Community Chat

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

I think it's kind of sad that they don't teach it anymore, but it just seems like more and more of the basics have fallen by the way.  Part of the value of some of these subjects that have been deemed unnecessary is that it develops different parts of the brain more completely, especially during the time when kids are growing up.   

But, hey, some people never get very good at it anyway.  You should see my husband's writing.  It's barely (that's being kind) legible to me, and I used to have to read doctors' prescriptions!

Still, I hate to see subjects lost that help round out the development of different parts of the kids' brains, as they grow up.

For me, one distressing part is not learning the conjugation of verbs and the use of pronouns.  This was like second or third grade stuff and now when some folks speak I just cringe at some of the things I hear.  The other day it was 'me and him used to date'.  Really, that sounds ok to you?  *sigh*  Ok, off the soapbox.  

---

When my (late) mom went to college, she minored in English. All through my growing up years, and until she passed away, she was forever correcting my grammar.

Now that she's gone, I miss it.

[Mellie32]

---

@CouponQueen wrote:

How does one sign their name without 'cursive' writing?

---

They scribble it or print it.  My dad scribbles his name.  All you can really see if the first letter of his first name and the first letter of his last name.  The rest is just squiggles.

[chickenbutt]

---

Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

chickenbutt wrote:

I think it's kind of sad that they don't teach it anymore, but it just seems like more and more of the basics have fallen by the way.  Part of the value of some of these subjects that have been deemed unnecessary is that it develops different parts of the brain more completely, especially during the time when kids are growing up.   

But, hey, some people never get very good at it anyway.  You should see my husband's writing.  It's barely (that's being kind) legible to me, and I used to have to read doctors' prescriptions!

Still, I hate to see subjects lost that help round out the development of different parts of the kids' brains, as they grow up.

For me, one distressing part is not learning the conjugation of verbs and the use of pronouns.  This was like second or third grade stuff and now when some folks speak I just cringe at some of the things I hear.  The other day it was 'me and him used to date'.  Really, that sounds ok to you?  *sigh*  Ok, off the soapbox.  

---

When my (late) mom went to college, she minored in English. All through my growing up years, and until she passed away, she was forever correcting my grammar.

Now that she's gone, I miss it.

---

Aww, sorry you lost your mom, Plaid!     I hope the passage of time has made it easier to enjoy your loving memories of her and the pain has diminished some.

When I grew up it was really important stuff so that's why it's hard for somebody like me to let it go, I guess.   I really struggle when I hear poor grammar because my brain just wants to shut down and I have a hard time taking the person seriously.   I suppose I should work on that, and get with what is the 21st century version of the language.  

[jaxs mom]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CouponQueen wrote:

How does one sign their name without 'cursive' writing?

---

They print it. Using cursive style isn't a requirement to sign your name. 

---

Many (most) people's signatures are not an exact image of the letters we see on cursive exemplars. Some people, for example, will use the capital "S" of printing and the rest of the word is cursive. They may use a combination of both and use connecting lines. 

I don't use all cursive letters in my own signature because I don't like the way it looks. I've never once had anyone turn down my paperwork, or documents,  because they didn't approve of my writing style. 

---

From what I've read most people write with a mix of cursive and print letters, anyway. 

[WenGirl42]

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

"Adding a layer of translation from cursive to print on top of that can only further complicate this.  I understand schools can't take the time to teach cursive, but I sure wish parents would!" @WenGirl42

When it comes to historical documents, what layer of translation is there between cursive and print if they're utilizing the same language?

I agree with you, cursive is something that could easily be taught at home leaving classroom time for subjects that parents may find more challenging and are better left to the professionals. 

---

@SusieQ_2 There isn't one today (and look at all the differences in interpretation!)  But if we start relying on having other people translating documents from original cursive into print or other "modern formats" as a reason why people don't need to learn cursive anymore, there will be. I'm expressing myself poorly!  Right now, I can go to various online sources and read the text of these historical documents.  They all have the same text, because most of us who speak English and learned cursive can go right to the source document and see and understand the words for ourselves.  If the balance shifts so that fewer and fewer people learn to write (or read) cursive, that opens the door for potential differences in how the words are translated, because there will be fewer people who can go to the source and say, "that's not what that says at all."  Like how few people can read The Bible in Aramaic/Hebrew today.

---

You're kidding right? Printing and cursive are written alphabets for modern english , there is no interpretation required. It's basically the same thing as using a different font in digital print. The words are exactly the same, it doesn't require any interpretation at all. You can read helvetica the same you can read arial font.

---

Then how do you explain these kids who "can't read cursive?"  Isn't that why we're debating whether cursive should be taught in schools or not in the first place?

