Talk:Penmanship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Contradiction
In adding stubs for Platt R. Spencer and the Spencerian Method, I noticed that "The publication of The Spencerian Key to Practical Penmanship by Platt R. Spencer in 1866 introduced Business writing to North America. This "Spencerian Method" was taught in schools until the about the mid-19th century" seems to contradict itself. If the method was published in 1866, how did it last only until the mid-19th century? That is no time at all. Additionally, as far as I know, Spencer died in 1864.
- Presumably that is a typo for "20th century". This is the simplest explanation, at least... Adam Bishop 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I would tend to agree, if it weren't for the fact that I think the method was probably published before his death rather than two years after it. Aniras 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah...maybe it was published posthumously? Adam Bishop 07:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yep, looks like it was prepared by his son after his death: http://www.ashtabula.lib.oh.us/archives/tour/archtour1.shtm . I've also found numerous references to it being popular a century after its publication, so I'll switch it to 20th century and leave it at that.
-
-
I object to the title "Penmanship" because it is discriminatory. The word "pen" unfairly assumes that everyone writes with a pen. But what about all the people using pencils? Or what about contracts written in blood? Or what if there's some tribe somehwhere that draws pictures in the dirt with sticks? We don't want to exclude anyone.
We could use the title "Handwriting", but that presents a new problem, because of the word "hand". What if some people write with their feet, or their noses? We wouldn't want to hurt those people.
Removed:
, while others consider it a more efficient method of handwriting than other forms, such as cursive
I'd actually like to put this back, because it's pretty interesting (and adds balance, as mentioned). However I know of no one of note who actually thinks this. Is there a source somewhere? - Hephaestos|ยง 14:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I hate to agree with the silly anonymous person at top, but penmanship ("the art of writing clearly and quickly", as given in the article) is not handwriting which is a skill, and not an art, and is something done both quickly and slowly and clearly and illegibly.
Also, this article is incredibly narrow. There's some notes about what's done in North America, but what about the rest of the world? What about not Latin scripts? I'm scrounging some stuff up about Cherokee handwriting anyway, but it's really won't fit with the general level of this article. --Prosfilaes 21:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Until there is a better term for "the art of writing with an implement that can be held by a person which allows the writer to express an individual style" penmanship will have to do. Jackiespeel 17:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I would love to see information about how to learn good penmanship. David McCabe 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Penmanship" is confusing I mistaked it for penfriend at first ~
To the previous anonymous edit: Penmanship is an long-used English term. It bears little resemblance to penfriend, surely? I am with Jackiespeel's argument above. There is no synonym we can use for penmanship that exactly equates to it. That some users of Wikipedia in English find it a difficult language to master is regrettable -- it is! -- but that is not a criterion for changing the language around. Re. the argument that others may write with other parts than the hand; this is political correctness gone mad. We all respect hand/foot painters etc. but the term handwriting doesn't DISCRIMINATE AGAINST such a skill. Otherwise, words like handiwork becomes footiwork or somesuch. Handicraft, hand me that wrench, hand-made, hand-in-glove, hand-over-fist, hand over that gun, hands off approach, hand-to-mouth existence... none of these is actually perjorative or discriminatory. The vast majority of folk use hands. To those who don't, the word will still apply in a modified sense. When a blind person says, "I saw the New Year in" or "I see Terry got that job", he isn't being literal. Are we to polish every term till it is so neutralised it ceases to have meaning, Goddamit? This PC "fear of falling foul" is a sort of obsessional neurosis, which seems a poor reason to reconstruct our English usage. Many terms which apply to most people are not absolutely universal, but surely, that doesn't disqualify their legitimate usage. Trevor H.
Um, Trevor, I think he was joking...
