Czech Schools Are Testing A New Style Of Handwriting

[aditya.shevade]

Interesting discussion. Like the new script. It's clean.

[The Royal Pen]

Re:

 

You MUST be a wonderful handwriting repair-lady

 

 

Thanks for the praise -- but you shouldn't give such praise without evidence. The three links in my signature will show whether I deserve your compliments.

 

Re:

 

I agree with you 110%! The crusade with and Italic wing and a Cursive wing sounds perfect! Cursive and I[t]alic fit hand-in-hand.

 

Thanks -- I've tried for at least a decade to get pen-folks interested in making this happen. So many, down the years, have chorused: "We agree, we agree, we agree" -- but it never got farther than that admittedly pleasing chorus. Royal Pen -- if you're really interested and can/will work with me to make this happen, give me a call and let's discuss *practical* ways and means to make it come about. (You'll find my phone number on the top right corner of my web-site's front page.)

I have sent you a PM

[caliken]

The new style is a one-woman-show if I understand it correctly and it is potentially a very lucrative business for her. She, the inventor of this style,.....(etc)

Inventor of this style??

 

I think that the Italian scribes of the 15th century would have something to say about that, not to mention the entire membership of "The Society for Italic Handwriting".

 

This typical example dates from 1985

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Italic3.jpg

Edited July 25, 2010 by caliken

[Italicist]

Inventor of this style??

 

I think that the Italian scribes of the 15th century would have something to say about that, not to mention the entire membership of "The Society for Italic Handwriting".

 

 

Good heavens, yes. I rather like this script, and I hope that the experiment will yield fruitful results for the schoolchildren, their teachers, and the originator of the programme, but as Caliken has already said, let's not pretend that the Comenia script is anything other than slight variation on a theme that is already half a millennium old.

 

 

[Glaurung]

Inventor of this style??

 

I know I know, please do not take me too literally. In the context of my reply, "new style" meant the one replacing the "old style" that was taught in Czechoslovak and Czech schools for almost a century. She acknowledges inspiration by styles from the past, hence the name "Comenia script".

[Glaurung]

Re:

 

Glaurung, you seem disapproving when you write "one-woman show."

What do you find so wrong with one person (woman or man) having an idea and bringing it to other people?

Must absolutely everything always come from a collective?

 

That is exactly what teachers said when mathematics in Roman numerals gave way to mathematics in Arabic numerals.

I suspect that the teachers of hieroglyphs and cuneiform used the same reasoning to denounce the introduction of that drastic simplification, the alphabet.

 

So if you oppose simple processes because you think of them as "lazy" -- logically you should call for a return to hieroglyphs (or at least a return to Roman numerals). And of course you should write that message in hieroglyphs to show that you are not lazy ...

:roflmho:

 

 

I call it "one woman show" because for her, it is mainly a commercial endeavor. She sells rights to use the Comenia font and one of the barriers of adopting it in Czech schools is the costs related to licensing.

 

Why not take it to extremes then? Why bother teaching them upper and lower case letters when "ABC....Z" is good and simple enough to express themselves? The kids would certainly welcome that because differentiating between upper and lower case letters of certain words is one of the most complex parts of the Czech grammar. Would not that be simple, modern, quick?

 

For me, this is a far more subjective matter than for you and I do not agree with the reasoning behind the change either. The traditional handwriting is a part of our cultural heritage for me, and a piece of classic education that Czech kids should get IMO. I have heard that one of the reasons why cursive is natural for Czechs is that it goes well together with our complex inflections. I am against change for the sake of change, that never works in my books. Whenever I hear about someone acting on behalf of the good of others, I have to ask Cui bono? (especially when fixing things that I do not think need fixing) Kids that had poor handwriting yesterday will have poor handprinting tomorrow.

 

Btw. were not there good reasons for the handwriting to evolve from the 15th century italics to the 19th century cursive styles (i.e. for speed of handwriting)? I have no clue about history of handwriting so if I talk nonsense, please educate me.

[KateGladstone]

... as Caliken has already said, let's not pretend that the Comenia script is anything other than slight variation on a theme that is already half a millennium old.

 

Yes -- five hundred years is long enough for the world to learn how to write. The 500th anniversary of Arrighi's manual ("La Operina" -- "The Little Work," 32 pages long, and sometimes reprinted with an English translation) will be 2022. Can we get the world writing legibly by that time? Or at least train some influential cadre/critical mass of teachers and parents?

[Opus104]

Fascinating discussion. I find the emotion behind handwriting style choices intriguing.

 

And Kate - It is great to see this flurry of posts recently!!

