I want to be upfront with this. There will be no beating around the bush. I want to see the digraph ‘ck’ banned from the English language and replaced by either a single ‘c’ or a ‘k’ or in a couple of instances, an enforced ‘x’.
The combination ‘ck’ has led to some rather unhelpful words like ‘Nantucket’ (you know, it’s in the Limerick) or ‘schmuck’ and even that fashion brand ’fcuk’. Were these to be spelt according to the new CK lexicon, the authorities would need to choose either ‘k’ or ‘c’, which might lead to ‘Nantucet’ and ‘schmuk’; a very simple phonetic spelling without any loss of meaning but with an increased level of efficiency. On the other hand the dyslexic label, ‘fcuk’ would become ‘fcux’ and suffer no disadvantage as one-time millennial clothing label of choice. It might even speed up the search for a cure for dyslexia.
It is true that some people would have to relearn to spell their surnames using the new CK rule but with a bit of practice where the double consonant occurs, even our Commonwealth parliamentarians would find their fears of change to be groundless. In the House of Representative,s we must first make an example of Mr Buchholtz who would seem to escape the C/K rule but only because his parents have used a foreign, alien, white Saxon-privileged spelling whereby ‘ch’ was historically used to avoid the offensive ‘ck’. Had Mr Buchholtz been of English ancestry, his name would most probably have been Buckholst-Smith and over time everything except ’Smith’ would have become but a faded distant memory – much as Battenberg faded away leaving Windsor.
Unfortunately, Macklin, McCormack, Colbeck, Brockman and Patrick would need to change, as would Dicks and Wicks, although I’ve introduced a slight variation regarding the last two with a view to a certain left-wing problem. The first bunch would simply become Maclin, McCormac, Colbec, Brocman and Patric. ‘Easy-peasy’ as we used to say pre-pc. Dicks and Wicks would become Dix (as in Dorothy) which rhymes with Wix (not to be confused with the racehorse) but which adds a certain rustic simplicity.
It will be obvious that Scottish ingenuity will assist Senators McKenzie and McKim to escape the rewrite; but that same ingenuity will not assist McCormack hails from South African.
The real thrust of this lexicographical reform, however, is to target those words where the ‘ck’ forms part of a gross left-wing obscenity. Due to its popularity on the left, I imagine there will be a need for legislation to enforce the re-spelling of the targeted words otherwise there will be endless streams of left-wing lunatics screaming an obscenity with the old spelling or wearing a fashion label that screams ‘Disability!’ But with the legislation, the ‘fcuk’ would become ‘fcux’ and when the cure for dyslexia was found it would no longer be thought of as a ‘c-word and would become, simply, ‘fux’.
Importantly, though, the new spelling would largely strip the word of most of its obscene uses, as in its revelatory form: ‘well fux me’ (said with resignation by ScoMo when Wentworth changed hands); or in the Planned Parenthood Abortion advertisements: ‘Well fux me’. Note the nuanced difference.
The chief advantage of the new spelling is that it would deny the alt-left lunatic antifa, the friends of the dirt and the left-wing lunatic ladies of their obscenity of choice for their placards, since the grammatical force of the ‘fux off’ imperative, dissipates with its reflexive quality. It might actually assist the spoken English as well by quarantining the word to the 3rd person singular, present, indicative semi-active mode. Its spelling would deny it to the first and second person singular and all three persons in the plural form. (If you follow that you obviously studied English grammar about 60 years ago.)
All in all, once the new legislation took effect and the new conjugation was in common use in effete literary circles, the lunatic left, who would still try to cling to the old way of spelling, would be immediately recognised as uneducated. And if that didn’t cause them to fcuk off, I’m not sure what would. But you get my drift.
David Long is a retired solicitor, economist and PhD candidate at Griffith University, School of Law.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.