Talk:Cursive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG Cursive was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

Contents

[edit] Victorian Modern Cursive is equal to devil worship?

Does anyone think the section on Victorian Modern Cursive is appropriate at all?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrieke (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think it's necessary - if that's what you mean. At the very least, if we are going to provide examples of different cursive styles (which might be better presented in a separate section) then we should have more than one. 195.212.102.227 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

it would be fair to put up other cursive styles then. i would be happy to put up the style they teach in Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.64.137 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scribes paid by length of writing?

They were paid by the length of writing on the page, so they preferred variant spellings that had more letters in them. This percolated into the official spelling of French.

This looks a lot like an urban legend. Any substantiation? Ben 23:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That also happened in English. Why isn't rock spelled rok?Cameron Nedland 17:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit

Someone added commentary to the article which belongs here. I removed it, and replaced the stuff that had been moved. Sfahey 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia bias

Does anyone else notice the Australia bias in the latter part? Thanks--Dpr 18:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It covers information on a country that's not America, therefore it's biased towards Australia? I think not. Previously, it was biased towards America and made no sense when taken outside of that context, so I added a section on cursive in Australia. I did it differently from how it currently is, and another editor's obviously rearranged it since, but the differential provision of information due to editors' knowledge isn't bias. If you want to discuss also cursive in Germany, go right ahead. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Right now it's biased towards North America (i.e. US) with a tad of Britain and Australia in it. I'd call it Anglocentric, but not biased towards Australia in particular. The history section could need a rewrite, for example. The notion of the US Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address seems highly arbitrary to me, though these "milestones" may make sense to an American reader. I'd add something about Germany, but I'm a lazy bastard and also never cared much for cursive writing (I stopped using cursive when it was no longer required by the teachers, just as I stopped using a pen -- I always preferred ball-points and pencils). — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] international distribution

Sentences like "After the 1960s, it was reconsidered that the teaching of cursive writing was more difficult than it needed to be." made me wonder if that was a worldwide momentum. E.g. in Germany in the 60s the Ausgangsschrift has been simplified again.--Hhielscher 10:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I added the first pciture, an example of a cursive alphabet, if you don't like it please comment here.

[edit] Question

I had heard (urban legend?) that cursive was invented/sustained because if you were using a quill and inkwell, you didn't want to constantly be lifting the pen off of the paper. Cursive allowed you to keep the pen down instead of being lifted up all the time. Has anyone heard this? If true, I think it would make a good addition the article. If not, then I was mistaken. Clarkbhm 19:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To expand on the above question, I think this article could do with a "Perceived benefits of cursive" section. The article alludes to it being an "important skill", but AFAICS the only two examples of this property are the (obsolete) method of writing twice as much on paper by rotating it 90 degrees; and the (almost obsolete) speed advantage. I suspect there are at least subjective ideas on its other benefits (in addition to its aesthetic ones), and would be interested to read them.--Ejrh 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume it would be to do with blotting, so that ink did not splatter onto the page.

[edit] Cursive on its way out

Do a search for cursive on news.google.com and you'll see that just about all of the hits discuss how cursive is on its way out. It seems to me that this article should atleast discuss this increasingly prevalent view. To make it more palatable to those who might disagree references could, I suppose, be provided, but given that this seems to be, for the most part, something that most people agree upon, I'm not really sure that that'd be necessary...69.57.177.154 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree... I might do it myself if I get the chance. ChaosEmerald 28 March 2006


Is all this crazy stuff about joined writing on its way out some wierd American thing. I'm a student and im still expected to write, to take notes, to write easy's, not to the extent of the leaving cert, and presentations in college are all typed, but handwritting is your own and a essential part of who someone is. Even if you have to write neater for exams than you would for notes, writting your own joined way is easier for the mind and hand to produce at a persons own mental pace than full block letters. Computers and other such techknologys may be becoming more prevalent as we progress, but just make the stupid machines understand hand writting dont phase are individual handwritting style out, just because it suits Microsoft. 2255, 2nd of the 11th 2006.

This has little to do with Microsoft, so don't bring in that strawman. I agree that handwriting isn't on its way out. Historically speaking, however, cursive writing is certainly not as "hip" as it used to be. Personally, I loathe cursive writing (it tends to be far less readable than print-writing from my experience) and thus fully disagree that print is somehow more difficult to write or closer to the way we "think" -- it's all a matter of which style you're accustomed to (back in school other pupils would often wonder how I can write as fast as them despite writing in print rather than cursive -- throughout my 21 years of age I've only spent 3 years writing cursive, ever since I've written in print, that's why).
I am also a pretty fast typist (I wouldn't call myself a touch-typist as per Wikipedia, as I never formally learned typing and thus probably type a little less efficient than I could, but I still type about as fast as I can write with a pen). The two skills hardly conflict, though I can't deny that early exposure to computers is part of the reason I prefer print-writing over cursive.
I'm a university student and I'm also expected to write exams rather than type them. Handwriting is usually accepted for most forms of homework as well. More elaborate works, however, need to adhere to certain scientific and formal standards, so computerised text is a must (though, in theory, you could probably use an actual typewriter and still meet the requirements). The corrections and annotations by my professors, however, are handwritten and I have to hand in a print-out rather than a digital copy on CD.
Some students do take the notes on a portable computer, but that's a rare occurrence.
Regardless, the question is not whether handwriting is on its way out (as long as we have hands, it's probably not) but whether cursive writing is on its way out and from what I've seen most people who were taught cursive writing as children eventually abandon that practice in favour of printing or mixed print-writing (with some cursive letters in print or print letters in cursive writing). There are enough people who still write in a "pure" cursive style to say it's not entirely passé, though, and it probably will not die out entirely, simply because there's always a bit of personal preference involved.
Maybe cursive writing will the apparent development is misleading and cursive will eventually become the norm again, but right now pure cursive is definitely a bit exceptional (at least among the ~20 year-olds). — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


