Speaking of Cursive and writing...

[KateGladstone]

On 2/10/2022 at 11:59 PM, amberleadavis said:

I think kids do need to learn reading and writing cursive.  You can see if someone is older or educated in a private school because they can read and write cursive.

How are you defining “cursive,” and how did you choose that definition? Sone dictionaries define “cursive” as writing in which letters join — other dictionaries define it as writing in which all letters join.
      The difference matters, because current research (links on request) demonstrates that the fastest, clearest handwriters are neither the print-writers nor the cursive writers. The highest speed and highest legibility in handwriting are attained by those who join only some letters, not all of them — making only the simplest of joins, omitting the rest, and using print-like shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree. 
        For what it’s worth, a similar phenomenon was documented as far back as 1900, when educational psychologist Cloyd McAllister wrote to leading teachers of cursive penmanship to ask if they allowed themselves or their students to let the pen leave the paper while writing a word. All responded that, of course, they did no such thing and that they certainly forbade their students to do any such thing — however, in every such letter, counting the pen-lifts within the handwriting revealed numerous pen-lifts within words. (For instance, in reading one penmanship instructor’s letter which firmly and unequivocally stated that the pen should never be lifted within a word, because pen-lifts were destructive to handwriting’s speed and continuity, McAllister observed that — even in one sentence which unequivocally specified this point as absolutely essential and as always observed by the writer of the letter — the pen mad been lifted 28 times within words, between the beginning and the end of thst 63-word sentence.) 

On 9/21/2022 at 9:56 AM, InesF said:

You pull out the keys and glue them on a sheet of paper to send ....

😈

 

... especially when your message uses some of the letters more often than once!

😈

 

edit, extension: maybe no need to learn cursive handwriting, but a fluent handwriting in print will be sufficient.

I would further suggest that this could be achieved (and built on, as desired) by teaching a simple italic with options for joining: options to be tested and adopted (or rejected) individually by each writer.

On 9/21/2022 at 4:50 PM, Tony1951 said:

 

I always thought that one of the big justifications of cursive handwriting was that it can be executed at speed, unlike print. I'd say I can probably write twice as fast by not lifting the pen except between words. Just a guess, but it is certainly much faster. 

 

I wonder if students not brought up as we older ones were, will perhaps lose the ability o even read cursive handwriting with any ease at all. It is VERY unlike printed material. 

It has already becoming evident thst many people born since 1985 never learn to read cursive (since the usual way to learn to read a conventional cursive script — with all its remoteness from printed letterforms —; is by learning to write it, which more and more people are never taught.) 
        It is also becoming evident that — in this same age group — even the rather few children  who were still taught and required to write such a script are turning out to have forgotten (within ten years) even how to read it. (In other words, by the time they reach 18 they are no longer able even to read what they actually wrote when they were age eight.) See “Oops, I Forgot How To Read Cursive” — https://readcursivefast.com/oops-i-forgot-how-to-read-cursive/  (The site also provides other info on this and related matters. Searching the phrase which appears in the first part of the URL may also be of interest.

 

On 9/27/2022 at 9:40 AM, InesF said:

Late reply: during all the years of handwriting (with fountain pens) I changed the style several times. Indeed, a strict handwritten print is slower, but I can write faster and with significantly increased readability when lifting the pen multiple times per word. What I handwrite is a true mix between cursive and print and would not be able to define it in other words than "it is my subjective style".

 

What I meant with my original comment is the strong believe in the positive effect of bringing thoughts to paper by handwriting. Whatever style or variant you use, if it is readable (at least by you after some time) you have the full memorising effect. During my high school and during my university time I experienced a deep learning which was catalysed by writing the facts with a pen on paper. And this still works today.

Many of those who arrive at a fluent, clear “mix between cursive and print” (which is sometimes even seen in the better writers among those who have learned only print — or even among some who have learned only cursive) appear, to me, to be subconsciously reinventing a simple semi-joined italic handwriting: whether or not they’ve ever even heard of italic handwriting. 

