I completely agree. If they do not want it to replace something, it could possibly be integrated into the English curriculum.
Cursive or Print
- Thread starter coyotewhisper
- Start date
I completely agree. If they do not want it to replace something, it could possibly be integrated into the English curriculum.
My guess, and I think I have read this as well, that what you are doing is absolutely normal. I think what I have read is that even folks who think they are writing nearly purely in cursive, print some letters, or at least use a printed form of some letters. And my guess is that very few folks connect all letters, especially caps.
I have probably expressed this opinion to tedium around here, but I pretty much go along with Kate Gladstone's view that a sort of hybrid of printing-italic-cursive is the best of all worlds, and is really what ought to be taught. That it is as fast, certainly as legible or more so, and easier to learn than any cursive form, and that there is no benefit in any respect to connecting all letters. I also understand that kids can be taught to "read" cursive in a mere few hours, which seems useful to me.
To force kinds to learn to write in the tradtional Palmer-type forms seems ridiculous to me. What is the advantage of using the Palmer and similar systems forms for capital Fs, Is, Qs, Ss, Ts, and Zs and what possible use are all the little curlicues Palmer demands? Certainly does not add speed or legibility, at least in my estimation. Similar for lower case bs, rs, ss, zs. Good handwriting is attractive and looks warm and personal, without having to have every letter connected, and a bunch of superfluous curls--again in my opinion.
I mean, really, I like the look of Spencerian much better than that of Palmer, but no one is suggesting that we expect students to take on years of post high school study to perfect it, as was the case in the later 1880s.
I think the schools should teach handwriting that is fast, consistently legible, easy to learn, and easy to keep consistent. Unconnected printed letters drawn in inefficient motions are not the ticket. But neither is something like Palmer. I guess I do think Palmer ought to be there for those who are interested.
I do think learning "keyboarding" is important. I thought learning to type was important, too, back in the day, and I took outside classes to learn it.
I will get down from my soap box now!
This is pretty much true. Even one such as myselt, who learned Palmer method, eventually came to employ printed, disconnected capitals. Note, however, that the capitals as taught by Palmer (and Spencer) are not connected in any case.
And yes, you are right about acquiring the ability to read cursive in just a few hours - provided, of course, that the original is legible!
<the capitals as taught by Palmer (and Spencer) are not connected in any case.>
Makes sense. So why do they have this confusing set of capital letter forms rather than a standard printed form?
Don't get me wrong. I realize Spencerian had a vested interest in keeping folks going to penmanship school for years and years.
Makes sense. So why do they have this confusing set of capital letter forms rather than a standard printed form?
Don't get me wrong. I realize Spencerian had a vested interest in keeping folks going to penmanship school for years and years.
Any thoughts for a starter pen? I enjoy writing with a fat ball point. The rolling ball really glides with the writing. I was most pleased with a simple Bic 1.6mm pen. It's a bit gooey with a large amount of ink on the paper and catches/transfers to my hand at times.
But the way it feels and writes is what I'm looking for. So, any thoughts for a higher end pen to acquire? Links are always helpful fellas.
But the way it feels and writes is what I'm looking for. So, any thoughts for a higher end pen to acquire? Links are always helpful fellas.
I downloaded the Palmer manual. That's what I was taught and so shall practice. I immediately realized I had forgotten some of the capitals. Since it's for my own pleasure, I shall practice the curlicues. I also hope to reduce my tremors.
My pen is a Pilot Metropolitan until I remember what I did with my Pelikan.
Perhaps we should attach scans from time-to-time showing our progress.
My pen is a Pilot Metropolitan until I remember what I did with my Pelikan.
Perhaps we should attach scans from time-to-time showing our progress.
I was taught cursive in 3rd grade, and typing was an elective in High School. 1966-I still recall my teacher's name-Mrs. Murial Lightfoot. We must always tuck in our shirts before entering her class.
Have always used cursive, as that I what I was taught in school.
