There has been a bit of a kerfuffle here in the states with our nominee for Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew. His signature will go on currency printed while he is in office. Here is his signature: Link

So, that brings me to the question: Has cursive writing seen its day? Is there a reason to continue to teach it?

I never use cursive since I dislike four-letter insults.

We're not taught cursive writing per se in the UK. However, there's definitely still a need for some form of 'joined-up' handwriting to be taught in schools.

It's my usual form.

That signature is Lew's nickname, given him for his childhood hobby of tearing old watches apart. "Sprooooing."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
There has been a bit of a kerfuffle here in the states with our nominee for Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew. His signature will go on currency printed while he is in office. Here is his signature: Link

I don't get it. Everyone's signature looks like a scrawl. That's what makes them signatures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who has or hasn't learned cursive properly.

Anyway, Lew's signature is awesome.

Despite all the to-do over Lew's signature, it's a non-issue. The present SecTreas Guethner (spelll?) had to revise his actual signature to make it readable on the new money the government printed once he took over.

quote:

Everyone's signature looks like a scrawl.

Mine doesn't. You can tell my name. Others on the dollar bill are readable. But, then, times have changed, I guess, so you are likely right when moving forward. This is the online AHD definition of signature:

quote:

One's name as written by oneself.
The act of signing one's name.
A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity: A surprise ending is the signature of an O. Henry short story.

So is the issue that the signatures on currency should be readable? I still don't see the connection between the readability of ones signature and whether one has learned cursive.

Years ago in my job I had to sign most routine letters that were sent to customers. I soon discovered people were phoning and asking for me, because they read my name, even though the letter was about something I wouldn't normally deal with. The answer was to make my signature an illegible scrawl.

I don't think the SecTreas signature MUST be readable on currency. He just has to sign it, even if it's with an 'X'. But an indecipherable scrawl is just fodder for the opposition, which the present case proves since Lew isn't even confirmed yet already he's getting heat over his writing.

quote:

So is the issue that the signatures on currency should be readable?

No, that's not the issue. The issue is that 7 circles are hardly close to what his name is. It almost seems as though he is illiterate and can't write at all.

In the history of life, it's miniscule, I know.

It's not just minuscule, it's obviously not true. Making fun of his signature is like making fun of his hair - not relevant to anything.

I have to agree with goofy. I just don't understand what the big deal about what this guy's signature looks like. Has anybody looked at his resume? Is he qualified to be the Secretary of the Treasury? Sheesh!

quote:

Is he qualified to be the Secretary of the Treasury?

When that isn't being debated, you know there is something else going on.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
I just don't understand what the big deal about what this guy's signature looks like.

Each side will use any means they can think of, however lame and untrue, to rubbish the other side.
Just look at all the fuss made by some about the alleged use of "I" by Obama. If it were true what on Earth would be the relevence? As it isn't true (check all the multiple Language Log debunkings where they actually bother to count the number of uses of "I") then it's doubly irrelevent. Not pointless though, because whatever bit of made up nonsense you use there will always be some who believe it.
And that's the real point.

quote:

Has anybody looked at his resume? Is he qualified to be the Secretary of the Treasury? Sheesh!

Sheesh! is right. Did I ever imply that he wasn't qualified because of his signature? No. Writers, external to this board, may have, but I sure didn't. And, for the record, I support his nomination wholeheartedly.

I was merely commenting on the fact that the use of cursive has declined, and I asked the question:

quote:

Is there a reason to continue to teach it?

As to that, it's pretty much dead over here already. Outside school virtually nobody ever writes leter with a pen any more, let alone using a cursive script.
I have nothing but a gut feeling to back this up but I also think there may be a perception that typed letters are more professional than handwritten ones.

I can't remember the last time I wrote one myself.
It will be a loss, like many beautiful things of the past are a loss, but personally I can't see it ever being important again.

Since the business for which I work is not computerized I have to handwrite comments on repair orders. Cursive is for me quicker so I use it, although it ain't pretty!

I wonder whether the art of calligraphy has declined? Once there were people who took pride in elegant writing. Perhaps it's the decline of everyday elegance that's at issue here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

Did I ever imply that he wasn't qualified because of his signature?

Did I imply that you did? Nope. There are a lot of folks who are though.

Is there a reason to continue to teach [cursive]?

I cannot think of one.

My grandmother taught me cursive at some point before I went to the second grade. Ny second grade teacher stopped me from writing cursive because it was not in the school's curriculum until the third grade. I never recovered. To this day I sort of write in connected block letters. Mostly I type.

Kalleh's question, should we still teach it, is thought-provoking. Script evolved, I assume,as a way to speed up the process of written communication. In general, I approve of the idea: teach block-printing in K/1, introduce script in 2nd or 3rd grade, teach touch-typing for keyboard in 5th or 6th grade (which, by the way doesn't but should happen!). I could be all wet here, but I like the idea of teaching rudimentary steps which later are accomplished by machine, just as we do in math. We wouldn't promote starting with a calculator at age 6 would we? For that matter, why teach how fulcrums, slopes, levels work, since the machines do the heavy lifting for us? And if we're going to say, script is not used that much in the grown-up world, why even teach block printing? Leaving a note for someone with a printout from your iphone is only a heartbeat away.

As to cursive's actual use today: there are many poets and prose-writers who still compose longhand. (Just as there are plenty of composers who work with score paper before they go to the computer).

I shudder at the idea of receiving a condolence note in some font on a printed-out card. And I prefer a brief handwritten note on a Christmas card to an inserted printout dumbed down for everybody on the list.

All that said, I admit to impatience last wkend when a fellow chorister, in charge of fund-raising thank-you's, apologized for their late arrival (like most groups our biggest contributions come from ourselves..), saying "I just can't write them all out that fast." A thank-you for a contribution is perfectly acceptable in typewritten form.

True, it is far more memorable to receive a hand-written note when it's from the beneficiary of a contribution you made to an organization, explaining how your donation helped them specifically.

So I guess the other point I'm making is: personal hand-written notes still have plenty of social clout, so there's another reason to keep cursive in the curriculum.

What has always confused me is that hand printing doesn't seem to count. If I received a hand-printed thank-you note, it would mean the same to me than if it were handwritten in cursive. It matters not at all to me if people print or write in cursive. Indeed, I often prefer printing because it's easier to read. Printing is often as distinctive (or nearly so) as cursive. Yet, many consider it elementary or second-rated. Do you? If so, why? Is it because we teach printing to children first?