On 12/29/2022 at 6:50 PM, mhwombat said:

I remember being so excited about learning cursive. But after two years I decided I didn't like it, it wasn't any faster, and went back to printing. In my opinion (both then and now) the particular cursive style we learned was ugly, too "round". I like things to be logical, so I disliked the way there seemed to be no relationship between some of the uppercase letters and their lowercase counterparts, or even between some of the cursive letters and their print versions. For example, we were taught to write "e" as a vertical loop, like a half-height "l". An "n" was two bumps and an "m" was three. I have seen other styles that I like much better, where the letters look a bit more like the print versions, but connected.

 

On 1/5/2023 at 12:55 PM, Andreas Weber said:

 

I can totally understand that; I've actually been arguing against the strictly connected cursives with looped ascenders ever since I taught myself italic script. They were developed much later for specific purposes, italic serves much better as a general purpose hand (you can't fill forms with looped cursives, nor write them all caps).

I entirely agree! 

On 1/5/2023 at 3:47 PM, XYZZY said:

 

Growing up I had little desire to make my cursive follow the rules.  I've always marched to my own drummer, and this was an area which I probably suffered because of it.

 

I definitely understand the point about capitals not matching the lower case.  I distinctly remember thinking in grade school that many of the capitals were inconsistent that it was downright disconcerting.  Q in particular.  For a few decades I was print only, and on taking up cursive again I have found that I use printed letters for all of the capitals.  With the notable exception of "J", where, I assume, practice from my signature makes cursive intuitive.  

 

For a lot of the lower case cursive not looking like their printed counterpart I would experiment and often come back to the standard forms because I realized I wasn't going to come up with anything significantly better (this was back in grade school, again).  The "n" and "m" having extra humps, as you pointed out, also bothered me, but I eventually noticed that when the preceding letter ends above the baseline, for example an "o", that the first hump of the n or m turns into a pointy bit, at which point I realized that the first hump in the n/m was actually analogous to the "pointy bit" that precedes the first hump in the printed version.  At least that's how I rationalized it to myself, and continue to do so today.

 

There were other things I experimented with to make writing "more efficient", which certainly couldn't have helped other people read my writing.

 

My cursive to this day is very NON loopy.  That's was never a goal, just how things evolved over time.  It's to the point that if I "succeed" in putting a loop in a little "L" that it looks inconsistent...it's a bug, not a feature.  A different example is my "e": those frequently have no loop (or a bulge, where the loop never quite formed), and my "e" frequently looks like an undotted "i".  That's a bug, and I work at it.

 

I have found that trying to hand-copy the Bible has given me a lot of  practice and things are definitely getting better.  And in that process things really didn't get going until I modified my guidesheet to have another line for the x-height, and then later yet another line for the cap-height.

Quite a few people who have experience your trouble with “e” — and I am one of those people — have found that they can resolve it by learning and adopting the earlier (two-stroke) “e” method that’s seen (e.g.) in Renaissance-era italic. Let me know if you’d like sources, links, images, etc.

On 1/5/2023 at 9:12 PM, ParramattaPaul said:

 

That was me as well.  It still is.

 

Like mhwombat, I didn't like the form of uppercase cursive letters and promptly formulated ones to my liking that I still use all these decades later.  Most of what I write is in cursive form.  That said, some notes are written in uppercase block letters and rarely, very rarely, in both case block letters.  More recently, I've adopted some letter forms of alternative cursives taught during middlle three decades of the 20th century.

 

Only after reading Rosemary Sassoon's book, Handwriting of the Twentieth Century, did I discover that there were many different versions of cursive taught over the decades of that century.  mhwombat would be interested to know that many of the versions as early as circa 1920 used single loop 'n' and double loop 'm' letter forms as well as simplified, more print-like upper case letters.  Additionally, many versions used a no slant which one might suggest offered better legibility and easier reading.

 

The Sassoon book is arguably the best guidebook to how handwriting has changed or evolved since the middle to late 19th century.

Link: Amazon.com: Handwriting of the Twentieth Century eBook : Sassoon, Rosemary: Kindle Store

Sassoon’s work is excellent. Which alternative forms in cursive did you adopt?

