Cursive Is Quicker Than Printing (?)

[Paddler]

Time lost lifting the pen in printing is more than made up for by retracing lines and making loops in cursive. Ask anyone who had to copy Morse code; use lower case printing and wherever possible use letters designed to be written with a single stroke. Also, quickly written, printing is more legible than cursive.

[ylw]

If you want to write fast you need to do the same as any ambulance/fire truck driver learns: keep a steady flow, don't step the pedal to the metal because that won't work. If you need to pause a lot because the pen has to stay on paper this breaks your flow and therefore isn't faster. With cursive it is almost mandatory to keep the pen on the paper at all times when writing a word. In Dutch we can have quite long words because we can join several words to make 1 word. We use this when playing hangman by trying to create a very long word (the famous autobandventieldopjesfabrikant and all of its variations). When you have to write words like these in cursive it is quite difficult because of the length of the word. You need to pauze a lot if you want to keep the pen on paper. Lifting the pen in this case is quite necessary because you can move your writing position more easily and faster. This is also what leads to the mixed script in most cases. Most people here will have this way of writing, even people from the 40s and 50s. They do it the moment they leave primary school because no one watches if you join the letters or not.

 

But the problem with this entire cursive-print thing is that you can't say that one or the other is the better one. There are simply too many other factors that play a role in the story. Some people are more used to cursive, others more to print and others to a mixed version. It is a style they've developed over the years and what makes it the best/fastest to write for them. The other thing to consider is readability. Writing fast is one thing but still being able to read the text is an entirely different story. Don't forget the reason why we write. It is about communicating something to somebody else. Being able to read what it says is crucial, speed/beauty not so much. In the old days writing was done slowly by monks because they had the entire day. They had all the time of the world to create a piece of art which is exactly what they did. The fonts back then were about beauty and not about speed or readability (reading & writing was for royal/rich people and monks). It is completely different from what we needed later on in history: speed and readability. Most adjusted the script they were using a bit to accommodate for speed (the business writing thing that is discussed here so much is a good example of that). The scripts they were using were never designed from the ground up to be readable and fast. Compare it to a truck converted to a mobile home. A vehicle designed from the ground up to be a mobile home will do a much better job at it in most cases because you have a blank canvas to start from. The same goes for the qwerty layout. It was developed to overcome certain mechanical problems with typewriters, not to be ergonomic.

 

@vincentstao: practice a lot, you need to master the cursive writing first. Over time it will become faster because certain movements are more natural to you. If you start writing faster it will develop more over time.

[Alohamora]

Though not yet retired, I too am old enough to remember the stigma attached to printing as an everyday hand.

 

Block capitals and printing were synonymous to me, but given that printing (i.e. not joining letters) is now popular with some people, the use of l/c letters now comes under that heading without doubt, I'd say.

 

The use of nothing but l/c, unjoined letters will strike those of a certain age as infantile and unlettered in the extreme, but that's just cultural change; neatly and legibly done, there's nothing to be said against it, really, except; if you've got that far, why not finish the job and join the letters, thus writing faster?

 

I don't take speed as the be-all-and-end-all, it's just that in the normal compromise between comfort, legibility, aesthetics and so on, that we all make when we write, cursive has the clear edge in speed, IMO, for those sufficiently practised at it - which used to be everyone who had completed their schooling successfully.

 

Even though I do write a good deal, I doubt that I write as much as did pre-electronic generations, and thus my cursive is not strict; there are gaps here and there; letters unjoined, either as miscellaneous habit, intentionally to save time because I find the join awkward, or because I can't make the join neatly. I doubt that I'm alone in this.

 

The problem I see with this thread is that everyone is coming in to it with their own definitions in mind instead of having well understood common ground in terminology.

