as a single letter, although that might cause problems when differentiating words such as church from loch (which of course isn't prononced "lok").

I don't agree with any of this in the slightest, you understand. I like C! But it is something I have pondered on in the past.

Ernest D. Veerwald was indignant at the perversity and usurpation by the letter C, and he struck back in the 1980 Spring/Summer issue of Journal of Peripheral Linguistics.

I believe the article you've quoted was written in 1994 by Sarah M Smith who attributed it to Ernest D. Veerwald in the nonexistent 1980 Spring/Summer issue of Journal of Peripheral Linguistics.

Interesting, Sarah M Smith was in a book arts program and I've tracked down one of her books: Smith, Sarah M., Anvil and the Bufonidaen War, Philadelphia, PA: S.M. Smith, 1994.

jheem says, "I've tracked down one of her books."

Do send me a copy, either by op-scan or photo-copy and snail-mail. I'm sure we could use it to launch some interesting discussions here.

[ribbit]

Do send me a copy

Wish I physically owned it, but it's in the Bancroft Library at Cal, which is a rare books library. No copiers, only number 2 pencils. I'll try to look it over and give you a précis next time I go to campus.

But! But! But!

C is for cookie! That's good enough for me!
-- Cookie Monster

But! But! But!

K is for kook. ..

Well, sure, Arnie . . . but cookies are generally sweeter that kooks! Mmmmmmmm. <makes Homer Simpson's yummy growl in the throat> Cooookiessssss.