Why is it that we are taught to write the small letter “a” as basically an “o” with a tail on it (for lack of a better description) then the “a” that we see in the majority of fonts …as in this one (I am American…so maybe this is an American way or writing).
I first noticed this while teaching my daughter to read…after practicing the alphabet and teaching her how to write “a”, we noticed while reading that very few children books use the letter “a” as I taught her. All other letters seem to match most fonts used in books, but the “a” is always written with the tail on top bending over the circle.
Not really sure what my question is, but I suppose it’s more of an observation. Possibly we should teach the letter “a” as it is written the majority of the time???
“a” in script/joined/cursive writing has been formed without the tail at the top since long before people were commonly exposed to print. I don’t really know which set of letters derived from which, but I’d expect that printed forms came from cursive, so as such the shape does make sense.
At a young age ease of formation is an issue. Kids don’t have the best fine motor skills, and while they’re learning to write, if there’s a simplified option available, why not go for it? I can’t recall ever suffering the slightest bit of confusion due to the differences.
“a” in script/joined/cursive writing has been formed without the tail at the top since long before people were commonly exposed to print. I don’t really know which set of letters derived from which, but I’d expect that printed forms came from cursive, so as such the shape does make sense.
Pasunejen,
Are you saying that cursive came before print? That’s interesting…I had no idea.
I wondered about that manyyears ago after learning to write the “a” without the bent hat cursively and in “printing” vs. cursive. I also was taught it mechanical/engineering drafting courses in college. I always printed my by-hand correspondence, because of the speed and proficiency learned in the formal training. But a few years later I decided that I preferred the look of the a with a hat and forced myself to print all my a’s that way. I made a point of erasing and replacing any random a’ without a hat with ones with a hat and after several weeks, it became second nature for me.
I’ve looked for the history of the differences in some of my books on alphabets/language origins and can find only that the a without a hat is based on its origin in the Greek language. Their alpha, which is like a skewed (or Italic, if you will) “infinity” symbol. when anglicized (?), becomes the a without the hat.
I have not found the source of the a with the hat but if I can find my book on alphabet design, or browse one at B&N or BAM, I may find that as you have piqued my own curiosity on it.
I wasn’t really saying that, anyway…obviously types of writing range all over the place, I was just thinking of the common Copperplate type writing of the 18th-ish century. Other previous styles give the lie to that particular thesis. I suppose it’s just a stylistic difference.
Old printing presses were prone to “fill in” closed areas with ink. So the old “a” (the one that looks like an “o” with a tail) would sometimes be filled in with ink and was thereby difficult to distinguish from an “o”. Thus the invention of the “umbrella a”.
The “a” with a hat has been around for a long time. It’s clearly recognizable in uncial script (developed fourth century AD). It seems to have evolved from “A” used in rustic capitals. However, half-uncial, which was popular during the same period but developed slightly later, uses the “a” with a tail.
Cursive hands have been used since the Romans, though it’s not what we think of as cursive. The cursive we use has its roots in Italian italic hands developed during the Renaissance. If you’d like to know more, (warning: PDF) read this. It’s about the history of handwriting in Great Britain, but a lot of the same things were happening in the United States at the same time. Starting on the sixth page, under the heading “The Development of Print Script”, it goes a little into the reasons why cursive was abandoned as an intro to handwriting and printing was adopted. Printing was actually developed from the less stylized Italian italic hands, influenced by the calligraphy revival in the late 19th and mid-20th centuries.
If you want to read some writing about fonts that will really blow your mind (no, really), go find a copy of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter (sp?), the guy who also wrote Goedel, Escher, Bach.