 

These are my thoughts on terminology (not that I expect anyone to actually care what I think); To me, when I think of "Cursive", I will always think first of my mother's lovely Palmer method writing and second of the wretched d'nealian I was taught in school. But always, I think of a strictly joined up, connected script. "Printing" is what we were taught in kindergarden and 1st-grade, first, block capitals and then lower case. Haphazard hand-printing does still look "uneducated" to me, but I greatly admire the elegant lettering of architects and draftsmen.

 

If your writing is partly unconnected, I'd call it a hybrid, not true cursive. My own writing varies quite a bit, anywhere from 80 or 90% connected to mostly unjoined, depending on how fast and how legible I'm trying to write, the responsiveness of my writing utensil probably enters into it as well. My fastest possible writing is likely 90% connected but won't be legible even to myself days later. To keep things readable for myself (like lecture notes) I have to start skipping some joins that would get blurred easily. Trying to write so that someone else is likely to be able to read it means slowing down and/or printing even more.

 

I know with a gel pen I used to lean more towards unjoined writing, but with an FP I keep more letters connected, maybe a fountain pen is easier to control precisely.

[Mickey]

One of the misconceptions which keeps afflicting this and similar threads is that cursive handwriting does not include pen lifts within individual words. Most forms of cursive do have lifts between some letters pairs, at least when the hands are performed correctly. These hands were designed for speed, joining when that was the faster solution and lifting when lifting was faster. If one is to have a reasoned discussion, it would be helpful if both sides would agree on what is actual fact and what is impression, opinion, or rumor.

 

BTW, while I can't give the cite, I seem to remember that telegrams are billed by the character (or nominal length word). Isn't it possible that the Morse user community preference for printing may have little to do with speed, but may derive from telegram billing being based on character count and because individual letters fit more easily into gridded forms?

Edited February 18, 2012 by Mickey

[caliken]

.............. Similarly, I have to remember that "Cursive" means Spencerian (or Business Writing which evolved from it)..............

Surely not. Cursive = running = joined, and covers any such form, many (most?) of which pre-date American Spencerian of the 1850s.

I agree entirely.

 

My point is, that on this forum, when cursive is mentioned, most of the time the writer means American Cursive only, and not any other form of cursive handwriting including Italic Cursive!

 

When I see the word "Cursive" I have to remind myself that the writer is probably referring to Spencerian or one of the styles which evolved from it.

 

As a Brit, I was raised on Italic Cursive.

 

Ken

Edited February 18, 2012 by caliken

[caliken]

duplicate post removed

Edited February 18, 2012 by caliken

[ink mixer]

In my part of America, whenever somebody says cursive they mean one of the Spencerian derived hands. Italic or other hands are not cursive to most people here. Also, in general, if they would think about it at all, they would consider a hand with too many pen lifts not "cursive". I wish cursive would mean any form of connected writing here, but that's not the case.

[stevesurf]

Here's an interesting reference "Cursive vs. Printing: Is One Better Than the Other?" with a child-oriented learning slant.

 

http://www.blog.montessoriforeveryone.com/cursive-vs-printing-is-one-better-than-the-other.html

 

Benefits to teaching cursive first:

1. Cursive writing is a more natural way of writing. The pencil flows along the paper without frequent stops within words.

2. Words written in cursive are clearly separated from each other. Run-on words are not as common in cursive.

3. The child who can read cursive can also read manuscript, but the reverse is not true.

4. Cursive is a better exercise for strengthening fine motor skills. The connecting letters help the child to produce smooth, rather than choppy, strokes with the pencil.

Benefits to teaching printing first:

1. Print is much more widely used. Most books and educational materials use printing.

2. The printed movable alphabet is easier to use than the cursive one. The cursive movable alphabet is a sort of “imposter” cursive: the letters are formed in a cursive style, but they’re not connected. This can pose difficulty to a child who’s trying to transcribe a story written with the cursive movable alphabet.

3. A child may learn printing at home, but form some letters incorrectly. In terms of muscle memory, they might be better served by learning printed letters correctly first, before learning cursive. They may also be in situations where they are required to print (a testing form, for instance) when knowing cursive only would be a drawback.

