Whatever became of cursive handwriting?

[BaalChatzaf]

I have noticed that very few people use cursive handwriting with joined letters. Mostly they use a kind of print script with the letters separated. When did cursive handwriting go the way of the Scripto ™ mechanical pencil.

I was brought up on Palmer Penmanship and all our desks had an inkwell in the upper right corner. We were required to use pens with removable metal nibs until fifth grade when we were rewarded by being permitted to use fountain pens. I spent many an afternoon as ink-monitor filling the inkwells on the desks. And then there were the stains on the wooden floors where some one spilled Waterman's ™ Indelible Ink. We could never fully get the splotches out of the wood. The scritch-scratch of the nibs still ring in my ears.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

I have noticed that very few people use cursive handwriting with joined letters. Mostly they use a kind of print script with the letters separated. When did cursive handwriting go the way of the Scripto ™ mechanical pencil.

I was brought up on Palmer Penmanship and all our desks had an inkwell in the upper right corner. We were required to use pens with removable metal nibs until fifth grade when we were rewarded by being permitted to use fountain pens. I spent many an afternoon as ink-monitor filling the inkwells on the desks. And then there were the stains on the wooden floors where some one spilled Waterman's ™ Indelible Ink. We could never fully get the splotches out of the wood. The scritch-scratch of the nibs still ring in my ears.

Ba'al Chatzaf

oh my, you date yourself!! but same here, as had not-so-fun times getting my legs within those confined spaces under those desks [was an early sprouter]... while use ball point pens, I still keep my 'journal of ideas' by longhand cursive script - but ye right, most today seem almost reverted to the block letter stage, a real shame...

[anthony]

Yea, now you mention it, it is a long time since I saw those handwriting analysts at fairs and flea-markets.

All out of business now - seems a shame.

I suppose a signature is the last remnant of cursive writing, presently - to be soon replaced by retinal scans or something.

Ahh, I'm getting old.

Fountain pens...

Tony

[kiaer.ts]

The use of cursive is an affectation from the time when pushing a hoop with a stick was the height of entertainment.

Nowadays people have more important things to do, like text while driving.

I only use cursive myself as if it were an alternative font when I want to indicate italics or such.

I took Russian in the early nineties, and we were taught Russian cursive and had to use it exclusively. (Russian cursive t looks like an m and d looks like a cursive lower-case g!)

I am auditing Russian now, and the teacher insisted that cursive is a waste of time and no one uses it any more.

[BaalChatzaf]

oh my, you date yourself!! but same here, as had not-so-fun times getting my legs within those confined spaces under those desks [was an early sprouter]... while use ball point pens, I still keep my 'journal of ideas' by longhand cursive script - but ye right, most today seem almost reverted to the block letter stage, a real shame...

I am well into geezer-dom. I read somewhere that cursive joined writing made its last gasp in American public schools somewhere around 1980 although it has been on its way out since the 1930s. The main argument against cursive joined hand writing was that most of what people read was either printed or typewritten so why bother with handwriting that few would read. When computers and e-mail came into general use, the handwritten letter mostly went the way of the dodo and the buggy whip.

I noticed that my own kids who were in fifth grade before the 1970s (except for my youngest who is nicknamed oops, ten years behind his sibs), were going toward block letter hand writing. But they wrote their names using joined script. With block lettering one's signature is much less distinctive and unique than with joined lettering.

For myself, I notice my mental process are different between when I type and when I push a writing instrument. I have no idea why the manner in which one producing readable material should make such a big difference in the way one thinks.

Even though I was born in the mid 30s of the last century I am very much a child and a thrall of the computer age. Almost all my non-speaking output is done with a keyboard except for math. I can read Latex but I have little ease in expressing myself. I still write math the Old Fashioned way. Since it is a quasi-two dimensional modality I fell very free expressing myself with it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 11, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The use of cursive is an affectation from the time when pushing a hoop with a stick was the height of entertainment.

Perhaps not an affectation in 1870 or 1880 when printed books were not as common among the non-rich as they are now (or could be). Once people spent most of their reading time reading newspapers and magazines the days of cursive handwriting were numbered.

Cursive handwriting is really an artifact of the pre-Gutenberg era plus the time it took for books to become wide spread along with literacy. I would say by the middle 1800s (19th century) the mass of folks were well into printed (as opposed to hand written) material. It took a hundred years for this fact to make a difference in what was taught in the public schools. It wasn't until the 1920s that school children were taught that the earth moves around the sun rather than the sun around the earth (just kidding!)

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

The use of cursive is an affectation from the time when pushing a hoop with a stick was the height of entertainment.

Perhaps not an affectation in 1870 or 1880 when printed books were not as common among the non-rich as they are now (or could be). Once people spent most of their reading time reading newspapers and magazines the days of cursive handwriting were numbered.

