[somat]

I would say that computers(and to a lesser degree typewriters) are what killed cursive.

Cursive is the sloppy form of latin characters that you use when you have to write by hand a lot, the reduced specification on word separation and form really help the letters get out quick. see shorthand for an even quicker modern engineered version of this. When you no longer have to manually produce a large body of text(you have your machine spirit do the writing for you) It no longer makes as much sense to keep the cursive forms around. A cultural loss for sure but in the same vein as knowing how to skin a rabbit.

Some languages (arabic comes to mind) have had their cursive form completely replace their block form(I actually don't know if arabic ever had a block form, it would certainly be incorrect if you tried to use a block form of arabic today). Unfortunately the same slurred features that make cursive so quick to write also make it difficult for the machine spirit to handle. Now I want to look up arabic typewriters.

[squirt]

> Cursive is the sloppy form of latin characters that you use when you have to write by hand a lot, the reduced specification on word separation and form really help the letters get out quick.

This is a an incorrect view on the derivation of cursive, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding in the precise and systemic nature of script.

Source: professional penman & calligrapher.

[vanderZwan]

While I believe you I also would appreciate to know what the correct answer is then. Even an oversimplified summary version woull be great

[squirt]

Obvious disclaimer: not a historian. Though I can absolutely provide an simplified summary of both the development of present day cursive script.

European calligraphy was principally practiced as a means to produce and maintain religious texts[0].

From italic[1] calligraphic styles in the 1500's, we end up with Roundhand[2] in the 1600's. For reproductions/printing, it's often cut into a copper plate. Hence the common name for this family of scripts: Copperplate.

It makes its way to America, and eventually becomes Spencerian[3] script (mid/late 1800's).

Spencerian has an emphasis on a greater freedom of movement, and personal style. The script is designed to be highly legible, with a systematic approach to writing. There are a core set of fundamental strokes, from which you derive the alphabet. Instruction in this style is dominated by drills.

This evolves into business penmanship[4] (early 1900's). Most known by the Palmer method, though Palmer was a rather poor penman for the time. Business penmanship removes the variability in line thickness of Spencerian, and reduces the flourish particularly found in capitals. The cursive writing taught in most schools through the late 70's & 80's was the Palmer method.

Both scripts were designed for a quick, yet precise, flowing script. Principally for business (bookkeeping, accounting) and correspondence.

My contention, as expressed in another comment, lies in the failures of modern educators to understand and teach the script. Not script itself. I challenge anyone to find sloppiness in the instruction from Spencer[5] or Zaner[4]. I realize these are not necessarily the same contemporary examples of cursive you'd see, however the fundamentals of cursive education today is directly rooted in those same texts. Even my elementary school cursive instruction (late 1990's) featured the same drills as can be found in the Zaner book.

ref.

[0] https://digi.vatlib.it/view/bav_pal_lat_1811/0221

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Houghton...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Bickham-...

[3] https://www.iampeth.com/sites/default/files/artwork/Musselma...

[4] https://archive.org/details/armmovementmetho00zane

[5] https://archive.org/details/newspenceriancom00auth

[somat]

I used the term sloppy when perhaps I should have used the term fluid, that is, it does sound better to say that one character flows into the next as opposed to one character slops into the next. Also, thank you for your posts, I love learning about stuff like this.

[wrp]

> ...computers(and to a lesser degree typewriters) are what killed cursive.

In the USA, widespread use of cursive died out in the 1970s. Widespread use of personal computers came about a decade later. In public education over the 1970s, they largely abandoned the formal teaching of handwriting.

[StewardMcOy]

This may be true in much of the USA, but I know from experience that it's not true in California and Texas, the two most populous states. It's still required in Texas, and many California schools continue to teach it, even though it hasn't been required statewide since the early 2010s.

When I was in California public school in the 1990s, cursive was taught in elementary school. We spent a lot of time practicing it, far more than it deserved, even if you believed it was important, and many of the teachers were quite strict about it. In junior high, teachers still required in-class assignments to be written in cursive, claiming everything we wrote in high school would need to be in cursive. (Luckily, this wasn't true. I even had a few high school teachers who mandated a no cursive policy.)

[kthejoker2]

This is incorrect at least in 2022; my Texas educated children have never been taught or graded on cursive.

[StewardMcOy]

Googling around to try to figure out why our experiences are different, I found that the requirement was only brought back in 2019 for second and third graders. It appears Texas stopped requiring it in the early 2000s, only to bring it back a few years ago.

If your children passed third grade before the 2019-2020 school year, they wouldn't have run into the requirement.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/cursive-handwriting-requiremen...

[wrp]

OK then, so there is still great variation in educational policy between the states. I'm glad handwriting is still being taught somewhere. A map of where it is and isn't would be interesting.