Posted on 09/27/2015 5:35:19 AM PDT by knarf
Eliminating cursive from early schooling gives more time for teaching today’s important things like islam, homosexuality, socialism and global warming.
Many in their 20's now can't read and tell time on an analog clock, only digital.
You cannot read most original documents if you do not read cursive. How would you know the document had been translated properly? How would you know if the wording or even punctuation had been changed to reflect a different meaning?
In doing real research it is necessary to access original documents, that won’t matter if people can’t read them. If enough people cannot read cursive the powers that be can pass off any meaning they like as being in a particular document.
When I worked on my family history I had to read many documents written in cursive. I am sure glad I learned to read and write.
Musicians who learn the rules are the ones wo have personal style.
**************
Renowned musicians like Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, and Jimi Hendrix broke all the rules and became famous for it. Their personal styles are instantly recognizable.
I think you missed the entire point I was making which was that individualism of any kind, be it in writing or other forms of expression, is not welcome in communal societies that are under the thumb of a controlling dictatorship. Like in the noted book Animal Farm.
Apology accepted.
Use your best cursive to copy the quote below.
Baloney! The “time” it takes to practice cursive can very well be deducted from the “time” the kids of today spend on computer games and perpetual texting on their personal phones!
Shakespeare, Milton, Scott, Pascal and zillions of others who are outdated don’t need to be studied either, do they?
Dumbing down of America takes many forms and you are aiding and abetting the effort.
Zackly..!
The romantic view of the artist is that the artist can be free of rules, and in the end, free from nature. This is the modern tradition: dehumanization. This is the dream of the "left". Morality of the ruling class.
I have also struggled with cursive all of my longish life. I can do it, and it’s legible, but it is pretty ugly. Yet I am a woman with a bit of artistic talent. So I am thinking your assessment does not hold.
.
Wrong. As I pointed out earlier, do a search of cursive writing and pick ten of the best examples. You'll notice they are all different. Personal style is ineluctable. True enough, there is always a tension between the conservative and the progressive, but I would think a forum like this would be a good place to flesh out the false dichotomy. So lets set it straight, as Plato would. There are good progressive notions, there are bad progressive notions. There are good conservative rules, there are bad rules. And finally, before I sound too trite, there is good individualism and bad individualism. Once we get that, we've reached square one.
Can’t cite any sources, but I know that there is some research in how the actual process of writing in cursive benefits development of the young brain.
You might try a calligraphic pen (see Excellence's post above). John Hancock used the calligraphic pen to produce that style. The "rule" that determined John Hancock's writing is that the precision of the tool determines the product.
OTW, it's easier to learn the skills when young.
If you’re writing in block print in a hurry, you begin to drag the pen or pencil slightly, connecting letters. You also start picking up loops to form the upstrokes and downstrokes for the same reason. It begins to take on the character of cursive, an ugly form of it, but it’s there.
Cursive is a more efficient, less laborious way of writing longhand, that’s all it is. That it lends itself to stylistic flourishes and individuality is secondary. You don’t have to lift the pen or pencil from paper nearly as much, it flows and is a faster way of writing for those who are proficient.
The advent of computer keyboards in widespread use has rendered handwriting of all forms secondary, and so it’s suffered. I don’t do so well writing out a long paragraph myself anymore, my hand feels cramped after a while. That wasn’t the case when handwritten was the norm and typewritten was specialized.
I’m 33 and my cursive is pretty good...when I sign my name cause that’s about the only time I use it. That and sometimes a birthday card. Now while agree kids should learn to read cursive, transcribing a few historical documents should teach that, longer documents which were the mainstay of cursive use are exclusively typed now. Kids should be taught typing instead from a young age.
Yes, but to make it nice, you can't speed.
Actually, art has suffered in our culture because we want immediacy.
(Why should I learn anything? I can just watch someone else!)
Why instead? Teach both. As numerous posters have already pointed out, there are benefits to teaching handwriting.
It can be both pretty and fast, I’ve watched enough older people writing Palmer Method script and have been amazed. It only gets ugly if arthritis or palsy comes with advanced age.
It can.
I read plenty of historical documents not in cursive. They’ve been transposed. And really given the way cursive and the language it writes changed over the years it really doesn’t help. You’re guaranteed to run into letters written a way you’ve never seen them (I remember the first time I encountered those big s’s that look like fancy f’s), and words you’ve never encountered. Reading original versions of historical documents is its own skill set that just barely begins with cursive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.