4 ms·
The premise of the article is that cursive is the natural consequence of writing more efficiently. Individuals will write in their own form of cursive even if
by eggnet 15y ago
The premise of the article is that cursive is the natural consequence of writing more efficiently. Individuals will write in their own form of cursive even if not taught explicitly.
This completely misses the point that people won't be writing enough to bother optimizing it with their own cursive style. Nor will they be writing in cursive frequently enough to keep up the skill.
How do I know this? Because this is the life I have lived. Moreover, I was taught cursive and have lost the ability to write legible cursive in high school and have reverted to printing ever since when I absolutely have to write with a pen.
Is cursive dead? No, but it is dying.
- kiiski 15y agoI agree. I haven't been able to write in cursive since the seventh grade (when we weren't required to use it in school anymore (I'm finnish)), but that hasn't been a problem since I barely ever write by hand anyway.
- antiterra 15y agoSince I don't write all that often, my hand gets tired quickly and I start joining block letters after a relatively short number of sentences. The suggestion of the article is that we teach children an efficient cursive style of writing from the beginning. In a lot of cases that's already being done with D'Nealian handwriting. Even better, in my opinion, would be the Icelandic italic movement, as detailed at http://briem.net http://briem.net (check out "Quick results, easy work.)
- HedgeMage 15y agoD'Nealian is not efficient -- it's yet another form of looped cursive (which I already spoke a bit about in another comment). Italic is far superior to any kind of looped cursive.