4. Cursive is less legible and harder to read. Need proof? Any form that says “Please print”. Post offices prefer printed addresses for the same reason.

5. In terms of writing, it’s true that a cursive “b” and “d” look less like each other than their printed versions. However, current research into dyslexia and other learning disabilities show that there’s far more happening in the brain than a simple flip-flip. Children who struggle with reading and writing are experiencing a disconnect between the part of the brain that “sees” letters and the part of the brain that “identifies” letters.

A child with dyslexia often has dysgraphia, which is difficulty with writing. Teachers once thought that having dyslexic children write with cursive would help them, because the cursive letters look more different from each other than “ball and stick” printing. However, it turns out that because of dysgraphia, cursive is much, much harder for the dyslexic child. The reason is, there’s a lot more to think about. Since each letter connects, the child has to not only form the letter, but think about which letter is coming next in order to join them correctly.

Samples of writing by dyslexic/dysgraphic children in both printing and cursive show that cursive does not aid the dyslexic child. You will still see all the same issues with cursive that you see with print: letter reversals, variations in letter height, spacing problems, and being unable to position letters correctly relative to the line on the paper. That’s because dyslexia and dysgraphia are language processing issues, not vision problems.

 

Personally, I was in both School of Architecture and Engineering, and I switched to printing full time. That was 30 years ago! I still like my signature, though, well scripted

[Mickey]

The elimination of cursive from school curriculum came up among a bunch of my non-pen-obsessed friends this last Thursday. Their near universal concern was that if children did not learn to write cursively, they would be unable to read cursive texts on their own, that is, without a potentially unreliable intermediary.

 

To comprehend the danger of this, it might be worth noting that church hierarchies (this comment is history, not religion or politics) have frequently maintained control of their flocks by denying them access to the foundational documents. I'm not convinced the deemphasis of cursive in schools derives from similar motives, but the net effect may be the same, a population denied by ignorance direct connection to its own history.

 

The argument that either writing technique is inherently faster was played by Ray Bolger in a famous Judy Garland movie. The real issues are most probably curriculum time and teacher competence (to teach cursive).

[beak]

..........

 

BTW, while I can't give the cite, I seem to remember that telegrams are billed by the character (or nominal length word). Isn't it possible that the Morse user community preference for printing may have little to do with speed, but may derive from telegram billing being based on character count and because individual letters fit more easily into gridded forms?

Some age ago, when I was first copying Morse, block caps was the thing indeed. Not only for any of the reasons you mention, I think, but also because you did not necessarily know which letter would follow the one you were writing at the time; cursive can require a different form of letter, or letter ending, depending on the immediately following letter; it is awkward to write cursive when the letters are given to you one at a time. Additionally, the position of capital letters within the message might not have been clear in the act of transcription, so caps throughout negated the chance of a mistake in capitalization.

 

Generally, all technical applications of lettering (draughting etc) require block caps for best clarity when reproduced by copying (copy-printing of any form) and reduction of size / reprographics generally. The speed and legibility compromise here weighed in favour of legibility.

 

I agree completely that the word 'cursive' includes scripts with nib-lifts within words. Obfuscation is desired by some, muddying the waters to cast doubt upon what would otherwise be a generally agreed point or definition. Where do you propose we look for a definition of relevant terms that is unassailable?

 

With regard to 'PLEASE PRINT' labels on forms, this was, I believe, a counter to those with terrible handwriting, not a judgement of cursive itself, but of its incompetent use by some.

Edited February 19, 2012 by beak

[beak]

...........

 

(I care)

 

The use of terminology is a mess, I agree, but not the terminology itself, I think. That use can be annoying in the extreme, my pet hate being the misuse of 'manuscript' to mean printing: unjoined lettering. I find this ridiculous because 'manuscript' means, and has meant for centuries, that written by hand - done manually, in any form, style or format, though, of course, it can refer to an author's typed script opposed to the commercially printed version of their work. The use of an established term, with a clear meaning, to mean something else for the sake of novelty is woeful, IMO. A few enemies made there I guess!