I can print (and do so for envelopes,etc), but it looks pretty ordinary (not that my cursive is any better
)
I can print (and do so for envelopes,etc), but it looks pretty ordinary (not that my cursive is any better
)
Spencerian is a bit of a straw man here, with its decorative flourishes unlike anything that most of us ever had to deal with. The "ordinary" longhand (probably some modification of Palmer method) which I learned in school starting around 1965 used special forms for the capitals, but was simple enough. The Qs and Zs needed a bit of practice, but they were hardly confusing.
Like many people, I did get sloppy over the years, as I started typing more (even before computers) and hand-writing less. I started printing some of the capital letters, less because I had forgotten the "correct" forms than because I just felt like it, and it didn't seem important. Of course, when this became a habit, I did eventually forget how to make some of them altogether. I relearned them some years ago (before I joined B&B), not from a complete Palmer manual, but from a simple style sheet. Once I saw the capital Q and Z again, they came back within minutes. Actually, the X was more difficult for me, I think, but I got it in a few extra minutes. I was already keeping a journal (in ballpoint and rollerball), and that became my main way of practicing. My journal output has increased with the use of fountain pens.
Everyone is eventually going to develop an individual style of handwriting as an adult, and if that involves printing some letters, who am I to criticize? I don't see any reason not to teach a complete cursive style to children, however; what they do with it as adults is up to them. There was nothing in the Palmerish instruction I received to confuse even an eight year old. In fact, I believe I did have to play catch up for a while, as we moved from one state to another, and the kids in our new school system had started cursive a grade earlier. It didn't take long to get up to speed, though.
Last edited:
Wow, after reading and researching the histories of handwriting I've come up with the short answer: I like cursive. The longer answer/question is does anyone still use Palmer or Spencer styles? What we call cursive I see as D'Nealian and is not the same.
I grew up with Palmer and switched to Spencer a few years ago. Spencer Business hand does not have flourishes and to me has simpler capitals than Palmer. The lower case of both styles are almost identical; the biggest difference being the use of alternate forms for some ending letters.
http://www.iampeth.com/lessons/spen...ip/practical_penmanship_spenerian_page27.html
^^^^^
example from Practical Penmanship. Which is vastly different than flourished Spencer.
Last edited:
Nice. Will spend some time looking that over.
To me flourished Spencerian is really calligraphy. Spencerian business hand, as I understand it, was developed as the standard way of business communication, to be fast and legible. All of this is rather arcane to me. I think Palmer was promoted as a faster, cleaner way to write than Spencerian. Zaner-Bloser as yet faster and cleaner. I think of D'Neallian as more a method of teaching cursive, where there is an interim, "manuscript" I think they call it, form learned between printing and full cursive.
I agree that business hand Spencerian is elegant. It is probably what I would write in, if I had the time to learn it, even with the extra curlicues. Is it really Spencerian if one is not using a flexible nib? Based on my limited experience, true Spencerian, including business hand, takes a lot of control that I could only acquire with a lot of practice and probably a real teacher. I am not sure sure some of the Spencerian alternate forms make sense to use to me. Lower case "t s" for instance. But I do not think that Spencerian is wed to forms that are too, too out of the ordinary.
I still see no point in teaching school children traditional systems of cursive. They have plenty on their young plates to learn as it is, and it costs time, money, and frustration to teach them something I frankly feel is outdated and was probably wrong-headed in the first instance. Not that it is not pretty. But it is not faster or more legible, and is certainly not easier to learn or execute than other available forms of handwriting. I do not think anyone is saying kids should not be taught to print. Why not teach a form of handwriting that is based on printing, but is faster and easy to keep legible? Again, as I understand it, it is very easy and quick to teach kids how to read Palmer.
I surely do not object to anyone learning forms of handwriting for personal satisfaction. I am not arguing that the kind of writing I am talking about is as elegant on the page as Spencerian, or, I suppose, well-executed Palmer.
Just my relatively uninformed opinions, of course. Can anyone tell that handwriting instruction in elementary school was very painful for me? <g>
And, of course, I think schools should teach every child things like basic accounting and/or checkbook handling, what insurance is, various taxes, probably some basic law, too. Things useful to being living in a complex society that none of us is born knowing and that we have to learn in one way or another.
