Cursive Is Quicker Than Printing (?)

[mirosc]

  On 2/20/2012 at 3:17 PM, Mickey said:

It is unlikely that the word 'cursive' will.

Well, that's exactly my point. I really think that with the current changes of writing (we all know the influences) also our understanding of "cursive" will change - maybe it will last a bit longer here in our little realm of oldfashioned ink enthusiasts, but when I look at the letters they are teaching at our primary schools and call that "cursive"... then I see a change in the meaning of cursive, indeed. Maybe it's still different in English speaking countries.

[caliken]

  On 2/20/2012 at 2:43 AM, thusly said:

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 know that this deviates from the original subject, but in the interest of balance, it should be pointed out that Spencerian advocates, via the IAMPETH site, totally ignore the style and influence of Italic handwriting.......and his name was Alfred Fairbank, not Fairbanks.

 

caliken

Edited February 20, 2012 by caliken

[ylw]

  On 2/18/2012 at 5:37 PM, Mickey said:

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.

We were taught to keep the pen on the paper for the entire length of the word. We weren't supposed to lift the pen off the paper for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That's something you did when you were done with the entire word. So no misconception but pure reality and I think that's the problem itself. There are various ways of cursive and various ways of how people are taught cursive. My main point was that this does not matter in the end because you develop your own handwriting anyway and that handwriting is build for your own speed.

[Mickey]

  On 2/20/2012 at 8:09 PM, mirosc said:

  On 2/20/2012 at 3:17 PM, Mickey said:

It is unlikely that the word 'cursive' will.

Well, that's exactly my point. I really think that with the current changes of writing (we all know the influences) also our understanding of "cursive" will change

 

Well we're half in agreement. Writing will continue to change apace, of this I have little doubt, but the meaning of cursive has probably stratified.

[Mickey]

q

  On 2/20/2012 at 10:23 PM, ylw said:

  On 2/18/2012 at 5:37 PM, Mickey said:

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.

We were taught to keep the pen on the paper for the entire length of the word. We weren't supposed to lift the pen off the paper for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That's something you did when you were done with the entire word.

 

What you were taught in elementary school is beside the point. What Ms. Grundy believed is hardly definitive. Cursive includes a number of styles, some of which have more lifts than others. If you buy into mirosc's sense of thing, cursive hands need have no joins at all, and, at one time, he was quite correct. We only disagree as to whether that definition is now relevant or is ever likely to be in the future.

[Columba Livia]

  On 2/20/2012 at 2:43 AM, thusly said:

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?

 

Before the invention of typewriter (and for some time afterwards) business; writing letters, copying letters, book-keeping &c. required fast writing performed for hours at a time. Looped slanted scripts (Spencerian, Roundhand, Batarde etc) exactly fit that bill: if they didn't they would never have come to dominate the handwriting of the Roman alphabet using countries during the 18th, 19th and early 20th century when the demand for fast efficient handwriting was at its height. In tandem with looped slanted scripts went expert methods and processes of teaching which continued to evolve during the 19th century.

 

As far as I know, none of the slanted looped scripts such as Roundhand, Batarde, Coulee, Spencerian & the monoline Business writing were intended/developed/evolved to be anything other than handwriting. They can be written slowly to produce a formal script which serves as a demonstration of the prowess of teachers and individuals, and is helpful when learning them, but that was not how they were primarily used.

 

On a side note, here is an example of penlifts, it is from the commission of the American civil war general Ulysses S. Grant:

 

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

Edited February 21, 2012 by Columba Livia

[sadiemagic]

I would have said yes, cursive is quicker than printing, until I read this thread and realized how many nuances there are to the act of forming letters. Despite having written with fountain pens for 35+ years, I'd not given much though to the act of writing. This thread is a fascinating discussion!

 

If cursive is indeed a thing of the past and school children are not taught how to write that way, will signatures be "printed?" Granted, electronic signatures can be used for some purposes, but won't we always need some way to "sign off" (literally) on certain documents? Or will we revert back to the days of people who couldn't read or write, and would mark an "X" for their signature?

 

(And now off to write in my journal in what I used to think was cursive, but now realize is a hybrid form I've developed over the years...)

[Meleemaker]

Printing vs Cursive....

