When my grandson told me that they are no longer teaching cursive in our primary schools I took it as one more sign of the deterioration of public education in the USA. As to it being a "right" -- what nonsense! It would lead to any subject from Home Ec. to architecture as a "right." This kind of thinking explains one reason why the state of education is run, with some exceptions, by people with politically correct moronic attitudes.

It seems that the Marxists, euphemistically calling themselves Liberals, have taken to calling basic, essential, or highly desirable needs, “Rights.”

Empirically, anything requiring the rendering of the service or property of another cannot be a Right.

Unless, of course, it were valid that one should receive “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.”

tease that out for me, please. what's a good idea that should be a right that we do not acknowledge?

Yes. We use "right" to broadly. We almost need another word for basic human rights. I probably started as hyperbole, but now people use "right" innocently to make something that's a good idea.

I haven’t put up post for awhile but the main subject is defining what money really is and isn’t. My interest was first activated, of course, by Fransico back in 1961.

http://takeamericaforward.com/economy/pe......

My own experiences with both cursive and printing (learning them, and later teaching them, in several languages and alphabets) are that cursive has no special magic in this regard. One can — and often does — unobservantly and uncontrolledly copy from print into cursive, or _vice_versa_.

To your questions: I started studying Hebrew at age 5 1/2, so the answer is "Yes — for both printed and cursive Hebrew" (Cursive Hebrew, by the way, dies not join its letters. Its sole differences from printed Hebrew — which are large — are in the letters' shapes.)

Definitions of cursive (in our own alphabet) vary. Some dictionaries define cursive as writing in which all letters are joined, others (equally respected) define it as writing in which letters may join — and still others define it as writing which is "running or flowing" (cf. Latin CURSIVUS), irrespective of whether or not any of the letters join or of how they are shaped.

How do you, yourself, define "cursive" — and what criteria did you use to decide to define it in that way and in no other?

By the way — there are handwriting forms and methods in English which are considered "cursive" by most of their practitioners, yet are considered "not cursive" by most practitioners of other methods. Here are sine examples — http://www.BFHhandwriting.com, http://www.handwritingsuccess.com, http://www.briem.net, http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com, http://www.italic-handwriting.org, http://www.studioarts.net/calligraphy/it... — is each "cursive" or "not cursive," and why?

Using cursive script makes it less likely the student will copy only the shape of each letter. The powers of observation and of muscular control are exercised in recognizing the shapes of the printed letters and in forming the somewhat different cursive forms.

Similar skill is used in working with other alphabets. Can you tell gimel from nun in Hebrew? Or vet from khaf? I can't, but lots of people learn how, presumably through practice.

What led to your having that feeling?

Please send those further three paragraphs; my e-address is handwritingrepair@gmail.com

My interest is in seeing that education is conducted rationally, and not by sacrificing a student.

Re "Do schools still do that [teach handwriting]?" Some do, many don't ... and some of the ones that don't teach it still grade it (by removing points from the grades of the worst performers in a skill that the school doesn't teach, but wishes to causelessly "emerge.")

I don't understand "handwriting rather than printing," because printing is one form of handwriting. It is as if you had advised me to "eat fruit, rather than apples."

Or are you redefining "handwriting" to mean only one of the several forms of handwriting — as if you re-defined "fruit" to mean "grapes"?

How and why would "voice-activated writing machines" create the dire effects that you predict?

Some kids seem to desire to avoid the instructed method. Sometimes I teach elementary horseback riding to little kids. Some of them sit comfortably on the horse as I help them adjust to a good posture. Others flail their arms and legs about and bounce up and down, no matter how I exhort them to stay still.

I have a feeling that underneath the rebellion is the belief that "for me this is impossible, so I'll mess it up, and that way I'm in control."

Perhaps a century ago, no doubt with the beginning of "Progressive" reform to education, a major use of cursive was dropped: copying well-written material into a notebook.

From time to time I find myself advising students or their parents on how to learn, without a teacher, the skills of writing and reading, and how to get an increased vocabulary. My recommendation? "Find a book or magazine article you like, one that is written in a professional style, and copy it, word for word, into a notebook. Use handwriting rather than printing, and do not use your computer at all."

That is the method by which Ben Franklin gave himself an education.

Why does it work? Well, the process of putting words in through the eye and slowly out through the hand allows the brain a chance to think about each word, rather than merely seeing pages move by without comprehension. When the student finds a new word, there is at least the possibility he'll look it up in a dictionary, or remark, "Oh, THAT's how that word is spelled! I hadn't realized."