Cursive handwriting is really an artifact of the pre-Gutenberg era plus the time it took for books to become wide spread along with literacy. I would say by the middle 1800s (19th century) the mass of folks were well into printed (as opposed to hand written) material. It took a hundred years for this fact to make a difference in what was taught in the public schools. It wasn't until the 1920s that school children were taught that the earth moves around the sun rather than the sun around the earth (just kidding!)

Ba'al Chatzaf

I do think its survival past the age of ink wells is an affectation. We were taught that cursive handwriting is quicker and more elegant. It may be more elegant. But the real reason for its use was to avoid splattering ink from the quill point between letters.

I learned cursive in third grade. It took up a large portion of that school year. I remember our second grade teacher warning the class that if we didn't behave, we wouldn't be allowed to learn cursive the following year!

I am not opposed to the teaching of cursive. It is good practice for manual dexterity. But wouldn't learning typing in the second grade be more useful?

[BaalChatzaf]

I am not opposed to the teaching of cursive. It is good practice for manual dexterity. But wouldn't learning typing in the second grade be more useful?

I suspect typing comes along with learning how to use computers which kids are doing nowadays earlier and earlier. My grandchildren have been punching keyboards since they were three and a half years old and also doing mouse navigation. I must admit I get a kick out of watching my (now) seven year old grands along with my four year old youngest granddaughter using computers and VCRs with no difficulty at all.

Many middle class and upper class kids have access to computers at home and do not need to wait to get into school to learn how to use them. Whatever the problems with modern industrial society, illiteracy is one of them. Thinking may be a problem, but processing the written and screen display word is not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I am not opposed to the teaching of cursive. It is good practice for manual dexterity. But wouldn't learning typing in the second grade be more useful?

I suspect typing comes along with learning how to use computers which kids are doing nowadays earlier and earlier. My grandchildren have been punching keyboards since they were three and a half years old and also doing mouse navigation. I must admit I get a kick out of watching my (now) seven year old grands along with my four year old youngest granddaughter using computers and VCRs with no difficulty at all.

Many middle class and upper class kids have access to computers at home and do not need to wait to get into school to learn how to use them. Whatever the problems with modern industrial society, illiteracy is one of them. Thinking may be a problem, but processing the written and screen display word is not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I meant formal touch typing lessons, not hunt and peck. (Although my mother, a secretary, is surprised by the speed at which I can hunt and peck). Obviously educators would need to determine at what age to begin such training. I am quite sure that the time spent on cursive would be better invested, even if at an earlier age, in learning to touch type.

[George H. Smith]

I haven't written longhand on a regular basis for so many years that on those occasions when I write now, I have trouble forming some letters without pausing. The ultimate result is a combination of writing and printing. And my hand gets cramped before very long.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I meant formal touch typing lessons, not hunt and peck. (Although my mother, a secretary, is surprised by the speed at which I can hunt and peck). Obviously educators would need to determine at what age to begin such training. I am quite sure that the time spent on cursive would be better invested, even if at an earlier age, in learning to touch type.

Yes. And on a Dvorac keyboard too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I meant formal touch typing lessons, not hunt and peck. (Although my mother, a secretary, is surprised by the speed at which I can hunt and peck). Obviously educators would need to determine at what age to begin such training. I am quite sure that the time spent on cursive would be better invested, even if at an earlier age, in learning to touch type.

Yes. And on a Dvorac keyboard too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sorry. Qwerty will be around until civilization falls. Even the Communists could not get rid of the ridiculous Cyrillic and Chinese writing systems, although they tried.

[algernonsidney]

Hopefully, cursive is dead. I learned it in the second grade. That was 1978-9. I immediately saw no purpose in learning it and was quite reluctant in using it.

Even when I go to a funeral and "sign" the guest book, I print my name. The only time I use cursive is when I need to sign an "official" signature. My signature changes all the time anyway. It's never consistent. If I was a baseball player, I imagine I would autograph a baseball differently every time. Then again, I might print my name even then.

The other thing that I have totally banished from my writing is the Roman numeral system. Like cursive, it serves no purpose. I will even write names like "Bill Gates 3" or "Super Bowl 40."

[algernonsidney]

I meant formal touch typing lessons, not hunt and peck. (Although my mother, a secretary, is surprised by the speed at which I can hunt and peck). Obviously educators would need to determine at what age to begin such training. I am quite sure that the time spent on cursive would be better invested, even if at an earlier age, in learning to touch type.

Yes. And on a Dvorac keyboard too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sorry. Qwerty will be around until civilization falls. Even the Communists could not get rid of the ridiculous Cyrillic and Chinese writing systems, although they tried.

Maybe, maybe not. A guy was in our office last week with a French laptop. Lots of the keys and characters were moved around. It drove me insane.