On 1/6/2023 at 6:56 AM, ParramattaPaul said:

Sassoon included illustrations of many of the variations.  The one of a page (?) From Nelson's  "The Teaching of Handwriting" will likely be of interest since the connected cursive letters are very similar to unconnected block letters.

Nelson works well for many, if one allows 9neself a little slant that’s absent from the model as published.

On 2/1/2023 at 12:51 PM, ParramattaPaul said:

Upper case cursive letters were the first thing I changed was I went through school for two reasons.  The first was (is) that I'm very independent-minded and it was an expression of that independence.  The second was I didn't like the form of various letters, F, G, T, J and Z  come to mind, and changed them to a more block-like form at age 9. 

 

Looking back, it's surprising that my teacher didn't object at a time, the 1950s, when children were expected to "hear and obey" or suffer (often corporal) punishment if they didn't. 

 

[InesF]

3 hours ago, KateGladstone said:

It is also becoming evident that — in this same age group — even the rather few children  who were still taught and required to write such a script are turning out to have forgotten (within ten years) even how to read it. (In other words, by the time they reach 18 they are no longer able even to read what they actually wrote when they were age eight.)

Hi @KateGladstone.

I do not fully agree with this statement. Can it be a specific phenomenon of a certain region?

Due to my comparably intense contact with students (ages 20 to slightly above 30), I would estimate the percentage of still "almost" cursive writers around 50% and the others which write any form of mixture between cursive and print, with and without letter connections and with or without individual letter variants.

I have the impression, all of them are able to read cursive. The students origins were and are predominantly European with 60% from middle Europe and the rest from everywhere else. I also have students from Asian, African and middle American origin, who write more print-like but were able to read my semi cursive without complaining.

 

3 hours ago, KateGladstone said:

Many of those who arrive at a fluent, clear “mix between cursive and print” (which is sometimes even seen in the better writers among those who have learned only print — or even among some who have learned only cursive) appear, to me, to be subconsciously reinventing a simple semi-joined italic handwriting: whether or not they’ve ever even heard of italic handwriting. 

That's interesting! I will consider that information for the future. I always thought this semi-cursive is only the result of writing hastily in a sloppy style (concluding from me to others, shamelessly).

[ParramattaPaul]

3 hours ago, KateGladstone said:

How are you defining “cursive,” and how did you choose that definition? Sone dictionaries define “cursive” as writing in which letters join — other dictionaries define it as writing in which all letters join.
      The difference matters, because current research (links on request) demonstrates that the fastest, clearest handwriters are neither the print-writers nor the cursive writers. The highest speed and highest legibility in handwriting are attained by those who join only some letters, not all of them — making only the simplest of joins, omitting the rest, and using print-like shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree. 
        For what it’s worth, a similar phenomenon was documented as far back as 1900, when educational psychologist Cloyd McAllister wrote to leading teachers of cursive penmanship to ask if they allowed themselves or their students to let the pen leave the paper while writing a word. All responded that, of course, they did no such thing and that they certainly forbade their students to do any such thing — however, in every such letter, counting the pen-lifts within the handwriting revealed numerous pen-lifts within words. (For instance, in reading one penmanship instructor’s letter which firmly and unequivocally stated that the pen should never be lifted within a word, because pen-lifts were destructive to handwriting’s speed and continuity, McAllister observed that — even in one sentence which unequivocally specified this point as absolutely essential and as always observed by the writer of the letter — the pen mad been lifted 28 times within words, between the beginning and the end of thst 63-word sentence.) 

I would further suggest that this could be achieved (and built on, as desired) by teaching a simple italic with options for joining: options to be tested and adopted (or rejected) individually by each writer.