Now of course there is no fundamental right involved, but if people are going to get a good education, it's certainly wrong to cheat them by telling that some shortcut is "good enough." Shall we eliminate arithmetic and algebra, because any mathematics anyone might need can be done by computer?

As for Latin, it was and still is, along with Greek, an important part of a good education. Even knowing "little Latin and less Greek" (my own situation) provides a tremendous advantage in learning and discovering the meanings of words, as well as granting the power to invent new words as required in the sciences. Medical terminology in particular is rendered far less obscure to those who know Greek and Latin.

Currently I find myself pressed into needing to speak Spanish, a language I never learned in school. My faint abilities in Latin and French allow me to construct possible Spanish words. Half the time I seem to arrive at something at least comprehensible to my Mexican acquaintances who are struggling with English.

"Back when we were a literate country" = I
LOVE IT!!!!! In fact I love what followed too!
I miss my 'literate country' no end.....

thanks

http://dannesrepossessions.wordpress.com...

It's on my blog, but all rights, all real human rights, stem from the two most basic rights. That is the right to self destiny. And the right to private property.

Any so called "Right" that violates these rights in others is not a real right.

And if I tried really hard, I'm sure I could squeeze in the word "right" a few more times, right?

right.
what is the link to your blog jsw? Also, Eudamonia posted a few days ago compiling Gulch members blogs, could you provide him with a link and a little bit about your blog? Thanks

excellent points puzzlelady. I didn't think about the quill problem, I just thought the technique was designed to speed up the writing process. I used to be amazed at how fast some people could print all their words. But now I am amazed at how fast peoples' thumbs poke out text messages on tiny phones.
I am so ready for voice activation programs to get better.
I'm not sure I follow your last statement.
Perhaps I see an argument more for teaching drawing. Art has become a free for all in the public school system and basics in realistic drawing has gone to the wayside. certainly a skill that is very helpful for conceptualizing ideas.

Archaic memes trying to survive in a high-tech world: The only reason for "cursive" writing is that it was once done with quills and ink, and the flow had to be kept going without lifting the pen from paper until the ink was all used or a big blob would drop off. In a world of ballpoints and pencils, it is absurd to require a single connected line of writing, which when poorly done is illegible. I can remember being graded on penmanship. Do schools still do that?

My English teacher in high school, on the first day of class, laid down the rule that only printing would be allowed in her classes--upper and lower case, not all caps. I loved it and never looked back to "long-hand" and script. As a graphic artist I can admire the many beautiful fonts that have evolved since the invention of printing presses, everything from the ornate old English Gothic to the magnificent clean shapes of Helvetica.

Then we have the antiquated form of the QWERTY keyboard that's another hard meme to dislodge. At some point more ergonomic keyboards will have to be invented for interfacing written language with machines.

If we abandon the mechanical construction of writing and go to voice-activated writing machines, a new era of the creation of visible symbols to represent auditory expressions of human thought will arrive. But something will be lost: the conscious, objective understanding of the hierarchical structure of percepts forming concepts, and the integration of knowledge from premises to the most complex thought structures like astrophysics or global government. How will people then understand the difference between "rights" and contracts for mutual benefit by mutual consent?

It's a misuse of the word "right".
Define it and I can answer you.
If you are referring to a human right, the idea is silly on the face of it.
If you refer to a Constitutional right, I see no reason to repeat myself on that count.
If you refer to "I want it and think people should have it and even be forced to participate in it" that is so common today, then according to that definition, yes, it is a right.

One I disagree with.
I disagree with cursive? No. We as the last bastion of reason in a world that uses words like "right" so carelessly must never be afraid to use ANY word or to make utterly clear what we mean.

I disagree with it being anything but the latter definition of "right", that definition being a new one and without any basis in history.

Cursive is a wonderful skill. It is not owed and it is not necessary to survival in our society.
Whine all they wish, it does not make it a "right" in any sense that we have traditionally held, and usurping the word "right" to a new definition will confuse no one of intelligence or anyone else as long as there are people of ethics and courage willing to speak up and point out such attempts to twist words of importance like "right" into new agendas unrelated to the word.

Further for the record: Most of my students respond well to "letter groups" practice — but I agree that there are exceptions and that a wise teacher has more than a one-size-fits-all mentality or premise.