I agree that business hand Spencerian is elegant. It is probably what I would write in, if I had the time to learn it, even with the extra curlicues. Is it really Spencerian if one is not using a flexible nib? Based on my limited experience, true Spencerian, including business hand, takes a lot of control that I could only acquire with a lot of practice and probably a real teacher. I am not sure sure some of the Spencerian alternate forms make sense to use to me. Lower case "t s" for instance. But I do not think that Spencerian is wed to forms that are too, too out of the ordinary.
I still see no point in teaching school children traditional systems of cursive. They have plenty on their young plates to learn as it is, and it costs time, money, and frustration to teach them something I frankly feel is outdated and was probably wrong-headed in the first instance. Not that it is not pretty. But it is not faster or more legible, and is certainly not easier to learn or execute than other available forms of handwriting. I do not think anyone is saying kids should not be taught to print. Why not teach a form of handwriting that is based on printing, but is faster and easy to keep legible? Again, as I understand it, it is very easy and quick to teach kids how to read Palmer.
I surely do not object to anyone learning forms of handwriting for personal satisfaction. I am not arguing that the kind of writing I am talking about is as elegant on the page as Spencerian, or, I suppose, well-executed Palmer.
Just my relatively uninformed opinions, of course. Can anyone tell that handwriting instruction in elementary school was very painful for me? <g>
And, of course, I think schools should teach every child things like basic accounting and/or checkbook handling, what insurance is, various taxes, probably some basic law, too. Things useful to being living in a complex society that none of us is born knowing and that we have to learn in one way or another.
As much as I'd love to say I have a beautiful hand, I can't really lie THAT well. Almost all my writing is in eighth-inch-tall block capitals, for annotating drawings and making notes. These absolutely must be easily legible on the shop floor, so that's pretty much the standard.
It's definitely on my to-do list to start working on my cursive again, it's been years since I did more than sign my name in it, sadly.
It's definitely on my to-do list to start working on my cursive again, it's been years since I did more than sign my name in it, sadly.
Print, cursive, typing, all take lots of practice and usually a real teacher to learn. Sequoyah is the only person I can think of that taught their self how to write. Saying penmanship is too much for kids to learn is dismissing a child's ability to learn. if it is we shouldn't even teach lowercase letters. Block print and be done with it.
To me penmanship is more than beautiful writing. It also increases one's hand/eye coordination which has benefits far and beyond just writing.
This, except I kind of have to slow down when writing cursive or else it will level off into a squiggly line after the first few characters. My cursive is much improved that it was a couple years ago, but I still have to sort of be careful with it. My print is neat(-ish) and quick.
I always hate to make a suggestion that folks go off the B&B site for anything, but here is New York Times link on this subject, that, among other things, sets out any number of facts and statistics. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/30/should-schools-require-children-to-learn-cursive
I am not saying that "penmanship is too much for kids to learn . . . ." But if penmanship was easy and quick to learn we would not be having this conversation. <g> It seems to me the issue is allotment of resources, including resources of time and attention. I think keyboarding in hugely important in this day and age. But that does not mean having a quick, legible means of writing is not pretty important, too. I wonder if kids being taught printing could be taught rather early on about connecting letters that make sense and other techniques to speed handwriting while keeping it legible. As far as I am concerned, every form of handwriting is a test of eye hand coordination for me. <g>
This reminds me of the debates that used to take place over teaching Latin in schools.
I am not saying that "penmanship is too much for kids to learn . . . ." But if penmanship was easy and quick to learn we would not be having this conversation. <g> It seems to me the issue is allotment of resources, including resources of time and attention. I think keyboarding in hugely important in this day and age. But that does not mean having a quick, legible means of writing is not pretty important, too. I wonder if kids being taught printing could be taught rather early on about connecting letters that make sense and other techniques to speed handwriting while keeping it legible. As far as I am concerned, every form of handwriting is a test of eye hand coordination for me. <g>
This reminds me of the debates that used to take place over teaching Latin in schools.
Besides cursive as self-discipline, I am more interested in kids learning to read cursive, rather than excel at writing it.