[KateGladstone]

I call it "one woman show" because for her, it is mainly a commercial endeavor. She sells rights to use the Comenia font and one of the barriers of adopting it in Czech schools is the costs related to licensing.

It isn't wrong -- it is right -- to receive what people are willing to give in return for what you want to achieve and can do well. In modern society, "what people are willing to give" is usually money. Or do you think that everyone who knows something about handwriting, and who uses that knowledge, must work for free?

 

Why not take it to extremes then?

Why not? Because extremes are bad for handwriting. Some writings (such as ALL-CAPITALS, which the early Romans wrote) are very legible but very difficult to write: they sacrifice the hand to the eye. That is one extreme. Other writings (such as 100% connected cursive) go to the other extreme: sacrificing the eye to the hand. Handwriting history, in fact, swings like a pendulum between the two extremes:

when an alphabet (or other writing-system) is invented, its symbols more befriend the eye than the hand --

then people make the shapes into something easier for the hand: a "lazy" version, if you like (that is how lower-case developed out of the capitals),

and when that process goes too far (which usually takes about 500 years to happen], people look for a clearer way to do it: usually, this means that they look for ideas from earlier styles where the hand had not yet come to dominate the eye.

The educators who revived "handprinting" in the 20th century (including a UK educator who brought that to the USA) went back a little *too* far and created a style that was like a geometrically drawn half-uncial with Roman capitals added: clear, but too "early" to have developed enough hand-friendliness: the hand was still sacrificed to the eye. A smaller number of wiser educators (in the 20th and 21st century) instead revived Italic -- which is a quite different matter from the "handprinting" which Glaurung rightly rejects. Italic goes back to a period when there was a better balance between the eye's demands (for clarity) and the hand's demands (for speed) in handwriting -- when the eye was not sacrificed to the demands of the hand, but also the hand was not sacrificed for the sake of the eye.

 

Re:

differentiating between upper and lower case letters of certain words is one of the most complex parts of the Czech grammar.

Because I do not know Czech, I would very much like Glaurung to explain why Czech grammar includes capitalization. In English (which also has quite complex rules for capitalization), the rules for capitalization are considered to be part of correct spelling and correct handwriting, not part of the grammar of the language. (For example: let us say that I capitalize atrociously in English -- that I write, or type, "hello, my Friends on the fountain Pen netWork. i Am particularly Happy to heAr frOm glaUrunG." Those sentences are entirely grammatical, merely miscapitalized -- just as a sentence may be perfectly grammatical even though it is pronounced with a regional accent. To English-speakers -- in America, at least -- it sounds as strange to classify capitalization under grammar as it would sound to classify pronuncication under grammar. So I would like to understand the reason that Czech-speakers regard the rules of capitalization as grammatical rules.)

 

 

For me, this is a far more subjective matter than for you and I do not agree with the reasoning behind the change either.

Then, Glaurung, you and I agree on one thing at least: that your thoughts on the matter arise from subjective (rather than from objective) considerations.

 

Re:

I have heard that one of the reasons why cursive is natural for Czechs is that it goes well together with our complex inflections.

I do not understand how a script can "go with" (or not go with) the grammatical inflections of a language that is written in that script. Because I am ignorant of Czech (although I know other complexly inflected languages), I would very much value a precise explanation of how someone would reach the conclusion that a language's grammatical inflections must affect the simplicity or complexity of the script used to write that language.

 

Two of the languages that I know well (Russian and German) have complex grammatical inflections (Russian inflections are more complex than German, and I am told that Czech inflections are about as complex as Russian inflections). Yet both these languages have been written in a variety of scripts throughout their history, and the simplicity or complexity of the script, at any time in the history of either language, has no observable relation with the simplicity or complexity of the language's inflections at the same period in its history.

The same, as you probably know, holds true for Latin and Greek: two other complexly inflected languages (at least as complexly inflected as Russian -- and therefore, I believe, at least as complexly inflected as Czech. The classical Romans -- and the classical Greeks -- spoke very complexly inflected languages -- yet classical Latin and Greek used capital-letter-only styles. Modern Greek has far simpler inflections than ancient Greek -- yet modern Greek handwriting is complexly cursive, and ancient Greek handwriting was not. The modern languages that descend from Latin -- modern French/Spanish/Italian/Rumanian, and some others -- use complexly cursive scripts ... yet, compared with Latin, their own grammatical inflections have vanished almost down to nothing. So the theory you heard (that imagined that complex grammars somehow benefit from complex scripts) is plainly untrue. (One can also see from other continents' languages that it is untrue: Korean has an extraordinarily complex grammar -- yet an extraordinarily simple alphabet.)