 

We got learned our cursive in third grade. Our teachers always made us write cursive in fourth grade. Finally in fifth and up, we got a choice of what we could write and everyone went with printing because it was faster/more legible or whatever. I believe it was because no one wanted to write it. It was sloppy and hard to read, even our own. I remember seeing one girls paper in seventh grade, most beautiful cursive I had ever seen. She was so fluid and I wanted to be like her. I tried and tried and tried, but failed. I did fall into the "hybrid" printing to increase speed and still have some nice curves and lines.

 

 

Well, I got a fountain pen, and I started writing cursive 100% of the time, unless I was working on homework that was vital I be legible. Some cursive, I just cant read, and not a lot of people like to either. Its one thing I love, and I consider it as much as an art as I do painting. But with anything, accuracy must be achieved before speed.

 

I got a cheap Indian FP I plan on giving to my sister to get her to continue with the cursive while she is still young(an 11 year old with a FP..oh the world I invision). That way she can write well all through out her life, because she kept up with it. Thats really my 1 pence. As long as someone stays with it while they are young, they will be more prone to better writing as they age.

 

 

But on a sidenote, they should teach people how to properly read cursive....<.< Thats my biggest fear, writing somthing, and having someone ask what it is(which happened today sadly )

[691175002]

I've always written for speed and it has become a sort of speed cursive where letters just connect regardless of legibility.

 

Nobody can read my handwriting, even I occasionally have trouble.

[Patrician]

My definition of cursive is a semijoined cursive, as most people educated in the Western European countries use ( Easter Europeans have beautiful, cultivated cursive, IMHE). My cursive is much faster than my printing. Than anyone's printing that I know, for the record. And very comfortable to use for long writing sessions. I agree with an above poster, it still surprises me as childish or immature to see adults struggling to print, some all caps. It is truly saddening to see some places trying to justify not only this kind of handwriting ( not talking about pure italic, but block printing), but the unnecessaryness of learning how to write at all. Writing/reading is the basic tool of intellect.

[ylw]

  On 2/20/2012 at 10:51 PM, Mickey said:

What you were taught in elementary school is beside the point. What Ms. Grundy believed is hardly definitive. Cursive includes a number of styles, some of which have more lifts than others. If you buy into mirosc's sense of thing, cursive hands need have no joins at all, and, at one time, he was quite correct. We only disagree as to whether that definition is now relevant or is ever likely to be in the future.

What I was taught in primary school is definitely not beside the point, it IS the entire point! It was to give you an example that you should think beyond what you were taught. Earth consists of more countries than the USA and each country has its own style or even styles. I was simply taught a different style than most Americans on this forum thus there are more styles. Now see the relevance of what I was taught in primary school? The second point I was trying to make: people were taught a different way of cursive thus simply saying something is faster than the other is rather silly. There is no way of saying that because it will be different for each person for a number of reasons (one of them being the cursive style they were taught and they developed over the course of years; the different style says something about the loops, spacing, etc.). You need to get more precise on the semantics if you want to know which is best and actually do some scientific research about it. That goes beyond a simple discussion on a forum. The only thing you can do is discuss the various differences in the cursive people were taught and what peoples own preferences, handwriting developments, etc. are. Shed some light on the differences in handwriting and share your experience. However, you can dive into the origin of certain styles and the reason of their existence (what led to their development?).

 

Btw, that definition is absolutely appalling as it defines every possible style as being cursive. It needs to be narrowed down quite a bit.

[Mickey]

  On 2/27/2012 at 10:49 PM, ylw said:

  On 2/20/2012 at 10:51 PM, Mickey said:

What you were taught in elementary school is beside the point. What Ms. Grundy believed is hardly definitive. Cursive includes a number of styles, some of which have more lifts than others. If you buy into mirosc's sense of thing, cursive hands need have no joins at all, and, at one time, he was quite correct. We only disagree as to whether that definition is now relevant or is ever likely to be in the future.

What I was taught in primary school is definitely not beside the point, it IS the entire point! It was to give you an example that you should think beyond what you were taught.

 

That your Ms. Grundy taught pretty much what my Ms. Grundy taught isn't definitive or even particularly interesting. nuff said.

[professionaldilettante]

  On 4/16/2011 at 3:23 PM, Chris H said:

I print for legibility. Started back in high school when I could no longer read my cursive script. Been printing ever since, say somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 or 44 years. I print quickly enough, but it seems reasonable to believe if I wrote a legible cursive probably my printing speed would be faster. But this is just me. Others will obviously have a different experience.