It has already becoming evident thst many people born since 1985 never learn to read cursive (since the usual way to learn to read a conventional cursive script — with all its remoteness from printed letterforms —; is by learning to write it, which more and more people are never taught.) 
        It is also becoming evident that — in this same age group — even the rather few children  who were still taught and required to write such a script are turning out to have forgotten (within ten years) even how to read it. (In other words, by the time they reach 18 they are no longer able even to read what they actually wrote when they were age eight.) See “Oops, I Forgot How To Read Cursive” — https://readcursivefast.com/oops-i-forgot-how-to-read-cursive/  (The site also provides other info on this and related matters. Searching the phrase which appears in the first part of the URL may also be of interest.

 

Many of those who arrive at a fluent, clear “mix between cursive and print” (which is sometimes even seen in the better writers among those who have learned only print — or even among some who have learned only cursive) appear, to me, to be subconsciously reinventing a simple semi-joined italic handwriting: whether or not they’ve ever even heard of italic handwriting. 

 

I entirely agree! 

Quite a few people who have experience your trouble with “e” — and I am one of those people — have found that they can resolve it by learning and adopting the earlier (two-stroke) “e” method that’s seen (e.g.) in Renaissance-era italic. Let me know if you’d like sources, links, images, etc.

Sassoon’s work is excellent. Which alternative forms in cursive did you adopt?

Nelson works well for many, if one allows 9neself a little slant that’s absent from the model as published.

 

Sassoon says that pen lifts are necessary every 3 or 4 letters or so since lifting the pen allows the writer to move his or her hand across the page. That then, by Sassoon's definition, means that cursive has some unjoined letters.

[Karmachanic]

Do what comes naturally.

[XYZZY]

7 hours ago, ParramattaPaul said:

Sassoon says that pen lifts are necessary every 3 or 4 letters or so since lifting the pen allows the writer to move his or her hand across the page. That then, by Sassoon's definition, means that cursive has some unjoined letters.

 

I disagree with the "by Sassoon's definition" statement.  You can certainly still join the letters between hand lifts.  I attempt to do so.  But this clearly is not about speed/efficiency, but about appearance.

[XYZZY]

11 hours ago, KateGladstone said:

      The difference matters, because current research (links on request) demonstrates that the fastest, clearest handwriters are neither the print-writers nor the cursive writers. The highest speed and highest legibility in handwriting are attained by those who join only some letters, not all of them — making only the simplest of joins, omitting the rest, and using print-like shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree. 

[snip]

 

Quite a few people who have experience your trouble with “e” — and I am one of those people — have found that they can resolve it by learning and adopting the earlier (two-stroke) “e” method that’s seen (e.g.) in Renaissance-era italic. Let me know if you’d like sources, links, images, etc.

[snip]

 

 

Hi Kate.  Excellent information here.  And, yes, I would love to see to see the links, if/when you have time to dig them out.

[ParramattaPaul]

1 hour ago, XYZZY said:

 

I disagree with the "by Sassoon's definition" statement.  You can certainly still join the letters between hand lifts.  I attempt to do so.  But this clearly is not about speed/efficiency, but about appearance.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  Yes, one can -- most of us do -- join the letters between pen lifts.

 

For clarity, Sassoon suggests that as one writes cursive with most letters joined that lifting the writing hand (rather than bending the wrist, etc.) as one progresses across a page benefits the writer with comfort and neater handwriting.  She suggests that pen lifts every three, four or so letters. Obviously,  doing so while writing a long multi-syllable word would create a gap between two letters. That gap, she suggests, may appropriately be left open, or the writer can go back and close it as he or she chooses. 

 

It is worth mentioning that in her handwriting book for adults Sassoon offers that those a cursive lowercase "e" can be made with two separate strokes if one has difficulty forming the loop.  Obviously, this would require a pen lift if done before moving on, or one would need to come back at after writing the whole word or finishing the entire line.

 

Not everything we were taught in primary school is as it is in the adult world. Sassoon and others tell us that the cursive we were taught at school is a foundation for the cursive we adapt and use as adults. 

[XYZZY]

1 hour ago, ParramattaPaul said:

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  Yes, one can -- most of us do -- join the letters between pen lifts.