---

I was addressing your claim that the meanings of words would change. The words are the same. Cursive is not a different language nor is it even a different dialect. You can't compare the two handwriting alphabets of modern english to the differences between Koine Greek and Mycenaean Greek or even Old English and modern English. 

---

I didn't exactly claim that the meanings of words would change. I know they wouldn't, and you know they wouldn't, and both you and I could look at both a cursive and printed version of something and know whether they said the same thing or not. However, when one is translating a document from one language to another, it's not only not-quite-directly-translatable words that can be or are changed.  Why should "translating" (or transforming something from cursive to more modern formats, as was suggested) from cursive to print be any different?  A human translating a document can impart their own interpretation (intentionally or unintentionally) very easily, and if nobody is looking at the original source, or they can't read it for whatever reason, they'd never know.  

[jonbon]

Just for fun, I wrote a couple of things in cursive and asked my 14 year old (who has never learned cursive) whether he could read them. The one with context he could follow, he could easily read. Another sentence that was more random, he had difficulty with a couple of words, but got the basic meaning (I had to help him with a couple of uppercase letters). Part of his difficulty might have been with my handwriting!  Point being, it's not like reading Chinese characters or something -- many of the letters are very similar.

(Also, I worked for several years for a university professor with HORRIBLE cursive writing, and I got very good at interpreting (often via context, etc.). However, I frequently had grad students (who COULD read cursive) coming to me to figure out what he had written.)

[jaxs mom]

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

"Adding a layer of translation from cursive to print on top of that can only further complicate this.  I understand schools can't take the time to teach cursive, but I sure wish parents would!" @WenGirl42

When it comes to historical documents, what layer of translation is there between cursive and print if they're utilizing the same language?

I agree with you, cursive is something that could easily be taught at home leaving classroom time for subjects that parents may find more challenging and are better left to the professionals. 

---

@SusieQ_2 There isn't one today (and look at all the differences in interpretation!)  But if we start relying on having other people translating documents from original cursive into print or other "modern formats" as a reason why people don't need to learn cursive anymore, there will be. I'm expressing myself poorly!  Right now, I can go to various online sources and read the text of these historical documents.  They all have the same text, because most of us who speak English and learned cursive can go right to the source document and see and understand the words for ourselves.  If the balance shifts so that fewer and fewer people learn to write (or read) cursive, that opens the door for potential differences in how the words are translated, because there will be fewer people who can go to the source and say, "that's not what that says at all."  Like how few people can read The Bible in Aramaic/Hebrew today.

---

You're kidding right? Printing and cursive are written alphabets for modern english , there is no interpretation required. It's basically the same thing as using a different font in digital print. The words are exactly the same, it doesn't require any interpretation at all. You can read helvetica the same you can read arial font.

---

Then how do you explain these kids who "can't read cursive?"  Isn't that why we're debating whether cursive should be taught in schools or not in the first place?

---

I was addressing your claim that the meanings of words would change. The words are the same. Cursive is not a different language nor is it even a different dialect. You can't compare the two handwriting alphabets of modern english to the differences between Koine Greek and Mycenaean Greek or even Old English and modern English. 

---

I didn't exactly claim that the meanings of words would change. I know they wouldn't, and you know they wouldn't, and both you and I could look at both a cursive and printed version of something and know whether they said the same thing or not. However, when one is translating a document from one language to another, it's not only not-quite-directly-translatable words that can be or are changed.  Why should "translating" (or transforming something from cursive to more modern formats, as was suggested) from cursive to print be any different?  A human translating a document can impart their own interpretation (intentionally or unintentionally) very easily, and if nobody is looking at the original source, or they can't read it for whatever reason, they'd never know.  

---

Because it's not being translated. The word translation in the this instance does not apply. It's the same language. Already the founding documents have been reproduced into printed text. Both in textbooks and online and in apps for computers and electronic devices. They aren't generally written in cursive in those cases. Have the actual words in these textbooks and apps changed from the original cursive? No they haven't. Because print and cursive are two forms of writing the exact same thing. 

If you're talking about how language changes over time, it does. But cursive has nothing to do with that. It's just one form or writing modern English. 

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

I think it's kind of sad that they don't teach it anymore, but it just seems like more and more of the basics have fallen by the way.  Part of the value of some of these subjects that have been deemed unnecessary is that it develops different parts of the brain more completely, especially during the time when kids are growing up.   

But, hey, some people never get very good at it anyway.  You should see my husband's writing.  It's barely (that's being kind) legible to me, and I used to have to read doctors' prescriptions!

Still, I hate to see subjects lost that help round out the development of different parts of the kids' brains, as they grow up.

For me, one distressing part is not learning the conjugation of verbs and the use of pronouns.  This was like second or third grade stuff and now when some folks speak I just cringe at some of the things I hear.  The other day it was 'me and him used to date'.  Really, that sounds ok to you?  *sigh*  Ok, off the soapbox.  