An encyclopedia shouldn't be influencing people's opinions. Cursive is what they mean when anyone wants your signature. If you're to list cons of cursive you should unbiasly list pro's also. When I see an old letter of my moms in cursive I recognize that handwriting and have feelings. Cursive is more friendly than a typed letter,not a cold typed business letter. Cursive is an art form. Can a person really print as fast as one can write cursive when taking notes in school? The main article leaves out students when it mentions secretaries,et al. Its 52 characters that we're to lazy to teach our children? One less thing for them to be proud of?Jmward 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)John M. Ward (thewards@sprintmail.com)

I think the entire article needs much better references anyway, but the sections about "for and against" definitely so. Currently we have a "Criticism of cursive English" with the claim "Cursive writing is increasingly denounced as out-of-date and obsolete" backed up by a link to one for-and-against piece in which a single teacher gives his reasons for thinking it outdated. He may well be representative of other US teachers, but we can't have one man's opinion used to back up "increasingly denounced".
And there needs to be a much clearer distinction between particular styles of handwriting going in or out, (the next "reference" in the article is to a CBS article which talks about italic as if it's not cursive, but here in the UK italic is certainly "joined up") and handwriting as a practice (compared with typing) going in or out. I agree with the comments above that universities expect some things and especially exam scripts to be handwritten - and written legibly - but there is no requirement to use a particular style of writing. Just one that involves a pen :)
Telsa (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lines crossing at 90-degrees from the original text"

In the early days of the post office, letters were written in cursive — and to fit more text on a single sheet, the text was continued in lines crossing at 90-degrees from the original text. Block letters could not do this. --- a visual example would be helpful; I have no idea how this is possible or how it would be readable (or how it would be any less readable than if it were done in print). You mean something like this???

T h i s   i s  a 
 T t s b 9 t o t
s e n t e n c e
 h e h e 0 h t e
A n d   a n o t h e r
 i x o   ' e h x
o n e .   T h i s
 s t u a     e t
i s   r e a l l y
     l t t   r
a n n o y i n g
     d   o
t o   t y p e.

Thanks. PS. I write block letters (with some idiosyncratic joined letters/ligatures) a lot faster than I can write cursive. cab 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Cursive

I posted a few paragraphs in defense of cursive, but someone removed them. I found that very rude and disappointing. You may not agree with the arguments, but for the sake of balance they should be there. I did not remove any of the arguments against cursive. The original article did not give adequate treatment to the arguments in support of teaching cursive, so I added my thoughts so that readers could get more information. Dylan23 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can they be restored? I agree that there should be more about the benefits of cursive. (I personally am not a fan of cursive but I would like to be able to read about it from both sides and base my opinion on fair evidence.) --Ejrh 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejrh, unfortunately I did not save the paragraphs I posted. Stupidly I just assumed they would remain on the Wikipedia page. When I have time I will rewrite them from memory. I appreciate your desire for both sides of the issue to be presented.Dylan23 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you posted them, then they'll still be saved in the article's history. Click on the history tab at the top of the page and look for your name. They're listed chronologically from the most recent.Mustang6172 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for Cursive Restored

I did a more extended essay on reasons for teaching cursive and posted it on the page. I hope my contribution stays there this time. Dylan23 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for and against cursive dramatically reduced

These sections do not comply to WP:OR, WP:POV, or WP:BS so I've cut them back to a bare mimimum. In the context of the length of the article (which is about cursive writing, and not US educational policy on handwriting, by the way) there is no justification for an extended analysis of the pros and cons, and in any case, it can't be original research. Don't take it personally. ElectricRay 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cursive is easier and faster once mastered...

...There is no need to constantly pick up the pencil point and put it down again."

Can this claim be properly substantiated? The latter sentence is not explanation enough.--AlbertW 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you need explanation for? if you've ever learned cursive you'd understand it. cursive handwriting is in its simplest one complex stroke for each word. that's it, the statement states it clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.44.238 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an implied request for a citation of the research that demonstrates that cursive is faster than non-cursive writing. I'm aware of research that indicates that Getty/Dubay is faster than Palmer, or Spencerian. jonathon (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Question about "Easier and Faster" Claim

The substantiation for the claim is that cursive, because the letters are joined, removes the need to frequently pick up and put down the writing utensil. The job of handwriting thus becomes less taxing. As for the claim of cursive being faster, moving straight from one letter to the next, instead of picking up the pencil after each letter, allows the writer to move more quickly. There is of course no guarantee that an individual will write more quickly than he/she will print, but there is good reason to believe that a person who learns cursive will probably find writing somewhat easier and faster. I believe an editor took out from my contribution a reference to an article stating that the joined writing of cursive can be done faster than is physically possible with manuscript.

Dylan23 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgraphia

"Cursive may be especially useful for certain students with learning disabilities such as dysgraphia because ..."

That's one of the cruelest things I've ever heard! If you really wanted to help them, instead of pushing your cursive writing agenda, you'd give them a computer with voice dictation software. --Nbritton 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How is teaching someone a system of writing that may be less confusing to them cruel? That's like not teaching kids how to do arithmetic because they can always use a caluculator. It's far more cruel to force them to use a computer, leaving them helpless to write if ever there is a widespread power failure. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. -- 12.116.162.162 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The images at the article's beginning are creating a huge ugly blank space

I don't have the editing know-how to fix it, so could someone who does please fix it? I don't even know how it should look, just that it's ugly and disorienting as is. I thought part of the article was missing on my first view of it.Thanks, Spalding (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I thought the same thing. I have placed the images on the right hand side, with paragraph wrapping.jonathon (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)