 

Re:

I am against change for the sake of change, that never works in my books.

You and I agree on another thing, then: the uselessness of "change for the sake of change." If you had lived 400 years ago -- when elaborate and 100%-connected cursive script was beginning to push Italic out of its previous place as the standard script for most European languages in countries influenced by the Renaissance -- you would therefore have been arguing for the preservation of Italic: on the very same basis that you now use to argue against the return of Italic.

 

Re:

Whenever I hear about someone acting on behalf of the good of others, I have to ask Cui bono? ["To whose good?"]

It's a sensible thing to ask -- but do you demand that someone who does anything which s/he believes beneficial to others must always do it for free -- must never seek to earn a living by what s/he can do, but must only give away his/her labor? If you are morally opposed to someone earning money by offering for sale a product/service that s/he believes to be useful, then I must conclude that you are morally opposed to the notion of working for a living! (or at least I must conclude that you are morally opposed to the notion of receiving payment for your work ... https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/roflmho.gif ... )

 

Re:

Kids that had poor handwriting yesterday will have poor handprinting tomorrow.

Italic isn't handprinting -- it is another form of handwriting: a style that was identified as "corsiva" [cursive] from the earliest date of its publication. The cursive that you learned -- and that you learned to call "cursive" -- originated much later.)

In any case, research shows no connection between difficulty in handwriting/cursive and difficulty in handprinting.

[Research citation:

Armitage, Doreen, and Harold Ratzlaff. "The Non-Correlation of Printing and Writing Skills." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 78 (1985): 174-177.]

 

Re:

Btw. were not there good reasons for the handwriting to evolve from the 15th century italics to the 19th century cursive styles (i.e. for speed of handwriting)?]

Handwriting speed is important -- but it is never important to sacrifice legibility to speed.

 

Cursive handwriting such as you advocate

(I call this "looped cursive"or "conventional cursive" to distinguish it from Italic cursive)

is far more accident-prone than Italic handwriting: particularly as the speed and quantity of writing increase.

Whether or not it is possible for most people to write more letters per minute in looped cursive than in Italic cursive, in my opinion and experience (for 23 years as a handwriting teacher and as Director of the World Handwriting Contest) it is not possible for most people of any age to write as many legible letters per minute in looped cursive as in Italic cursive. If you like, I can find you some research on that -- please let me know. Would you want to know about such research? I ask this question because some people who value subjective feelings over objective findings do not wish to see or to know about research if it disagrees with their feelings.

 

Re:

I have no clue about history of handwriting

 

Would you like the names of some books on the subject?

A good, short book for beginners in handwriting's history is A BOOK OF SCRIPTS by Alfred Fairbank, but this book is only a beginning: it was written very non-technically, as an introductory treatment of the matter, although it is very useful and informative. Please let me know if you would like more names of books on handwriting history: probably Caliken can also recommend some excellent books on the subject.

[caliken]

I call it "one woman show" because for her, it is mainly a commercial endeavor. She sells rights to use the Comenia font

I am aware that one of my many faults is to take things too literally, and for this, I apologize.

However, there can be no ambiguity about "the inventor of the style".

 

I reiterate, that there is nothing that is new about this version of italic. If I had the time (or the inclination) I could dig out more historical examples to further prove the point covering every letter and every (minor) modification.

 

IMO there is nothing wrong in reviving earlier scripts and with modifications, giving them new names for commercial purposes...there are hundreds of such fonts and if you are a supporter of Italic handwriting, then her efforts are to be applauded.

 

Is is, however, quite different to claim to have "created" or "invented" a "new" form of italic script when clearly, this isn't the case.

 

If the copyright laws stretched back 500 years, this could never happen!

[caliken]

it is not possible for most people of any age to write as many legible letters per minute in looped cursive as in Italic cursive.

I'm sure that you're right.

Edited July 26, 2010 by caliken

[KateGladstone]

The two questions based on traditional conservatism and its Darwinian association would be:

What do you mean by "traditional conservatism"? The desire to keep a younger style (looped cursive), or the desire to re-introduce an older, hence more traditional, style (Italic cursive, whose learning starts with the learning of the same letters made separately)?

 

If "Darwinian association" means that the fittest always survive, that doesn't always hold true -- or ball-points would never have taken over from fountain pens. (If nothing else, ball-points waste petroleum every time a ball-point is thrown out: because plastic is made from petroleum.)

 

Re:

 

1) Does it work?

 

Obvious, printing has always worked. So the promoters would be safe of the first point.

