Alt text:
๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ท๐ด ๐ฌ๐ช๐น๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ช๐ต ๐ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐น๐ป๐ธ๐ซ๐ช๐ซ๐ต๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ผ๐ฝ ๐ฏ๐พ๐ท ๐ฝ๐ธ ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ, ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ธ๐พ๐ฐ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฌ๐ช๐ผ๐ฎ ๐บ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐ช๐ต๐ผ๐ธ ๐ช ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ป๐ธ๐ท๐ฐ ๐ฌ๐ธ๐ท๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ท๐ญ๐ฎ๐ป.
I ended up kind of creating my own cursive "font" because I thought several of the choices for letter shapes were, in graphological parlance, "Just completely fucking retarded." Like the lowercase S being a slightly pointy loop. I devised my own capital T as well, and jettisoned that Q that looks like a 2.
I wrote in completely illegible cursive until about halfway through college when I started using a laptop for all assignments. On a decent keyboard I can peak at 104 wpm. On the very rare occasion I do have to pick up a pen and write with it anymore, I'm usually jotting down measurements or something, or slopping out some squiggles that will just have to suffice as my signature.
I don't see teaching cursive to children as a particularly valuable usage of time, at this point it might be worth teaching them to read it, but proficiency in writing it is not valuable.
I think kids should be introduced to it, so they recognize what it is if they find one of great grandma's letters, for instance (my grandmother wrote the grocery lists in cursive so I became proficient in reading it), and it's a good way of helping kids practice fine motor skills without doing as many of those godawful penmanship exercises. But I think we need to expand art education for kids and I think cursive and calligraphy should be taught in art classes moreso than in their regular classrooms.
Hard disagree. I am an ecologist and paper notes are very common just for reasons of practicality, taking notes on a tablet or field computer can be really difficult with glare, managing power, overheating, rain. The faster and more legibley you can write, the better you'll be on the job. I doubt that ecology is the only field where this is true. Not everyone has a dang office job.
handwriting proficiency should be taught. cursive can fuck off.
But cursive is more useful and practical than writing print. If you're taking notes, you want to take them quickly and still be legible. Cursive is a system for this.
If you want legible from me, I'll be continuing to use print.
fair lol
I would argue shorthand is probably more valuable than cursive for this.
I don't disagree with that! Maybe we should start learning shorthand.
I do think it is valuable to read cursive though, for historical study. I joined an informal LGBT history study group and we got to spend a lot of time reading love letters people sent each other. Not everything is transcribed, so I'm glad I was taught to read cursive.
You could argue that only historians should learn it, but I think that historical research is something that should be widely accessible, and also it's easier for young kids to learn language skills. I don't think there is any harm in teaching cursive.
Reading cursive should be a thing, I think with kids being so digital centric you could probably just teach it to them as a font? It is, after all, supposed to be English text written in the Latin alphabet, just all joined up.
I just modified v to be pointy because otherwise I couldn't make it distinguishable from u.
In my experience everyone has their own brand of cursive anyway. And there's already a lot of variation in the "official" ones depending where you're from, so it doesn't really matter as long as it's close enough to be understandable.