4 ms·

One interesting thing is that this problem has arisen many times in history, because the handwriting styles that are taught in school have changed so significan

by schoen 4y ago

One interesting thing is that this problem has arisen many times in history, because the handwriting styles that are taught in school have changed so significantly and so many times. If you see handwritten documents from Germany or possibly Scandinavia before about the 1960s, they may be in this kind of script: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCtterlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCtterlin If you were taught to read and write in an English-speaking country, you'll probably not be able to understand most of those documents without practice! This has happened repeatedly as handwriting norms have changed enough to require conscious study, often called "paleography" when it's focused on reading older manuscripts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography But as the Sütterlin example shows, this isn't just about reading things from the 14th century or something. There are a number of cases where handwriting styles regularly used in the 20th century may not be transparent to us today, and have to be individually learned. So you might say this has just happened over again!

raverbashing 4y ago
> you'll probably not be able to understand most of those documents without practice! No. It is because this system is objectively and obtusely hard. Really, C looks like an L, B looks like an L, T looks like whatever, V looks like anything but a V etc This is not about practice, this is about who invented this being obtuse (the polite word I'm using here) Fraktur is weird but it is mostly readable. Older cursive methods mostly are readable (I mean, except Kurrent - though even it looks like a bit better than Sütterlin - and the Russian system). This looks like a bad joke for real
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  This. The moment I am pushed to write cursive faster, then it ends up as unreadable waves looking like mmm mmmmm mmmmmm mmmm. Even I was not able to read it after myself. Swapped on writing single characters like a computer and readability went through the roof.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    My style has morphed into a sequence of separate letters derived from an italic style, but strung together as a sort of mock cursive. It looks a bit like really bad cursive, but I can't read my own writing. I'm 66; it's much too late to learn to write all over again. I wish they'd taught me copperplate, instead of some half-baked italic. Or maybe just taught me to write properly in the first place. Computer keyboards FTW.
- prox 4y ago
  Cursive probably comes from the time when ink and cursive where a great optimization. With an old ink pen and inkpot combo, cursive can be a lot faster and not to mention easier. The words flow easily from ink in pen to paper until the ink runs out.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  > T looks like whatever I felt compelled to check and indeed you are right.
- AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
  If you actually take the time to learn it, you realise that it is one of the most consistent handwriting systems and actually surprisingly legible across authors of varying social background. Can you give some sources regarding "objectively hard"? What objective measurement did you use?
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > If you actually take the time to learn it "take time to learn" is a BS excuse from a readability point of view, unless you're talking about something very specific. Some things, yes, you learn. Some are just obviously hard. There's no reason for it being that different even from Kurrent > What objective measurement did you use? Similarity between letters (themselves across systems and others). Comparison with similar and preceding writing systems. All objective criteria and in most of them it fails miserably. Ideally you want letters that are similar to the printed form but dissimilar to each other. https://bighack.org/font-accessibility-and-readability-the-basics/ https://bighack.org/font-accessibility-and-readability-the-b...
    - AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
      The people who used the writing took the time to learn it, so it's not a "BS excuse". Your comment derided the system on a general level. From your point of view it might not make sense to learn it, but not from the point of the historic users. Once you learned it, you see that the similarity of letters is only superficial and you can distinguish them quite nicely, especially with context. You actually start to recognise patterns. And since the system gives you only very few ways to deviate, these patterns are surprisingly uniform across different authors. I haven't seen that with other cursive systems to this extent. It becomes a bit harder though with writing from after the war, when people started to mix Latin into their Kurrent or Sütterlin.
      - raverbashing 4y ago
        > Your comment derided the system on a general level. You're correct, I am deriding it because it is needlessly weird even compared with preceding writing system and there's no good reason for it. While this might have been weird "by accident", a system like that would not work (or be accepted) today. Again, "you have to learn" is a bad excuse if there's no good justification. There's plenty to learn on the modern cursive system, but I don't have to learn what squiggles that look similar mean. There's no reason why t, d, e, c look like the way they look
- viraptor 4y ago
  > C looks like an L I think it's just a matter of familiarity. They look as similar as our g and q, or a and d. (the cursive versions, not the one displayed here) > V looks like anything but a V It doesn't look like the current V we're used to. For them our V doesn't look anything like V either.
- tdeck 4y ago
  "Regular" cursive is obtuse too. Lowercase cursive S looks nothing like an S. Lowercase cursive R doesn't look like an R either. Uppercase cursive F looks like it's backwards for some reason (at least the way some people write it, it looks like a backwards E). So does uppercase cursive G. People get used to these things.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    You're right, and those are some of the things I was thinking when I said "you have to learn some things" Yeah the capital F is probably the weirdest. The G/g difference is weird even in printed characters to be honest. (now, cursive lowercase r is just r connecting to the next letter)
alfnor 4y ago
This is far more common in Sweden, at least if you go back before the 20th century: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurrent?lang=en https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurrent?lang=en Source: My (Swedish) grandfather taught me how to do genealogical research.
jhanschoo 4y ago
> In the future, cursive will have to be taught to scholars the way Elizabethan secretary hand or paleography is today. As mentioned in the article; indeed, you can replace cursive with <insert old script here> and the article would be the same lamentation for an audience of a different time.

by schoen 4y ago

raverbashing 4y ago

> you'll probably not be able to understand most of those documents without practice! No. It is because this system is objectively and obtusely hard. Really, C looks like an L, B looks like an L, T looks like whatever, V looks like anything but a V etc This is not about practice, this is about who invented this being obtuse (the polite word I'm using here) Fraktur is weird but it is mostly readable. Older cursive methods mostly are readable (I mean, except Kurrent - though even it looks like a bit better than Sütterlin - and the Russian system). This looks like a bad joke for real

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
This. The moment I am pushed to write cursive faster, then it ends up as unreadable waves looking like mmm mmmmm mmmmmm mmmm. Even I was not able to read it after myself. Swapped on writing single characters like a computer and readability went through the roof.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  My style has morphed into a sequence of separate letters derived from an italic style, but strung together as a sort of mock cursive. It looks a bit like really bad cursive, but I can't read my own writing. I'm 66; it's much too late to learn to write all over again. I wish they'd taught me copperplate, instead of some half-baked italic. Or maybe just taught me to write properly in the first place. Computer keyboards FTW.
prox 4y ago
Cursive probably comes from the time when ink and cursive where a great optimization. With an old ink pen and inkpot combo, cursive can be a lot faster and not to mention easier. The words flow easily from ink in pen to paper until the ink runs out.
dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
> T looks like whatever I felt compelled to check and indeed you are right.
AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
If you actually take the time to learn it, you realise that it is one of the most consistent handwriting systems and actually surprisingly legible across authors of varying social background. Can you give some sources regarding "objectively hard"? What objective measurement did you use?
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > If you actually take the time to learn it "take time to learn" is a BS excuse from a readability point of view, unless you're talking about something very specific. Some things, yes, you learn. Some are just obviously hard. There's no reason for it being that different even from Kurrent > What objective measurement did you use? Similarity between letters (themselves across systems and others). Comparison with similar and preceding writing systems. All objective criteria and in most of them it fails miserably. Ideally you want letters that are similar to the printed form but dissimilar to each other. https://bighack.org/font-accessibility-and-readability-the-basics/ https://bighack.org/font-accessibility-and-readability-the-b...
  - AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
    The people who used the writing took the time to learn it, so it's not a "BS excuse". Your comment derided the system on a general level. From your point of view it might not make sense to learn it, but not from the point of the historic users. Once you learned it, you see that the similarity of letters is only superficial and you can distinguish them quite nicely, especially with context. You actually start to recognise patterns. And since the system gives you only very few ways to deviate, these patterns are surprisingly uniform across different authors. I haven't seen that with other cursive systems to this extent. It becomes a bit harder though with writing from after the war, when people started to mix Latin into their Kurrent or Sütterlin.
    - raverbashing 4y ago
      > Your comment derided the system on a general level. You're correct, I am deriding it because it is needlessly weird even compared with preceding writing system and there's no good reason for it. While this might have been weird "by accident", a system like that would not work (or be accepted) today. Again, "you have to learn" is a bad excuse if there's no good justification. There's plenty to learn on the modern cursive system, but I don't have to learn what squiggles that look similar mean. There's no reason why t, d, e, c look like the way they look
viraptor 4y ago
> C looks like an L I think it's just a matter of familiarity. They look as similar as our g and q, or a and d. (the cursive versions, not the one displayed here) > V looks like anything but a V It doesn't look like the current V we're used to. For them our V doesn't look anything like V either.
tdeck 4y ago
"Regular" cursive is obtuse too. Lowercase cursive S looks nothing like an S. Lowercase cursive R doesn't look like an R either. Uppercase cursive F looks like it's backwards for some reason (at least the way some people write it, it looks like a backwards E). So does uppercase cursive G. People get used to these things.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  You're right, and those are some of the things I was thinking when I said "you have to learn some things" Yeah the capital F is probably the weirdest. The G/g difference is weird even in printed characters to be honest. (now, cursive lowercase r is just r connecting to the next letter)

alfnor 4y ago

This is far more common in Sweden, at least if you go back before the 20th century: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurrent?lang=en https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurrent?lang=en Source: My (Swedish) grandfather taught me how to do genealogical research.

jhanschoo 4y ago

> In the future, cursive will have to be taught to scholars the way Elizabethan secretary hand or paleography is today. As mentioned in the article; indeed, you can replace cursive with <insert old script here> and the article would be the same lamentation for an audience of a different time.