[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.