[Philip Coates]

> Hopefully, cursive is dead. I learned it in the second grade. That was 1978-9. I immediately saw no purpose in learning it and was quite reluctant in using it. [Chris]

Cursive is faster than print because you don't lift you pen or pencil up. It's how you take notes and people should take notes in classes or on the fly.

Cursive should be taught.

[sbeaulieu]

I remember getting in trouble for trying to write cursive in 2nd grade. Mine is legible. It's much faster than printing, and I never got around to print until I came into the military.

~ Shane

P.S. As for qwerty, I'd love to get away from that all together and go with the Dvorak style. 3000 words in the English language appear on the home keys, vs. qwerty at around 300.

[kiaer.ts]

using it. [Chris]

Cursive is faster than print because you don't lift you pen or pencil up. It's how you take notes and people should take notes in classes or on the fly.

That is the assertion, but it's absurd to argue that, for instance, a three-stroke cursive lower case /s/ is written faster than a one-stroke printed one. The Capitals are simply absurd. I always balked at the capital T for my first name, and intentionally designed a one-stroke version of my own.

Cursive is disfunctionally ornate. If speed were the actual goal, shorthand would be the answer.

"It's how you take notes"? In other words, "if it was good enough for me . . ."

I was quite happy to abandon cursive after a decade of enforced daily use and adopt a free-hand style of printing. I mostly use the shape of printed letters but do not necessarily lift the pen and I do use ligatures for combinations like /th/ which are very common. I just had a woman compliment my handwriting last Tuesday.

The time spent demanding that children adhere to an arbitrary and silly baroque style is a waste of a good portion of a school year.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Ted Keer

[algernonsidney]

Cursive is faster than print because you don't lift you pen or pencil up. It's how you take notes and people should take notes in classes or on the fly.

Cursive should be taught.

When I was in junior high and high school, I was one of the fastest in my class to take notes. I never used cursive.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Chris Baker

[Brant Gaede]

Cursive is faster than print because you don't lift you pen or pencil up. It's how you take notes and people should take notes in classes or on the fly.

Cursive should be taught.

When I was in junior high and high school, I was one of the fastest in my class to take notes. I never used cursive.

I never learned to print fast because I was taught cursive. My handwriting is pretty lousy. My Father had more than one cursive style, both outstanding. I'm a natural lefty, but I've always used my right hand for writing. This was natural for me. I don't recall any teacher insisting I use my right hand. I both admire and pity people who write with their left hands; I don't know how they stand it since we all write (English) left to right causing them to twist their hands down from the top.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Phil's Rule 235: Experiment. Test your viewpoint whenever possible.

> it's absurd to argue that, for instance, a three-stroke cursive lower case /s/ is written faster than a one-stroke printed one.

Ted, a concrete example: I just tried writing the word 'slim' in both cursive and print. I'm good at both cursive and print, and cursive was -much- faster (three seconds vs. 5-6 seconds.) It's not just about the number of strokes. It's about the lifting and repositioning of the pencil. Also, it's easier to write really small with cursive and the smaller you write, the less time and energy.

Ok: now I'm going to try it with "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog," which has a wider range of letters and is longer, thus making a better experiment. I will also run the experiment multiple times.

I just did three tests - as fast as I can write, intermediate, slow taking care to shape every letter. The difference exists but is smaller than I would have expected - both between hurried scrawl and slow/legible --and-- between cursive and print:

FAST AND SCRAWLY -- 12 and 16 sec.

MEDIUM -- 15 and 18 sec.

SLOW/QUITE LEGIBLE -- 18 and 22 sec.

(the first of each pair above is cursive, the second is print.)

Your mileage may differ. Please run your own test with the above sentence if you can spare five or ten minutes . Also, will be interesting to see which of us has the fastest legible handwriting.

[Philip Coates]

No cheating.

[Philip Coates]

Philquiz for Wednesday:

The quick brown fox sentence I chose is a good writing exercise sentence because it contains 23 letters. Which 3 letters in the alphabet are missing?

Philquiz #2: Aren't I clever for having chosen such a good sentence? Check one of these boxes -->

/__/ YES.

/__/ ABSOLUTELY.

Philquiz -- Extra credit: Does anyone know of a good short sentence that makes sense which contains all 26 letters?

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting thread: it's not petering out--as it should--it's fulminating.

--Brant

poor Phil

[kiaer.ts]

Your way of printing and your way of writing cursive are not the only alternatives. I write in a simple, flowing style where most of the letters look like printing, but I don't stop and lift the pencil between letters, and you can see the faint ligatures. I also print in the style we learned in Drafting when I need to make very neat titles for things such as DVD's and I can use formal and baroquely ornate cursive if the occasion calls for it. I am happy for you if all those years of practicing the ornate baroque cursive style have worked out for you. But I believe form follows function, and a clean no-nonsense writing style works well for me.

Q When does two equal 1,000?

A: