The teaching of handwriting is going out of style in the U.S. This is a good article providing evidence that, in fact, maybe handwriting (both printing and cursive) are important in educational development.

quote:

The effect goes well beyond letter recognition. In a study that followed children in grades two through five, Virginia Berninger, a psychologist at the University of Washington, demonstrated that printing, cursive writing, and typing on a keyboard are all associated with distinct and separate brain patterns — and each results in a distinct end product.

It seems that handwriting, as opposed to keyboarding, leads better reading skills and memory. Some researchers have even found a difference between cursive and printing.

I know that writing, highlighting and underlining all help me to learn new concepts and ideas.

What are your thoughts?

Hmm ... It looks like it would be a good idea for children to learn to write by hand at first before progressing to typing. Oh, wait ...

quote:

The Common Core standards, which have been adopted in most states, call for teaching legible writing, but only in kindergarten and first grade. After that, the emphasis quickly shifts to proficiency on the keyboard.

How does one sign one's name if one does not know cursive writing? Will we soon use thumbprints instead of signatures on contracts and the like?

A side point, but I wonder why the letter, "A" is morphing into an upside-down "V?" That's "L" in Greek or Russian. Is it just trendy, or is the traditional "A" doomed? Do any keyboards have it yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
How does one sign one's name if one does not know cursive writing? Will we soon use thumbprints instead of signatures on contracts and the like?

We've talked about this before. A signature doesn't have to be cursive. It can be printed - I think. It can be an X.

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

quote:

Oh, wait ...

I think, arnie, the point was that maybe cursive and printing should be continued to be taught later. I remember 4th grade being the time when cursive was really emphasized.

Of course there is always a digitalized signature, too. However, particularly with the X, I think it would be hard legally to just be an X. I'd think printing would be alright though. I wonder why the "signature" evolved into only being cursive.

quote:

I wonder why the "signature" evolved into only being cursive.

I imagine it's because every signature is unique while block lettering or just an "X" are not. It would be a cinch to forge an "X". Several years ago, I often signed letters for the zoo director (answering questions from the public) with his name. I became quite adept at mimicking is handwriting but even I, a novice at handwriting recognition, could tell which was mine and which was the real one.

I used to sign with my own name 'per pro' or 'pp' my manager. As another side issue, I quickly changed my signature so that it was unreadable because people kept phoning up and asking for me by name, even though I'd only signed the letter, not written it.

I sign my name two different ways depending on the reason for the signature. I have a "normal" signature minus my middle initial for ordinary correspondence, and a "legal" signature for contracts, etc. Anyone assuming my normal signature is valid on a fraudulent contract (in case of identity theft) will be surprised to find out it isn't. This is one good reasn to continue cursive.

Here is a brief history on signatures. I think it interesting that people used to be judged by their handwriting.

quote:

Graphology dates back to antiquity. Interesting historic evidence: Nero, the Roman Emperor famous for his cruelty wrote in one of his letters: “I am afraid of this man; his handwriting implies he is a betrayer”. Suetonius, the Roman historian and biographer, describing August as a greedy man, referred to his handwriting: a habit to put the letters too close to each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

I wonder why the "signature" evolved into only being cursive.

I imagine it's because every signature is unique while block lettering or just an "X" are not.

I don't see why a printed signature is not as unique as a cursive signature.

quote:

I don't see why a printed signature is not as unique as a cursive signature.

It's a lot easier to forge a block letter.
When I was in the Army, in radio school everyone had to write messages in block letters because there was less chance of error. We all have our own eccentricities when using cursive but those are largely eliminated in block lettering. Some people's handwriting is so scrawled it is indecipherable but block letters are hard to screw up.

I'm not sure I believe that. I don't see why a printed signature, written over and over won't become as personalized as a cursive signature. I'm not sure that printed writing is easier to forge.

What about languages that don't have a cursive written form, like Greek, Thai, or Hindi. Presumably writers of those languages have signatures.

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

Related to the NY Times article, Mary Schmich (you likely won't be able to link to it) from the Chicago Tribune wrote about the article.

quote:

Once graceful, precise and bold, my handwriting is now so crabbed that even I sometimes can't make sense of it.

She wrote the above, and I hadn't seen "crabbed" used like that before. However, when I looked it up, here is one definition: "difficult to read or decipher, as handwriting."

Have you seen "crabbed" to mean this?

quote:

Have you seen "crabbed" to mean this?

Yes, relatively often in its limited context.

I wonder if it is more a Britishism.

I checked a number of online dictionaries, both British and American, and none marked it as a Britishism.

FWIW, I've never considered "crabbed handwriting" to be a Britishism. It does sound a bit old because handwriting seems a bit old-fashioned.

quote:

I'm not sure that printed writing is easier to forge

Ask any group of people to sign their names cursively and, assuming they don't play games, you can easily notice a difference in each signature. "T" are crossed at different slants, letters lean in one direction or another, some "I"s have fancy dots or even hearts, and there are numerous other differences. But, strictly speaking, block letters are mundane and ordinary -- as they are meant to be. Cursive allows the writer's originality to show through where block letters don't. They're just functional.

quote:

handwriting seems a bit old-fashioned.

Really, z? I just received a handwritten letter from my aunt today. At work today, I wrote out my expense report and took notes from meetings (both in cursive). Others did the same; I don't think I am an outlier in that.

I don't consider handwriting old-fashioned, though I admit it isn't used as much. While my aunt wrote me the letter, a younger person probably would have sent me an email instead.

quote:

While my aunt wrote me the letter, a younger person probably would have sent me an email instead.

Exactly. Fifty years ago we'd all have written letters.

As to your work, if they are anything like people at my work, I expect some people were also taking notes using laptops or tablets as well as those taking handwritten notes. I expect you drafted your expenses report by hand, but then transferred it to electronic media to file it, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

Ask any group of people to sign their names cursively and, assuming they don't play games, you can easily notice a difference in each signature.

Because they're signatures and signatures are personalized.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

Cursive allows the writer's originality to show through where block letters don't. They're just functional.

Then how do Thais and Tamils write their signatures?

I think that if all you know is a non-cursive script, you would develop a signture that is personalized and maybe even cursive.

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

quote:

posted document.write('<nobr>'+ myTimeZone('Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:32:22 GMT-0700', 'June 12, 2014 05:32')+'</nobr>');June 12, 2014 05:32June 12, 2014 05:32Hide Postquote:Originally posted by Proofreader:Ask any group of people to sign their names cursively and, assuming they don't play games, you can easily notice a difference in each signature. Because they're signatures and signatures are personalized. quote:Originally posted by Proofreader: Cursive allows the writer's originality to show through where block letters don't. They're just functional. Then how do Thais and Tamils write their signatures?

While I mentioned signatures, I was generalizing about writing cursive in particular. I didn't intend to limit my comment to just "signatures."
I really don't care how other people using different language and writing systems sign their names. We are discussing English cursive here.

I thought your argument was that non-cursive writing was worse for signatures because it's less personalized. I think it's relevant to talk about scripts that don't have a cursive form, unless the Latin alphabet is special is some way. But I don't know what that way would be.

I only speak and write English. I have no idea what it would be like to write in Arabic, Hindi, or Cantonese, so shall we stick to that with which I am familiar?

I don't write those languages either, that's not my point. Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about? Maybe I'm talking nonsense.

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

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
Maybe I'm talking nonsense.

Nah, that's MY job!

quote:

As to your work, if they are anything like people at my work, I expect some people were also taking notes using laptops or tablets

Yes, arnie, and to be honest, I hate it when people bring their laptops and iPads and phones to meetings and continually are typing and smiling at their screens. I can only assume they are on some website, like WC, and aren't paying any attention to the meeting. I really find it unprofessional at conferences.

Goofy, I can see what you're saying. I imagine non-cursive signatures develop their own signatures, too.

quote:

I imagine non-cursive signatures develop their own signatures, too.

Obviously some block lettering has unique characteristics but it lacks the vast differences people impose on cursive, due to its functionality.

Well, I can agree with both Goofy and Proof, right? While I think you can personalize printed signatures, I don't think you can do that as much with block lettering.

What is the difference between printing and block lettering?

quote:

What is the difference between printing and block lettering?

Depends on how you define "printing". Some use it as a synonym for block lettering while others refer to machine impressions.

Well, apparently that is a very good question, goofy. I thought I knew, but now I'm unsure. When I look block printing or print or letters up online, including in Google images, I get all sorts of things. Since I can't draw them how I think they should be, here is a description:

The lines were always straight, never slanted or "s" shaped. A, for example, is a straight line up, then over to the right (in a right angle), then down, with a horizontal line connecting the two vertical lines in the middle. And so on for each letter. Not sure if you get it. I thought I'd be able to find an example, but curiously I couldn't.

Maybe now you can see how it's hard to make my understanding of block lettering your own? It's quite generic.

Here are some signatures in scripts that have no cursive form.

Devanagari अमितभ बच्चन (Amitabh Bachchan)

Sinhala චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග (Chandrika Kumaratunga)

Thai ปรีดีพนมยงค์ (Pridi Phanomyong)

Bengali রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর (Rabindranath Tagore)

Gujarati નરેન્દ્ર મોદી (Narendra Modi)

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

Well, that took awhile . I guess I meant English. Those scripts are beautiful, though.

My point is that you can use a non cursive script To write a signature. Why should English's printed script be any different.

First of all, I agree with you. I've recently signed documents online, where they've written "typing your name here will serve as your signature."

However, I have a different question. What is, if anything, considered "cursive" in other languages? I am sure it isn't only letters, as we know them, that has printing and cursive, right? I hadn't thought of that before you posted all those languages. And what about French, Spanish, etc.? You can print or use cursive for them, too, right?

My understanding is that cursive writing is designed to be faster to write. The letters are often joined up, but not always. So any language that uses the Roman alphabet has cursive writing. Cyrillic has a cursive form. Arabic script only has a cursive form - there is no printed form.

To add to goofy's comment, even what we might recognise as cursive handwriting in English has changed over the years. Even our parents' or grandparents' writing looks especially 'formal' to our eyes. Examples from earlier periods are often almost illegible to us. There was much more emphasis in those days on the mechanics of handwriting, with kids having to copy out texts over and over again until they got it 'just right'. Hence to saying 'to blot one's copybook'.

Different school systems and, indeed, different teachers, will produce different styles of handwriting across the globe; a French or German person's, for example, is likely to be different to an American's.

In England, by the way, we don't usually refer to 'cursive' handwriting as such. It's usually just 'handwriting', or perhaps, if we want to differentiate it from block printing, 'joined-up writing'.

Interesting, arnie. While we use either "cursive" or "handwriting," I've never heard of "joined-up writing."