 

Italic isn't printing, though (whether you call the Italic "Comenia," "Gourdie," "Getty-Dubay," or some other name indicating the writer or publisher of a particular Italic].

 

Re:

2) Is it an improvement over existing cursive writing?

 

Printing is slower than cursive for almost everyone which is why we all went to cursive. A negative.

 

Current research (citation on request) establishes that legible printing is as fast as equally legible cursive done by persons of the same age who have received the same amount of training in the style being done. The same research also establishes that the fastest writers avoid conventional cursive -- yet they do not use a conventional printing either.

 

Highest-speed, highest-legibility handwriters

/a/ join only some, not all, of the letters -- making the easiest joins, skipping the rest

and

/b/ tend to use print-like forms (even where joining letters) for letters whose cursive and printed forms disagree.

 

If we like speed and legibility, then, we should teach a handwriting that supports -- instead of opposing -- the documented habits of the fastest and most legible writers.

 

Cursive programs (other than Italic) join all the letters -- printing programs join none of the letters -- thereby both types of program present problems under point /a/.

 

Cursive programs (other than Italic) also oppose the use of print-like forms for letters whose cursive forms disagree -- thereby, such programs present a problem under point /b/

 

As far as I know, only one kind of handwriting program today incorporates -- rather than opposing -- habits /a/ and /b/, which characterize the handwriting of the most successful (highest-speed, highest-legibility) handwriters. That kind of program is Italic.

 

Re:

Considering the historical push (pre PC)toward cursive over printing, this doesn't look like it will be a winner. It certainly isn't a slam dunk either way.

 

So, RLTodd, what kind of handwriting do you think will -- or should -- be a winner (maybe the winner)? What kind of handwriting would you create/use/teach, if you wanted to create a "slam-dunk" handwriting: something that combined the advantages of various other writing styles, while avoiding their respective disadvantages?

[KateGladstone]

I said that "most" people couldn't do it.

The great Caliken is not "most" people. He can do things, scribally, that most people cannot.

[caliken]

I call this "looped cursive"or "conventional cursive" to distinguish it from Italic cursive

 

Kate,

 

I've been struggling for some time to find a descriptive term to differentiate between the two syles of lettering, and usually ended up writing the same tedious explanation.

 

Your "looped cursive" is a perfect description of the style of handwriting which evolved out of Spencerian Script. There are no loops in italic writing. What could be clearer than "Italic Cursive " and "Looped Cursive".....thank you!

I'll be using this descriptive term from now on.

 

Now the only problem is how to convince US writers than Italic Cursive came first and hundreds of years later, the newer Looped Cursive was developed....and not the other way round!

 

If fact, as we know, the line of development was Italic Cursive > English Roundhand > Spencerian > Looped Cursive

 

caliken

Edited July 26, 2010 by caliken

[Johnny Appleseed]

If the copyright laws stretched back 500 years, this could never happen!

 

Unfortunately typefaces and handwriting styles have limited ability to be copyrighted - in the case of typefaces, none. You can't copyright an actual typeface. You can trademark a name, like Palatino, and you have copyright protection for actual font software against unauthorized copying of the software, but the actual typefaces itself cannot be copyrighted (anyone can print out the latest font, scan it into a fontmaker program, set auto kerning and sell it under their own name - and they frequently do). I believe the same is true for a handwriting style- the instruction book that teaches how to make a particular handwriting style can be protected, but not the hand itself. A specific artwork may be protected against unauthorized copying, but the style itself cannot be protected (so long as it is another person that does the calligraphy). So I am not sure that copyright protection would apply even if it went back 500 years.

 

John

[The Royal Pen]

I call this "looped cursive"or "conventional cursive" to distinguish it from Italic cursive

 

Kate,

 

I've been struggling for some time to find a descriptive term to differentiate between the two syles of lettering, and usually ended up writing the same tedious explanation.

 

Your "looped cursive" is a perfect description of the style of handwriting which evolved out of Spencerian Script. There are no loops in italic writing. What could be clearer than "Italic Cursive " and "Looped Cursive".....thank you!

I'll be using this descriptive term from now on.

 

Now the only problem is how to convince US writers than Italic Cursive came first and hundreds of years later, the newer Looped Cursive was developed....and not the other way round!

 

If fact, as we know, the line of development was Italic Cursive > English Roundhand > Spencerian > Looped Cursive

 

caliken

I prefer cursive, head-over-heels, and I agree with you. When one looks at the history, it is obvious that first came italic (or calligrahpy), then the English Roundhand, then Spencerian, then Palmer and other methods

[Glaurung]

Because I do not know Czech, I would very much like Glaurung to explain why Czech grammar includes capitalization.

