Some times I‘m thinking that in reality there is only CRD and not CRUD, cause Create and Update are so similar …
What you think? I mean if I would make a new SQL Concept I would speak only of:
S R D
which would mean: Set, Read, Delete… thats it. No big difference between Create and Update… And of course in the Set statement I would define/inject that unique # parameter to identify the row… and you could then also add multiple Sets, or increment them…
In my mind if I had a gun to my head, and was instructed that i had to merge at least one of these from Create, Read, Update, Delete. I would say the best one to merge into one would be update and delete, as both require the same instruction, it needs to know which record or records to update, and the same for the delete, but how one would join Create, and Update, is just a scary thought in my mind.
I am an old man, please don’t give me heart attacks by taking any letter from my CRUD…
So that means Delete and Update would be merged to. Hmmm lets say Modify. So we would have:
Set
Modify
Or better in a philosophical way
Be or not to be … Or 1 and 0…
I think this idea might also be the end of @Hyperbytes, Brian, do not read this post without a few drinks first.
UTF8? LOL
Oh yes UTF8 I completely forgot that kinda Layer… Btw I had already some 
Actually Update could be replaced with Read old copy -> Delete old copy -> Create New copy so not as daft as it sounds I suppose but I don’t think it will catch on.
But what about “S”, CRUD is good but SCRUD is really the king of database world.
Makes sense when you put it like that, thinking out the box. Ok @Freddy_Blockchain, not as scared of the suggestion anymore.
I‘m only scared after googling SCRUD 
lol, not the disease version, Search, Create, Read, Update and Delete