 

For clarity, Sassoon suggests that as one writes cursive with most letters joined that lifting the writing hand (rather than bending the wrist, etc.) as one progresses across a page benefits the writer with comfort and neater handwriting.  She suggests that pen lifts every three, four or so letters. Obviously,  doing so while writing a long multi-syllable word would create a gap between two letters. That gap, she suggests, may appropriately be left open, or the writer can go back and close it as he or she chooses. 

 

It is worth mentioning that in her handwriting book for adults Sassoon offers that those a cursive lowercase "e" can be made with two separate strokes if one has difficulty forming the loop.  Obviously, this would require a pen lift if done before moving on, or one would need to come back at after writing the whole word or finishing the entire line.

 

Not everything we were taught in primary school is as it is in the adult world. Sassoon and others tell us that the cursive we were taught at school is a foundation for the cursive we adapt and use as adults. 

 

I think we're in violent agreement 🙂  And I do definitely lift every 3 or 4 letters.

 

>Not everything we were taught in primary school is as it is in the adult world

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

I need to look up more about the two-stroke "e".  If not paying attention my "e" looks like an undotted "i".  When I'm successful it is be consciously reaching out un the initial swoop up, then on the downstroke the pen naturally moves to the left far enough to leave an open loop.  By the way, I'm a left-handed overwriter, so what "naturally" happens in my strokes might not be natural for most others.

[ParramattaPaul]

2 hours ago, XYZZY said:

If not paying attention my "e" looks like an undotted "i".

 

I have the same problem.

[ParramattaPaul]

FYI, this is her handwriting book for adults:  Improve Your Handwriting (Teach Yourself): Sassoon, Rosemary, Briem, Gunnlaugur S. E.: 9781444103793: Amazon.com: Books

[mhwombat]

This thread is fascinating! Lots of resources to explore and think about.

[amberleadavis]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:07 PM, KateGladstone said:

How are you defining “cursive,” and how did you choose that definition? Sone dictionaries define “cursive” as writing in which letters join — other dictionaries define it as writing in which all letters join.
      The difference matters, because current research (links on request)

 

 

My definition doesn't matter, because public education students here in Nevada are learning neither.

[txomsy]

Me, I quickly developed a semi-joined writing. Not matter how much anyone insists, I can not, for the heart of me, find how writing a word with is and st can be faster if you first write it and then go back with your hand to dot your is and cross your ts and have to be meaning of re-reading the word to put the extras in the proper places, than just dotting and crossing on the fly, which implies pen lifts but is faster and less error prone.

 

Whether letters later look joined or not has nothing to do with how many pen lifts I need.

 

This led me to a questionable script that was so until I found a copy book from late 19th C proposing exactly the same hand, and as I compared many copy books and saw that some authors were more permissive with skips and some less tolerant. That would mean nothing if it were not because until relatively recently, cursive was just "fast writing" not joining, and joining was "calligraphy" (i.e. aesthetics) not hand writing, much less fast writing.

 

So when I saw all these authors argue that their proposed method was better because it was faster, or because it was prettier, and as I saw that variety of opinions, I decided that a distinction had to be made: fast/cursive writing can only be judged by the speed each one can achieve and is personal, beauty is to be judged by uniformity and personal aesthetics, and anything else is just trying to put the load ahead of the donkey (or however it is said, can't remember now).

 

So, for me, there are two advantages to hand writing: faster speed than typing and ability to sketch being one, and the ability to withstand the test of time versus the volatility of electronic records.

 

No matter what anybody says, a lifetime with computers has shown me that they are volatile and not as convenient.  Of course there are those who hate this or the other, and will try to convince everyone else of the only one true style for anything.

 

For me, each one has to see what works for them, both when writing, when reading and when being read (we do not write only for ourselves).

 

Me, I use a terrible scribble sometimes, a quick semi-joined cursive others, and any of several calligraphic hands when I fancy them). I am no Einstein so I do not think future generations will have any interest in my notes. Not even my sons, who will most likely throw them away if I don't burn them first 8which may come sooner than expected with the raising energy prices). So what matters is that it works for me and my circumstances. Anyone (specially younger ones) telling me to distrust my experience and trying to convince me that my lifetime experience is wrong, specially after 40 years working with computers and people is likely to have a hard time. I won't claim mine is valid for others, but certainly neither are their pontifications valid for me and therefore they are not universal either.

