== Cwm == 
 I have 3 concerns about this sentence: 
 *The word CWM is quite famous for being a three-letter word with no vowels - not even a Y, which is often used as a vowel substitute. 
 Firstly, Y is not just a vowel substitute, it is a vowel when it acts as a vowel, and a consonant when it acts as a consonant.  In YES it's a consonant, and in TRY it's a vowel.  We've all become slaves to the primary school teaching that in English there are 5 and only 5 vowels, a, e, i, o and u.  That was always wrong.  Y may not always operate as a vowel, but it's still a vowel sometimes. 

 Secondly, cwm was lifted from Welsh, and the English didn't even bother to re-spell it as something less foreign-looking, eg. coom. But they still claim it as an English word.  How can this be?  Oh, that's right, it's an English word that doesn't have any vowels, that must be the explanation.  Well, it doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. W is certainly considered a vowel in Welsh, so how can it possibly have ceased to be a vowel when it still performs exactly the same function in cwm as it did before the English stole the word?  This seems to be taking the expression "having a bet each way" too far, really.  Leaving that debate aside, my view is that the W takes the -oo- sound in this case, and clearly performs the functions of a vowel, so it's a vowel.  The list of vowels should read: a, e, i, o, u, y (often), and w (in some special cases). 

 Thirdly, is the Scrabble page the best place to be discussing linguistic matters?  If cwm is generally accepted by the Scrabble experts as a valid English word, why is there a need to talk about its alleged vowellessness (my neologism for today), or to justify it any way at all?  I won't make any changes until others have had a chance to have a think about these very serious matters.