More Thoughts About Stuff here.
"Thoughts about the alphabet" - October 1, 2008
In most social settings, one can point out certain types of people just after a brief period of observation. We have the insecure friend, the guy who’s into himself, the liar, the poser, the sex addict, whatever. The alphabet is the same way. Only Sesame Street covered up all the letters’ character flaws and made them all equally jolly. But they’re deeper than that.
The letter Q is an insecure letter. Q always needs U by its side, otherwise it can’t function. It can’t go out with confidence due to its dependence on U. Q is possibly gay. While U is not and just wants to be friends. That would explain a lot.
And W. What a superficial bitch this is. W does nothing to describe its sound. Instead, it describes its looks. Calling it a W a double-yoo is like calling the letter O the letter round. It sounds incredibly stupid, but we’ve given W a pass on being vain.
But while W doesn’t describe a sound, H tries to describe its sound but ends up lying about it and making a totally new sound. What word in the English language rhymes with the letter H? Nothing. The B sound can be found in the word ‘because.’ The H sound can only be found in the letter H. How do you phonetically spell H anyway? Ayy-chaaaah?
K. K should just be true to itself. Don’t change for n-e-1, as they say. Why did we accept a concept as stupid as a “soft C?” K sounds like hard C. Soft C sounds like regular S? Wtf were you thinking? What is C’s purpose? Especially if K was going to follow C in a majority of English words like ‘kick?’ Quit posing, you hipsters.
X is a little sketchy, too, but whatever. It’s O’s bff and we sort of need it for symbols. If you have just one X, it means hugs. If you have XXX, it means more than hugs (it means sex).
