ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Cursive & printing |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Cursive & printing

In his column “Time to embrace cursive again” (Feb. 4, TribLIVE), Tom Purcell writes: “Because ink dripped when the quill was lifted from the paper, it made sense to connect letters in words together in one flowing line — and the art of cursive writing began.” 

No; quill pens were used centuries before handwriting routinely joined all (or even most) letters in a word.

Dr. William Klemm (whom Purcell cites) is a veterinary neurologist. Readers searching his sources find that the original studies do not support cursive over the other forms of our handwriting, but support all handwriting (including print-writing) over keyboarding.

Research shows that legible cursive averages no faster than print-writing of equal or greater legibility, and the fastest, clearest handwriters avoid cursive — joining the most easily joined letter-combinations, leaving others unjoined, and using print-like shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree.

Reading cursive (still important) can be mastered in 30-60 minutes.

Adults increasingly quit cursive. In a 2012 survey of handwriting teachers, only 37 percent wrote in cursive; 8 percent printed; 55 percent mixed the two.

Finally, all signatures (not just cursive) are legally valid. Ask any attorney.

Kate Gladstone

Albany, N.Y.

The writer is director of the World Handwriting Contest and CEO of Handwriting Repair/Handwriting That Works.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.