Big "X" Little "x"; what begins with "X"?

Not much, actually. A couple of scientific prefixes (xero- and xeno-) provide most of the words that you can use your "X" to create - but since Scrabble only gives you seven letters to play with, there is little likelihood of plopping "xenophobic" down on a triple word score any time soon. Any opponent smart enough to spell "phobic" wouldn't put it in a place where that "xeno-" prefix could do much damage, anyway.

The relative futility of "X" came home to me this evening when I was curled up with a small glass of port and a copy of "Dr. Seuss' A-B-C". I try to get through a letter every night. The man who brought you Uncle Ubb and the Tuttle-tuttle Tree; the very same man who put a wocket in my pocket and a noothgrush on your toothbrush; that guy was telling me that "X" stands for...wait for it...."X-ray and xylophone".

X-ray and xylophone? If Dr. Seuss can't do any better than that, then I say it's time to give this whole "X" thing another look. What can you accomplish with a "X" that you couldn't accomplish with, for egzample, a few strategically placed z's and g's? Almost all of those "x" words SOUND like they start with "z", anyway. It isn't "eksylophone". It's "zylophone."

I know - I know. It's those pesky Greek word roots. They get you every time. But what sort of ekscuse is that? And seriously, wouldn't the alphabet be more wieldy with a nice group of 25 letters? a nice number with a square root and everything - makes a pleasant 5 x 5 block of characters. Then when you use "X" to create any one of those non-words ("X-Men", "X-Factor", X-Box") it would REALLY be cool. The idea of 26 letters isn't cast in stone. Other languages that use the Roman alphabet have differing numbers of letters. They are merely symbols, after all, used to give shape to a sound. And "X" fails at that task most miserably, almost every time. Apart from "X-Ray", which shouldn't be a word and only gets to be one because of the Scrabble lobby, the only other words that even sound like they start with "x" rely on partnering "x" up with "e" - for example...well, example, for example. It's like "x" can't be trusted to go out there on its own and lead a word. I can imagine those word police guys, who I know egzist: "Sounds like it starts with an "x"? Ooooooh. Better slap an "e" on there. Can't be too careful about those "x's"."

The dictionary writers - lecksicographers, I guess - could have cut "x" some slack by saying that all those "ex" words started with a SILENT "e" so that 'x' could live up to its name....but they didn't.

The bottom line is clear. X may mark it, but it doesn't cut it.

And then there's the question of "Q". What kind of self-respecting letter needs to be surgically attached to a "u" all the time? Unless you are spelling "Qatar" (which you can't use in Scrabble), or "Iraq" (which you can't use either) or "cinq" (nope - it's French), you had better have a "u" handy. Turns out "q" doesn't really have a sound, at all - at least not one of its own. Without a "u", it's a "k". And with a "u" its a "kw". So what's the point? You don't even save the trouble of making a letter. And doesn't "delinquent" look more edgy and apropos when spelled "delinkwent"? Very street, as they say (far too often) on "So You Think You Can Dance."

Now we're down to 24 letters - another nice number - divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12, capable of being arranged into all sorts of geometrically pleasing patterns, and no one will care except maybe the Queen and Jian Ghomeshi.





Note: The mark in the photograph is neither an "X" nor a "Q". It is a stonecutter's identifying glyph, cut into a limestone block that forms part of a wall in St. Jeronimo's Monastery in Lisbon. Using this symbol correctly in "Scrabble" is worth 1,000,000 points.