 

Cursive with nib-lifts as 'hybrid'? I'm going to disagree there; hybrid suggests to me that elements of both styles are joined to make a third, whereas I see cursive with lifts as just that; cursive (with lifts), and therefore a type of cursive. The letter-forms used in cursive, even if it has lifts here and there, are not the forms used in printing, I think.

Edited February 19, 2012 by beak

[ravantra]

Personally, I was in both School of Architecture and Engineering, and I switched to printing full time. That was 30 years ago! I still like my signature, though, well scripted

 

+1

I started printing in high school because of my first drafting class and continued through Architecture school. Up until about 1995 or so all our drawings were still drawn by hand and all notes printed by hand. Until AutoCAD became the norm, legible printing was mandatory for contract documents. Now writing cursive or printing has become irrelevant, for me at least. Almost all communication is email or typed and drawing notes are all electronic. As far as meeting notes and any writing I do, it is all done for my benefit and my own eyes only. All that matters is that I can read it.

Interesting discussion that I had not given a lot of thought to. Tx.

 

edited for spelling

Edited February 19, 2012 by ravantra

[thusly]

...

 

I agree completely that the word 'cursive' includes scripts with nib-lifts within words. Obfuscation is desired by some, muddying the waters to cast doubt upon what would otherwise be a generally agreed point or definition. Where do you propose we look for a definition of relevant terms that is unassailable?

 

...

 

This has piqued my own interest, and I've set upon trying to do so. What strikes me as the best modern point of reference is a work of Edward Johnston, Writing & Illuminating & Lettering (WIL). Instead of offering my own, less learned, opinion of the man, I will let the words of others speak for him:

 

... is regarded ... as the a father of modern calligraphy, in the form of the broad edged pen as a writing tool, a particular form of calligraphy.

- Wikipedia: Edward Johnston

 

He has also been credited for reviving the art of modern penmanship and lettering single-handedly through his books and teachings.

- Wikipedia: Edward Johnston

 

That modern calligraphy ever rose like a phoenix from the ashes of a forgotten craft was largely due to Edward Johnston. It is to his perception of fundamentals that formal penmanship owes its life and continuing tradition today.

- Heather Child

 

Nobody had such a lasting effect on the revival of contemporary writing as Edward Johnston. He paved the way for all lettering artists of the twentieth century and ultimately they owe their success to him.

- Herman Zapf

 

In WIL, on the second and third pages, Johnston draws distinction between two different hands:

 

FORMAL WRITING―the "book-hand" or

professional writing of the scribes―comes of the

careful writing of the Roman Capitals ...

It was the―

"literary hand, used in the production of exactly

written MSS., and therefore a hand of comparatively

limited use. By its side, and of course of far more

extensive and general use, was the cursive hand of the

time"2

 

In early cursive writing―the running-hand or

ordinary writing of the people―

"The Letters are nothing more than the old Roman

letters written with speed, and thus undergoing certain

modifications in their forms, which eventually developed

into the miniscule hand"1 (See fig. 3.)

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2176095/Photo%202012-02-19%2012%2044%2044%20PM.jpg

FIG. 3.

 

Here it is sufficient to trace the history of the

formal Latin "hands," but the continual, modifying

influence exerted on them by the ordinary cursive

writing should be borne in mind. Notable results of

this influence are seen in Half-Uncials and Italics.

 

The footnote references for the quotes attribute them to Greek and Latin Paleography, 3rd Edition (1906).

 

From my reading of this, the term cursive, then, was simply applied to a "faster" hand than the formal/literary/book hand. I.e., the defining characteristic of a cursive hand is speed and ease of writing, and not any one specific method of achieving this increase in speed. This can also be confirmed etymologically:

 

French (écriture) cursive, cursive (handwriting), from Medieval Latin (scrpta) cursva, from Latin cursus, past participle of currere, to run;

 

And this usage is borne out later in the book, seen in examples with some intra-word letters being left unjoined. This isn't at all revelatory, given it is an italic hand, but I am including it for sake of completeness:

 

Figs. 179, 180, and 181 are taken from a

sixteenth-century Italian MS. written in a

semi-formal cursive hand ...