 

Other than that, the arguments of charlatans, humbugs and the like should be given due consideration.

[Graywolf503]

You can write faster than typing?

 

"advantages to hand writing: faster speed than typing"

 

I would like to learn this.

 

Have a blessed day!

[ParramattaPaul]

2 hours ago, Graywolf503 said:

You can write faster than typing?

 

"advantages to hand writing: faster speed than typing"

 

I would like to learn this.

 

Have a blessed day!

I can write faster than I can hunt and peck type on my mobile phone -- I wasn't gifted with the flying thumbs my grandson has -- but I think I can touch type on a proper keyboard faster than I can write.  Scribbling something only I can read is another matter.

[txomsy]

I think it is easy to miscount events in Nature.

 

We have evolved a number of quirks, tricks and shortcuts to increase our survival chances. But these quirks, tricks and shortcuts can turn against us when conditions do not match those they were evolved for. These are what are called cognitive biases.

 

One of them is a tendency to focus our attention on what we consider that matters the most and ignore the rest. That is what "the eye of the painter" or "the eye of the photographer" or more generally "the craft of the artist" refers to: to get something that can evoke Nature one needs to account for all aspects, not just the ones that call our attention.

 

Applied here: if we concentrate on how many keys we hit by second, it may superficially seem we type faster. I learned to type in pre-computer, typewriter times, to type as fast as possible, and to allow for some errors/mistypes within a standard predefined range because you could not correct them and type quickly at the same time.

 

But with computers, mistyping is less allowable, since you can correct (them, errors --and not just typos). You may use a corrector, but it does not know of meaning, and will often miscorrect, which you need to fix, it will not know all the words, which you need to fix, it has no sense of humor or word plays, which you have to impose, and so on. Grammar correctors have similar issues. And so on for all the tools.

 

Nothing of this matters when writing, as my hand does exactly what I want. And an error is very quickly fixed by a blot or a dash. I need to know and care about quality, that is true, but I do also need to when I type, so I can notice and correct the automatic typos and spelling/grammar corrector errors.

 

Plus, and this is even more important: Speed is no substitute for accuracy. Each goes into a different, orthogonal domain. That is why I decided to distinguish between fast/cursive writing and pretty/calligraphic writing (I put scribbles in a separate category, by the way).

 

When I do hand write I need to think ahead what, for it gets (not so much) figuratively 'cast in stone', but my hand does not mistype (only my brain). Anybody old enough to have written a dissertation in pre-computer times will understand it. With a computer, making changes is so easy that there is no excuse not to make them. So you first write, make the unavoidable typos, then correct, then rearrange, them move this to there or to another place, simplify this, extend that, reread, re-fix, etc... and that is OK, expected and often mandatory.

 

Just take this post as an example: handwritten I would have had to reduce it to the bare minimum in my head first. Typing I should now go again over it (as I do often, obviously unsuccessfully) and edit (not just fix typos) it properly.

 

When you take into account the whole process, hand writing demands preliminary work to plan ahead a neat result. Typing consists in letting whatever (well thought out or a mental diarrhea like this) out and then applying the full force of editing to it. even if you plan ahead, you cannot avoid typos, so you still need to reread and rewrite and fix here and there, even only if just to make sure you didn't mistype (which is unavoidable if you type quickly as more than a century professional of typewriter-typing and half a century of computer-typing has absolutely proven everywhere beyond any doubt).

 

As a student I would also take quick notes and then, back home, rework them into elaborated, cleaner, notes for actual study, but even so, I find it (the whole process) was easier handwriting than using a computer.

 

But one needs to go through both processes and master both to see the difference. If you only master one, all else looks worse. If you only have a hammer, everything looks as nails.

 

When all elements are considered, even the fastest, most mindful typing person needs to go back to fix typos (at the end, or on the fly) and when that is taken into account, the final counting results are pretty different.

