The 1990s saw the coining of the phrase “cellular telephone” and its inevitable contraction “cel.” We all know this word: “What’s your cel number?” “Call me on my cel!” “My cel’s ringing; hold on.”

Some perverts, however, seem to think this contracted word, when written out, should be spelled with two Ls, as “cell,” having the same spelling as the word used quite broadly to indicate closed systems with distinct boundaries in biology, electricity, architecture, entomology, and aeronautics, among others. “Cell” returns 12 significant meanings at dictionary.com, whereas “cel” returns only 1, which is the noun referring to a transparent piece of celluloid used in the graphic arts, especially animation. If only for the sake of lightening the load on “cell,” it makes sense to adopt “cel” to contract “cellular telephone.”

But there are other reasons. “Cell” is not a contraction of any kind of longer word when used in its pre-wireless sense. When referring to the unit of biological structure or the room for containing a prisoner, we do not imply that the term we choose is aural shorthand for a longer, multisyllabic, more difficult phrase, as we do with hold-on-my-cel-is-ringing. And the natural place to contract “cellular” is at the syllable, between the Ls, as we would when breaking the word across lines on a page. Some might argue that since “cellular” is derived from “cell” we should contract “cellular” as “cell,” but that misses some subtle points of etymology. “Cellular” may be derived from “cell,” but when we contract “cellular telephone” we’re not making the logically reverse adjective-to-noun derivation–we’re just shortening a cumbersome phrase.

What’s more, “cell” already has an established meaning in the field of wireless communications, viz. the geographical area covered by an individual antenna in a “cellular network.”

Finally, there’s the argument from Occam’s razor: “cel” uses fewer letters and thus less ink and less space on the page or screen. The extra L is “done in vain,” and while force of habit and concerns regarding clarity might excuse (if not justify) its presence in the traditional uses of “cell,” if we’re going to coin new uses for the sound we might as well spare the extra letter and emphasize both the novelty and contractive origins of the word with “cel.”

Crudely, from the contractarian point of view, the criminal is one who has violated his obligations under the implied “contract” into which citizens enter by virtue of their participation in society. Turnabout being fair play, the obligations of society toward the criminal are likewise nullified by his violation. Now comes the humanitarian crisis: What are we to do with one whom we are no longer obliged to treat as a citizen? History provides scores of apalling answers, but I propose that which is simultaneously most effective and most humane (and most rational, from the contractarian viewpoint), which is simply imposed exclusion from society in general. Note that I do not say “polite society” or “the society of the governed” or “civilized society;” by “society in general” I intend not any particular society but society itself. I mean to say, i.e., that the proper punishment for crime is total isolation from the rest of humanity for a period of time suitable to the severity of the crime: No family, no friends, no guards, no lawyers, no other inmates. No visits, no conversations, no telephone calls, no letters, no e-mails. The cruelty of such treatment is not to be underestimated, and its value over the present penal system, which does not so much exclude the prisoner from society as introduce him to a new one, should be obvious. As a society, prisoners can adapt to the challenge of prison; all that’s required for the individual is that he or she learn to play by a new set of rules. Witness here the gang phenomenon. As individuals, however, isolated prisoners are simply shunned. Their only hope for belonging is a return to proper society, and the only means to that end is reconciliation with its rules. Maintaining an environment of monkish isolation for every prisoner of course increases expense, but this could be recovered by releasing consensual criminals (i.e. those convicted of consensual crimes). Prisoners who truly do not understand what civilization requires of them are rare indeed; unwillingness, rather than ignorance, is the rule, and it should be the function of punishment to provide incentive for assimilation by promoting the need to belong.