 

...

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2176095/Photo%202012-02-19%202%2027%2038%20PM.jpg

FIG. 180.

 

So we can say that as late as the early 20th century (WIL being first published in 1906), the term cursive was being used to denote a "running hand", faster than formal writing, which sometimes did, and sometimes did not, include the use of joins. Following the attribution of Johnson's quotes into Greek and Latin Paleography, we can also see how far back in time these cursive forms have existed:

 

The most important lesson which we, as palaeographers, learn from

these ancient papyri is, that, as far back as we can reach, we have side

by side two classes of Greek writing: the Literary hand or Book-hand,

in which works of literature were usually (but not always) written, and

the Cursive hand of everyday life; that, however remote the date of

these documents, we find in them evidence than then all sorts and

conditions of men wrote as fluently as we do now; that the scribe of

those days could produce finely written texts; and that the educated or

professional man could note down records of daily business with as much

facility as any of his descendants.

(pp. 101-102)

Edited February 20, 2012 by thusly

[thusly]

I find that all of this actually ties in quite nicely with the original theme of this thread, that of whether cursive is quicker than printing. At least in these cases, the very purpose of the word cursive was to denote a form of writing that was more expedient. Moving forward to 1932, we can reference another calligraphic authority, Alfred Fairbanks. In A Handwriting Manual (it should be noted that this exists almost solely to extol the virtues of italic writing, and is in turn bound to carry some inevitable bias), on the subject of "print", he writes:

 

PRINT-SCRIPT

Print-script (sometimes called 'ball and stick') is a simplified

version of the Roman letter. It was introduced into schools following

a lecture by the late Edward Johnston to L.C.C. teachers in 1913

when, in making suggestions as to an ideal course of teaching

handwriting, he showed amongst his alphabets one which later was

adapted for school use. Johnston regarded print-script as rather

formless skeletons of Roman lower-case letters, and did not wish

it to be thought he was directly responsible for the form of

print-script characters. Print-script is held by teachers of infants, who

are doubtless appreciative of its simple character, to be of assistance

in teaching both reading and writing, since one alphabet serves

the two purposes. It has two shortcomings: there is nothing about

it that gives a hint of development into a running hand and it has

circular instead of elliptical movements.

(pp. 25-26)

 

He touches on it again later in the book, alongside some thoughts on italic being faster, including referencing italic as a cursive script:

 

THE BEGINNING OF HANDWRITING

...

Print-script, a simplified form of the roman letter, was introduced

about 1916 by education reformers who ignored or had not

understood the lesson which history had taught, namely that

because of the numerous pen-lifts the roman hand is not potentially

fast, whilst italic, its cursive counterpart, certainly is, and the

forms of italic letters have been developed by speed. What should

replace print-script ('ball and stick') is therefore an italic

print-script: i.e. a simple italic.

(p. 82)

 

And also has this to say on joins and pen lifts:

 

MOVEMENT AND JOINS

 

... A set italic hand can be written with too

many jumps for speed, such as, for example, where the letter m is

made with two pen-lifts. A faster writer will probably find himself

writing several letters without a pen-lift, whilst in contrast some

young child may tend to write the letter n with an interior pen-lift.

The pen lifts are means of avoiding awkard joins, and they

also offer opportunities for adjusting the hand as it passes from

left to right across the paper, and these brief interruptions of touch

actually afford relaxation in the effort of writing. The copperplate

models require all letters to be joined, but to the author it seems

more desirable to break the continuity as convenient. If it were

essential to join all letters then some of the letters of the italic

alphabet would have to be redesigned.