 

Using names of places and nations/groups of people (like religions) does not always warrant words to begin with upper case letters. Rules specifying when to begin a word with an upper case vs. lower case letter (in a group of words that constitute a full name, i.e. including the words "street" or "square") are quite complex and hard to remember and easy to mix up. Yes, these rules are defined in Czech grammar.

 

 

I do not understand how a script can "go with" (or not go with) the grammatical inflections of a language that is written in that script.

 

Me neither, it is a fascinating idea that I would like to learn about a bit more eventually. Never underestimate the power of brain to reuse patterns whenever possible though.

 

Two of the languages that I know well (Russian and German) have complex grammatical inflections (Russian inflections are more complex than German, and I am told that Czech inflections are about as complex as Russian inflections). Yet both these languages have been written in a variety of scripts throughout their history, and the simplicity or complexity of the script, at any time in the history of either language, has no observable relation with the simplicity or complexity of the language's inflections at the same period in its history.

 

I know/knew German and Russian quite well, too. Russian handwriting taught in schools is cursive, is not it? (at least I was taught Azbuka cursive in school years and years ago);-) Btw. what I find almost ironic about the name of the new style is that Comenius wrote most of his works in Latin, not Czech.

 

So the theory you heard (that imagined that complex grammars somehow benefit from complex scripts) is plainly untrue.

That is quite possible.

 

If you are morally opposed to someone earning money by offering for sale a product/service that s/he believes to be useful,

 

I am morally opposed to being offered something that I cannot choose not to accept (via government as proxy) in the name of greater good, regardless how noble the intentions are. If I think that most of the arguments supporting the change are bogus, all that is left there for me is the self interest of the seller that I cannot tell to go away.

 

Handwriting speed is important -- but it is never important to sacrifice legibility to speed.

 

Your experience simply trumps anything I can say here so I humbly accept that argument.

 

A good, short book for beginners in handwriting's history is A BOOK OF SCRIPTS by Alfred Fairbank, but this book is only a beginning: it was written very non-technically, as an introductory treatment of the matter, although it is very useful and informative. Please let me know if you would like more names of books on handwriting history: probably Caliken can also recommend some excellent books on the subject.

 

Thank you for the pointers Kate.

[KateGladstone]

Re:

Your "looped cursive" is a perfect description of the style of handwriting which evolved out of Spencerian Script. There are no loops in italic writing. What could be clearer than "Italic Cursive " and "Looped Cursive".....thank you!

I'll be using this descriptive term from now on.

 

Actually, I started calling it "looped cursive" after I heard my friends Barbara Getty and Inga Dubay call it "looped cursive" -- they, not I, coined the term I use.

 

Re:

Now the only problem is how to convince US writers than Italic Cursive came first and hundreds of years later, the newer Looped Cursive was developed....and not the other way round!

 

Do what I do -- whenever the conversation turns to handwriting, drop that fact into the conversation (if someone present has not heard it from you before). Do it in as casual and wry/humorous a manner as possible: "Of course one important thing to remember about what we call 'cursive' today is that it's younger than most major countries" or "Isn't it interesting to wonder why most people have their handwriting history exactly backwards?" and wait for people to ask what you mean: then illustrate with the aid of sketches (so keep pen and paper handy at all times!)

Do the same -- with a bit fuller explanation/illustration, perhaps -- whenever you speak to newspaper-reporters, etc., about handwriting. Do the same whenever you read a blog-entry on handwriting that shows that the writer has the wrong idea about the matter, or which shows that the writer has never considered the matter.

Whenever you teach handwriting/calligraphy -- and, when possible and reasonable, whenever you speak with a prospective student -- share the information (casually and briefly with prospective students, in more depth with actual students).

And mention it on your web-site: have a section on handwriting's history, or do as I do & sneak the info into one or more of the other sections on your site.

[RLTodd]

...........

So, RLTodd, what kind of handwriting do you think will -- or should -- be a winner ........

 

Oh, I think handwriting is dead.

 

We will have to resume this thread in another fifty years to see how it all turned out.

 

BTW, just because something is older doesn't indicate that it is "conservative." The conservative approach is still 1) does it work, 2) is it objectively better. I still think that is why the roundhand fork displaced the older italic fork.

[WendyNC]

I can certainly see the advantages of a sometimes joined/sometimes not joined italic, which I believe has been defined here as cursive italic. Could somebody post an example of the style being discussed in this thread in actual use? I don't care what it is--abecedarian sentences are fine. I'd just like to get a look at it written by a real person with a real pen. Thanks!