 

Chris

Very true, I do the same, except for myself primarily. My notes are all in print, just so I can read over them quickly. However, I use cursive for things that have more of an emotional satisfaction to them. Sort of like McD's vs steak seared on a cast iron pan, both are food, but a 3 dollar burger can't satisfy like a good steak.

 

Somehow this whole thing of efficiency seems mute, when people can type faster than any of us can write, and fountain pens aren't on the cusp of technology or efficiency. We have to stop and fill up every once in a while etc.

[Mickey]

  On 2/28/2012 at 2:11 AM, professionaldilettante said:

  On 4/16/2011 at 3:23 PM, Chris H said:

I print for legibility. Started back in high school when I could no longer read my cursive script. Been printing ever since, say somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 or 44 years. I print quickly enough, but it seems reasonable to believe if I wrote a legible cursive probably my printing speed would be faster. But this is just me. Others will obviously have a different experience.

 

Chris

Very true, I do the same, except for myself primarily. My notes are all in print, just so I can read over them quickly. However, I use cursive for things that have more of an emotional satisfaction to them. Sort of like McD's vs steak seared on a cast iron pan, both are food, but a 3 dollar burger can't satisfy like a good steak.

 

Somehow this whole thing of efficiency seems mute, when people can type faster than any of us can write, and fountain pens aren't on the cusp of technology or efficiency. We have to stop and fill up every once in a while etc.

 

It isn't moot if efficiency is a prime consideration for cursive's inclusion or exclusion from school curricula. Applying your argument to the debate going on in many school districts, there is no rational reason for any form of handwriting to be included in the curriculum. It's curious or, perhaps, ironic that future courts might declare electricity to be speech, much as SCOTUS has declared money to be.

 

(Even keyboarding can't keep up with speech, so maybe pushing the 'rec' button on a solid state recorder could be substituted for teaching handwriting or keyboarding.)

[P.A.R.]

  On 2/28/2012 at 3:17 AM, Mickey said:

(Even keyboarding can't keep up with speech, so maybe pushing the 'rec' button on a solid state recorder could be substituted for teaching handwriting or keyboarding.)

The only problem is that a good number of people, including myself, think at different speeds than we can effectively and reasonably talk . One of the reasons I like pen to paper

Edited February 28, 2012 by P.A.R.

[Gcouch]

Cursive is ALOT FASTER than printing, but the average joe struggles to read it. It gets even more complicated when you add flourishes to your writing ( I've come to do it by habit)

[mirosc]

  On 2/29/2012 at 1:13 AM, Gcouch said:

Cursive is ALOT FASTER than printing

Really?

You can do Copperplate as a cursive (actually it fits into many definitions of "cursive"), but it is always slower than nowadays printing.

[Mickey]

  On 2/29/2012 at 7:30 AM, mirosc said:

  On 2/29/2012 at 1:13 AM, Gcouch said:

Cursive is ALOT FASTER than printing

Really?

You can do Copperplate as a cursive (actually it fits into many definitions of "cursive"), but it is always slower than nowadays printing.

 

As Ken has pointed out on numerous occasions, Copperplate is drawn: it is not handwriting. The proper comparison would be to round hand.

[mirosc]

  On 2/29/2012 at 4:07 PM, Mickey said:

As Ken has pointed out on numerous occasions, Copperplate is drawn: it is not handwriting. The proper comparison would be to round hand.

I didn't say that Copperplate is a cursive handwriting, I did say that you can do it like one.

 

Don't worry, I know the terms from years of academic study. When I wrote Copperplate, I did it to make a point.

[handwriter]

Cursive is faster because one doesn't need to lift the hand/pen; of course if you don't know how to write in cursive, it can be slow.

Curious to hear so many people find difficult to read cursive, when the logo of the most famous soda/pop beverage is in cursive, as so many others. Maybe what is difficult to read is poorly written cursive.

Printing is easier to execute (to a legibility level) just because more or the writing (compared with cursive) consist of straight strokes, so they are easier to reproduce with some consistency; also, connectors help to make writing quicker, but need to be learned, adding some extra difficulty compared to printing and script/styles without them, like italic.