(p. 45)

 

Making it clear that he, too, both advised against constant joins in the italic hand, and considered the italic hand to be cursive in nature -- as late as 1954 (as per my copy of the book, though potentially even later).

 

With a final jump to the present day, having checked a number of dictionaries, the majority include something along these lines:

 

cursive [ˈkɜːsɪv]

adj

1. of or relating to handwriting in which letters are formed and joined in a rapid flowing style

(Collins English Dictionary)

 

Or something along these lines:

 

cur·sive (kûrsv)

adj.

Having the successive letters joined together.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

 

I think it's fair to say that there are two different meanings of the word "cursive" in active use (it should be noted that the italic hand is included in both of these definitions). These definitions each rule out certain scripts; neither one encompassing the whole:

 

Historic Definition

• Quick, everyday writing, meant to be contrasted with formal, slower hands.
  
• Can contain no joins.
  
• Spencerian, though containing joins, is not a fast, everyday hand -- it is formal. It would not fit within this definition. (Incorrect: See Columba Liva's response below.)
  

 

Modern Definition

• Intra-word letters make use of joins in some capacity.
  
• Words must contain some form of join.
  
• All of the ancient, un-joined Greek and Latin "cursive" scripts would not fit within this definition.
  

 

While it is a bit unfortunate that the word "cursive" has been repurposed to explicitly require the use of joins, I do not see any reason why we cannot consider both uses perfectly acceptable, and take the context of the work into account when determining which is meant. Outside of this, one would have to determine which of the two is "more right" and advise against use of the other. To wrap this all up, then, a rough proposed definition:

 

cursive

adj.

1. of or relating to handwriting in which letters are formed and joined in a rapid flowing style
   
2. of or relating to a faster paced form of handwriting which favours speed of execution
   

Edit: Thinking about it, the second definition should really be referred to as archaic, as one could otherwise argue that hastily-written "print-script" lettering qualifies as cursive.

Edited February 20, 2012 by thusly

[Columba Livia]

[*]Spencerian, though containing joins, is not a fast, everyday hand -- it is formal. It would not fit within this definition.

 

Spencerian is a fast everyday hand and was intended as such right from the start. It can be written slowly and carefully with many pen lifts in order to have a very formal, yet elegant appearance, or it can be ordinary cursive handwriting. Although I have many years of study and practise ahead before I can write it to a standard that I feel is acceptable, I can write Spencerian and I can testify as to its speed and practicality provided you spend the time practising and studying the forms of the letters.

 

I wrote this, at my normal writing speed, with a straight penholder, not an oblique one:

 

http://i.imgur.com/qArSl.jpg

 

I can write that quicker than I print.

 

(You may notice I'm using a more modern c, since the c with the teeny tiny loop inside it too likely to be mistaken for an e nowadays, even if it is more convenient IMO. Shades on the capitals are generally too high and thick. I wrote the minuscules as one continuously joined thing, though I did go back to dot the i and j and cross the t, I forgot to cross the x however. Also "calligraply" misspelling).

 

I think it also worth noting that Alfred Fairbanks had an axe to grind: he was promoting a particular style of writing and thus he repeated the myth that you have to join all words in copperplate style writing: you do not have to do this. If you are familiar with the component parts that make up the letters you can lift the pen at any appropriate point and then put it back down and continue and sometimes only close examination may show a join.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Columba Livia

[thusly]

[*]Spencerian, though containing joins, is not a fast, everyday hand -- it is formal. It would not fit within this definition.

 

Spencerian is a fast everyday hand and was intended as such right from the start. It can be written slowly and carefully with many pen lifts in order to have a very formal, yet elegant appearance, or it can be ordinary cursive handwriting. Although I have many years of study and practise ahead before I can write it to a standard that I feel is acceptable, I can write Spencerian and I can testify as to its speed and practicality provided you spend the time practising and studying the forms of the letters.

 

I wrote this, at my normal writing speed, with a straight penholder, not an oblique one:

 

[snip]

 

I can write that quicker than I print.

