"per se" was used for letters that could also be words "in themselves"
Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was only in reading the alphabet.
> but in reading the alphabet, it was confusing to say "and and." To clear up confusion, one could say "and per se and,"
I'm not sure if this is quite right. Per the above wikipedia link:
> Traditionally, when reciting the alphabet in English-speaking schools, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself ("A", "I", and, "O") was repeated with the Latin expression per se ('by itself'), as in "A per se A".
It seems that it wasn't about & being at the end of the alphabet after all, but rather that it was a logogram that could be used as a standalone word? Or maybe "because it was at the end of the alphabet" meant that the "per se" convention was uniquely useful for &, and thus it survived longer than "I per se I" and "O per se O"?