[ home | contact | archive | 1996: jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec ]

Cardhouse
macros2000.com

1990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1996may11. For some reason, the reading populace at large EXPLODED with responses to the “WheeCut” discussion, which is now months old, but who cares. Constructive criticism, observations, and recipe requests were just some of the letters received here at Missive HQ. Longtime Missive reader and secret double-agent Tom LeMense speaks out in defense of “Whee”

“I must point out that the exclamation ‘Wee!’ is totally bogus! The ‘h', however silent it is, MUST be left in situ. ‘Wee!’ could only possibly be a response to a question demanding a diminutive answer, e.g.; “How big is Newt Gingrich’s brain?” The ‘h’ must remain! Perhaps I have a slight bias on this matter of forgotten/dropped letters, as my surname contains a participle and my ‘m’ is often left as lower-case ...

The ‘h’ gives “whee” some elegance, it makes you look twice--not because it’s wrong, just because it’s cool. People will start saying “so that’s how you spell ‘whee'!” Without the ‘h', whee just becomes some stupid looking, vaguely onomatopoeic utterance. Although, I must admit that from a purely technical standpoint, I do not understand the English language rules and regulations re: ‘w’ versus ‘wh'. It certainly cannot be phonetic: why not “whindow"? Now, “who” makes sense, but “whine” and “wine” sound the same – can the sole purpose of the ‘h’ be to serve as a patsy, simply to double number of meanings allocated to each ‘w’ word? Wee/whee, wine/whine, wet/whet, whit/wit, wack/whack. Why does the English language take such advantage of the ‘h’ in these instances?! This is an outrage!!”

Also, Dan Taylor (of Exploitation Retrospect) informs me that the “WheeCut” model he saw is self-sharpening. I am there.