 

(You may notice I'm using a more modern c, since the c with the teeny tiny loop inside it too likely to be mistaken for an e nowadays, even if it is more convenient IMO. Shades on the capitals are generally too high and thick. I wrote the minuscules as one continuously joined thing, though I did go back to dot the i and j and cross the t, I forgot to cross the x however. Also "calligraply" misspelling).

 

I think it also worth noting that Alfred Fairbanks had an axe to grind: he was promoting a particular style of writing and thus he repeated the myth that you have to join all words in copperplate style writing: you do not have to do this. If you are familiar with the component parts that make up the letters you can lift the pen at any appropriate point and then put it back down and continue and sometimes only close examination may show a join.

 

Thank you! I had no idea. I was entirely under the impression that Spencerian came about as a formal business script. Does this hold true for all of the more modern, fully-joined scripts, then? Or are there some that were solely designed to be formal in nature?

 

Regarding Fairbanks, I actually contemplated saying as much when I began to quote from A Handwriting Manual. While the name implies an overarching look at the subject, it focuses quite specifically on the benefits of italic handwriting, with an accompanying bias.

 

I've updated the post with references to both of these concerns.

Edited February 20, 2012 by thusly

[Mickey]

I'm with Columba Livia on this one. My everyday handwriting is (now) Spencerian, though I write monoline (no shades) with a straight pen and only shade with an oblique pen. Spencerian is and was supposed to be simple and fast or decorated (and consequently slower) as the situation required. Its appeal to me is that is fast AND easy on the hands.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Mickey

[sexauerw]

I spent my career as an engineer. For the first half of it, all drawings were hand drawn and hand lettered. We were required to print and there were specific rules as to where ALL CAPS must be used and where mixed case must be used. Mixed case was 90% or so of the usage. The requirement for printing was to ensure legibility, it would not do to have the engineering drawings being misread on the factory floor.

 

So I got very good at printing and practically forgot how to write cursive. To this day the only thing I can write in cursive is my signature. But to be absolutely clear about what I mean by "printing", here is a sample. Not my own words, of course.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j66/sexauerw/Gettysburg-Targa.jpg

 

Today everything is done by computer and nobody hand writes anything at all. Even our signatures are electronic now.

[mirosc]

Take a look at Old Roman Cursive from 1st century BC. No letter joining at all, in fact barely joining the strokes of a letter itself, rather changing and rearranging the forms of the letters for the purpose needed, e.g. the capital B rather looks like a minuscule d or a, sometimes more like a bent T; the minuscule a consists of three separate, unjoined strokes. Still it is a cursive.

Similar thing when you take a look at 8th century French/German manuscripts or Italian/SouthGerman documents from 14th-16th century (the regular writing of a common town chancellery, not the elitist and scarce Renaissance writings).

 

Cursive was always adapted to the actual needs of writing, then it became almost illegible, individual preferences showed up, then some sort of unifying/structuring came up by re-integrating printed letterforms (these are the examples we usually find in our books, less so in the actual contemporary documents) and the cycle started all over again, but took some different direction.

 

"Cursive" has always changed, there is no such thing like a "good" or "better" cursive. It is meant to be adapted to the needs of the writer, the materials used, and much more.

[Mickey]

mirosc,

 

Your post is interesting, but has limited relevance to the discussion at hand, which concerns the relative merits of joined, semi-joined, and completely unjoined hands, not the evolution of that word's meaning.

 

For better or worse, cursive now means joined and, as unjoined hands are supplanting 'cursive' as the common man's hand and print (hand, electronic, and hard) has displaced it as the preferred official form, it is likely that the meaning of cursive is now fairly fixed. (Evolution of the term has become decoupled from the evolution of the original ethos. I think it unlikely they will reconnect.) Handwriting will undoubtedly continue to evolve at a fair pace. It is unlikely that the word 'cursive' will. Cursive does not mean vulgar, anymore (of course neither does vulgar) nor does it mean running, except in the tiny community of ink slingers.