 

Raw typing? After a lifelong (remember, I started with typewriters and mastered them -i.e. achieving standard professional-level speed and accuracy- as a child) I can spit out pretty many key strokes by minute. Real writing? When I account for all the extras, there is a real difference in favor of hand writing.

 

Now, that is my experience. Yours may vary and I won't argue that. Which is why I ended formerly saying I question so called "universal truths" -such as that there is no need for teaching "cursive" (for whatever definition of "cursive") hand writing in schools any more to be taught.

 

Each of us is different.

 

Convivence is not "absolute freedom", it is freedom limited by "tolerance". If you do not learn to read cursive you are not tolerant of other people preferences. Learning is not mastering a single tool to hack everything with, it is mastering different tools and choosing the best one for you, your task and your conditions at each time, whether one in one's ignorance (for we are all ignorant before we learn) thinks one needs to learn it or not.

 

All the rest about universal truths is babble speak to exploit the cognitive biases of unaware well-meaning persons to take them to your (generic your) own ground and make them do your (generic your) own bidding in your (generic your) own selfish interest (whether you -generic you- do it conscientiously on purpose or not).

[mhwombat]

Very good points! While reading your post I was reminded how my needs and priorities have changed during my life.

 

When I learned to write, in the 60s, I had to write by hand a lot, we had no alternative. Later, as a college student, I had to be able to write quickly to take notes in lectures. Writing was  a chore. My writing goals were neatness, speed, and avoiding hand cramps.

 

These days I almost never have to write by hand; there's usually a computer or phone I could use instead. When I put pen to paper, it's because I want to. I use handwriting as part of my thinking process. My goals are enjoying the sensation of writing, expressing my style, and neatness. Using a fountain pen with a nib that is at least-semi-flexible prevents me from holding it too tightly, and thereby prevents hand cramps.

[miwishi63]

My cursive style is a combination of what I learned in elementary school (1969-1974) and what I've adopted along the way. The issue for me today is that by setting cursive aside we end up with a generation (or more) that can't read older handwritten documents. My wife teaches cursive to her third-grade students. Some of them embrace it because it is different. Others reject it because they see no need for it in our world today. That being said, I have noticed that some of the younger generations are embracing handwriting as a way to record their private thoughts without fear of having them spread across the internet. So long as pens and paper are available, people will utilize them to write.

[amberleadavis]

[AceNinja]

this thread is such a fascinating read!  May I suggest everyone with a little bit of spare time to take a photo of how ones writes cursive?  because everyone's writing style is different and I don't think there's right or wrong.

 

For myself, I grew up in a country / culture / education that never teach anything about cursive.  I just didn't know there's a type of writing called cursive until I've started working.  And the word print / printing is predominantly referring to printing from printers (as in inkjet or laser printer).  Most here won't understand what you mean by 'writing print', because we never needed to differentiate between print and cursive, even though all of us study and learn writing in print.  And I believe most of us here will have trouble reading cursive, especially when there's cursive letter 'r, s, f, z', and especially if they're too slanted.  

 

About if we should've cursive in formal education.  Well, in my country, we never knew cursive in our life, unless its a hobby or ones went abroad for studies.

 

I started looking at cursive once I'm into fountain pens, surfing this forum and other fountain pen sites, fascinated by those beautiful writings.  So I started learning myself, at the age of adult, looking at examples online.  Here goes my cursive:

Capital A - I don't like the common cursive A, which looks uninspiring to me because its just looks like a bigger lower case 'a'

Capital Q - the common cursive Q just makes no sense to me (remember I never learnt cursive until very recently), so I change to more print like.

Capital Z - it still doesn't make sense to me, but I so far haven't seen a good / pretty alternative, so I've not yet change.  Plus, maybe it's not a very common letter, so I didn't think about it much.

Lower r - I constantly have difficulties with this, I've a feeling all my 'r' are different, can never get it to write consistently.

 

When I writing cursive, I tend try not to lift the pen.  But when it gets too long or I just need to shift my hand a little, I'll lift, but I still connect them back later on.