Cursive is stupid and in my opinion a Soviet plot to destroy America. I don’t know how many countless hours we spent in grade school practicing cursive script which no one ever used in a practical sense except to sign their name, and even then probably not. By junior high, no teacher cared if your “R” had a distinctive, stupid time wasting loop or not.
Speaking of cursive “R”. In third grade, the school boundaries changed and some kids who had learned an improper cursive R were funneled into my school where only the One True Cursive R was taught. So those kids had to relearn an idiotic way to write an R with a different idiotic way to write an R. What if, and I’m going out on a limb here…it doesn’t matter how you write an R as long as everyone can read it?
What if, again going out on a limb, kids were taught how to write efficiently and legibility? Instead of making the correct loops (which reduces efficiency) and connecting letters (which reduces legibility). Maybe we could save a vast amount of wasted time. Honestly, I think recess teaches kids more than cursive.
I am not a good speller. But I look at each word’s spelling as a lesson in history. A podcast that I have listened to for several years is Kevin Stroud’s History of English.
In my opinion the only real consequence of not being able to write cursive is not being able to sign your name, which you will eventually need to do to get loans, buy cars and houses, etc. I’m not sure what would replace a cursive signature for that. Also I’ve heard that the fact that so many people now seldom write in cursive means that they are not developing unique signatures as well.
In Europe, I guess because “in the good old days” not everyone was literate, each person created a “sign”. This could be a stylized flower, initials or some other scrawled thingamajig that was identifiably theirs.
Back in the early 1970’s, I exchanged some dollars in an Italian bank for Lira, After the clerk cranked his adding machine and played with it for a while, he slid a pile of banknotes to me and asked me to “sign” the receipt. I complied by signing my signature (first and last name). He looked at it for a moment and, not realizing that it was merely my name commented that I had the most intricate sign he had ever seen.
The historical use of public notaries was because, with a US population of largely illiterate people using “X” as their sign, someone had to verify the person who applied iit to a document.
The other verification, which is used when having your bank vouch for you to another bank is to have them apply their “medallion” to the document instead of having it notorized.
My son is 25. He was never taught cursive. He can’t read it either.
I think it was goofy who said the teacher tried to make him switch from left to right. My wife was forced to switch and she always has trouble telling left from right now.
I can’t get over this. For future generations not to learn Roman numerals or cursive, it’s beyond imaginable. These are some basics in my opinion. Having the kids memorize a bunch of unnecessary stats - sure, let’s cut down on that, but cursive? I have no reasonable explanation for feeling so strongly about this.
The joined up writing I learned in my early years…with a nibbed pen and dip-in inkwell … never reached the beauty of some of my American pals’ Pitman script…even the lefties…but compared with my daughter’, it’s pure calligraphy
If I ever mention the word diphthong to any one of my golfing buddies I’m sure they would not be thinking about vocabulary!! More along the lines of ladies underwear
'38Packard ==> Excuse me for the golfing buddy joke
I file taxes, refinance my mortgage, and enter into contracts of all kinds without ever making a mark on a physical piece of paper. I can’t remember the last time I actually signed something.
When was the last time anyone confirmed your ‘signature’ against some other document for validation?
I don’t think banks even check your check’s signature against your account record.
All they need is an identification number (account, SSN etc.).
Eventually, a national id will remove even the pretense of signing for something.
Interesting. We bought a house this year. Lots of signatures - mortgage, purchase agreement, insurance etc. but I don’t recall anyone ever confirming that the signature was legit. Some documents were e-signed and some were in person.
I can stand on a corner in Athens, Madrid, Moscow and Tel Aviv and, without noing the translation of a singl word, phonetically (foneticaly) rede strete sines.
Jeff,
No, you can’t, because it isn’t likely you know the non-Roman writing stems used in three of those cities.
As to your first point and the supposed difficulties of dealing with English’s often non-phonetic spelling system(s), answer me this. What would be the consequences? You are aware, aren’t you that all languages change over time? Also, how English is spoken in Sydney isn’t the same as the English spoken in London or New York or Bombay.
Which dialect should a “reformed” spelling system try to capture?
My suggestion would be this. Teach students the history of their language and how it has changed over time. Then they’d understand that what seems like a mismatched spelling is actually a valuable historical record that should be cherished and preserved.
On the flip side, since it has changed in the past there is no reason why it can’t change in the future. Back in the day (cough, wheeze) I had a dictionary on my desk so I could look up word spellings. And I’m a good speller. Not necessary today, but think of all the time we spent as kids learning spelling.
Heck, the English spoken in New York isn’t the same as in Boston. And they’re both different from the English spoken in Atlanta and New Orleans and Fargo and Los Angeles. And that’s just in one country.
This.
Well, “cherished and preserved” might be going a bit far. I’d be happy with the history of your native language being understood and appreciated.
“…since it ----meaning the pronunciation of specific words— has changed in the past there is no reason why it can’t change in the future.”
syke,
The “correct” answer is that, of course, pronunciations will change. Hence, whatever spelling system were put into place would need further changes in a generation or two. The net effect would be to obscure the past.
As things now stand, texts written in Elizabethan English are still accessible to us today without much glossing. With a bit more effort, even Chaucer’s 13th century English is accessible. That’s one of the advantages of our admittedly awkward spelling system, and one I’m not willing to give up for the sake of phonetic ease.
Also, there’s the not insignificant problem of delegating authority. To some extant, the French and Spanish tried to solve the problem by creating governing boards for their languages. The English could have done the same, but didn’t, and now it’s far too late, given that English is so widely spoken, in so many varieties.
Yeah, English spelling is a hassle. But so are other features of other languages such as elaborate case systems, or inflection systems, which English has pretty much done away with.
“Heck, the English spoken in New York isn’t the same as in Boston. And they’re both different from the English spoken in Atlanta and New Orleans and Fargo and Los Angeles. And that’s just in one country.”
That’s exactly why a “reformed” spelling system isn’t possible. Whose dialect would be chosen to be the standard?