---

When my (late) mom went to college, she minored in English. All through my growing up years, and until she passed away, she was forever correcting my grammar.

Now that she's gone, I miss it.

---

Aww, sorry you lost your mom, Plaid!     I hope the passage of time has made it easier to enjoy your loving memories of her and the pain has diminished some.

When I grew up it was really important stuff so that's why it's hard for somebody like me to let it go, I guess.   I really struggle when I hear poor grammar because my brain just wants to shut down and I have a hard time taking the person seriously.   I suppose I should work on that, and get with what is the 21st century version of the language.  

---

Thanks!

My mom passed 16 years ago, this December.

Sometimes when I see or hear something that is incorrect, I want to correct them, but 9 times out of 10, I don't. 

I just correct them in my head.

Now, I'll yell at the tv, when I'm home, though! *lol*

[ms traditional]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

When I grew up it was really important stuff so that's why it's hard for somebody like me to let it go, I guess.   I really struggle when I hear poor grammar because my brain just wants to shut down and I have a hard time taking the person seriously.   I suppose I should work on that, and get with what is the 21st century version of the language.  

---

yes, it is sad to see what passes as sentence construction these days.  you know you are in trouble when newspeople (who used to be schooled in journalism)  are always bungling pronouns and tenses.........and even the holder of the highest office in the land is forever confused on what pronoun to use as a direct object. and he has an advanced degree.   oy!  it makes my head hurt from shaking it.  my, how the mighty have fallen in such a short time

[WenGirl42]

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

"Adding a layer of translation from cursive to print on top of that can only further complicate this.  I understand schools can't take the time to teach cursive, but I sure wish parents would!" @WenGirl42

When it comes to historical documents, what layer of translation is there between cursive and print if they're utilizing the same language?

I agree with you, cursive is something that could easily be taught at home leaving classroom time for subjects that parents may find more challenging and are better left to the professionals. 

---

@SusieQ_2 There isn't one today (and look at all the differences in interpretation!)  But if we start relying on having other people translating documents from original cursive into print or other "modern formats" as a reason why people don't need to learn cursive anymore, there will be. I'm expressing myself poorly!  Right now, I can go to various online sources and read the text of these historical documents.  They all have the same text, because most of us who speak English and learned cursive can go right to the source document and see and understand the words for ourselves.  If the balance shifts so that fewer and fewer people learn to write (or read) cursive, that opens the door for potential differences in how the words are translated, because there will be fewer people who can go to the source and say, "that's not what that says at all."  Like how few people can read The Bible in Aramaic/Hebrew today.

---

You're kidding right? Printing and cursive are written alphabets for modern english , there is no interpretation required. It's basically the same thing as using a different font in digital print. The words are exactly the same, it doesn't require any interpretation at all. You can read helvetica the same you can read arial font.

---

Then how do you explain these kids who "can't read cursive?"  Isn't that why we're debating whether cursive should be taught in schools or not in the first place?

---

I was addressing your claim that the meanings of words would change. The words are the same. Cursive is not a different language nor is it even a different dialect. You can't compare the two handwriting alphabets of modern english to the differences between Koine Greek and Mycenaean Greek or even Old English and modern English. 

---

I didn't exactly claim that the meanings of words would change. I know they wouldn't, and you know they wouldn't, and both you and I could look at both a cursive and printed version of something and know whether they said the same thing or not. However, when one is translating a document from one language to another, it's not only not-quite-directly-translatable words that can be or are changed.  Why should "translating" (or transforming something from cursive to more modern formats, as was suggested) from cursive to print be any different?  A human translating a document can impart their own interpretation (intentionally or unintentionally) very easily, and if nobody is looking at the original source, or they can't read it for whatever reason, they'd never know.  

---

Because it's not being translated. The word translation in the this instance does not apply. It's the same language. Already the founding documents have been reproduced into printed text. Both in textbooks and online and in apps for computers and electronic devices. They aren't generally written in cursive in those cases. Have the actual words in these textbooks and apps changed from the original cursive? No they haven't. Because print and cursive are two forms of writing the exact same thing. 

If you're talking about how language changes over time, it does. But cursive has nothing to do with that. It's just one form or writing modern English. 

---

Translation is a reasonable analogy when the proposition was that people wouldn't need to know how to read cursive (remember, the entire premise of this thread was people who can't), because important documents will be transformed into modern formats. When you take something out of a format somebody doesn't understand and you put it into a form they do understand, you're translating it. The actual words haven't changed yet because the transformation has been for convenience, not necessity. And again, right now most people reading the reproductions are also capable of reading the originals (leaving no room for alteration). I'm talking about what could happen in a few generations, when that's no longer the case.