Same here, though I also feel like I’ve seen it used to describe authors who write their books on paper like Hemingway did, as opposed to using a mechanical device.
Same here. And the opposite of it was called “printing” or “manuscript”.
Also, the verb “to write” meant to render it in cursive. So people might ask, “Did you write it or print it?” and that would be their way of asking “Did you do it in cursive or not?”
That sounds so odd in my own ears, after all these decades in which “to print” means you go Command-P and hit the OK button and thus send your document to the inkjet or laser printer.
61 years old here. I was taught cursive handwriting. It sucks. Oh I can read it, no problem. Depending on who wrote it. Often, a thought or sentence needs to be constructed by taking in the context of a paragraph.
I think it’s supposed to be faster to write, but as some of the above examples demonstrate, it can be difficult to read.
My cursive writing frankly sucked. I hated it. My print or block or whatever of all caps looks much nicer and is a breeze to read. I changed over in Junior High school ~ 1972 or so. No teacher cared.
My guess? Whoever created that handwriting sample (apparently one Palmer) intended a sort of “idiot’s/little kid’s version” of a bog-standard American handwriting style like Spencerian script,
and the out-of-place-looking extra lines are supposed to be a reminder of its origins, and/or for when they advance to grown-up handwriting.
For every subject? E.g. for mathematics exams the proctors or invigilators would hand out blank notebooks in which to write the answers, plus all the scratch paper they wanted, which would also be handed in. I don’t know if they dictated further requirements like the use of permanent writing ink only (no pencils) but I would not be surprised. Similarly for essays.
I can see that if it is that painful for the students to produce, and for the teaching assistants to read, legible handwriting then a technological solution might be in order, but what if the student wants to use scratch paper to organize his or her thoughts?
I use carbon paper regularly, and would regret its loss more than the loss of cursive. There are some studies that purport to show that in educational settings (anyplace one is learning, not just school) handwritten notes are more effective than typing notes, and cursive is supposed to be be quicker than printing. I do not know how conclusive these studies are.
I just wanted to add that “joined up” or “joined together” writing is very cute. I just hope it’s not called that much past 6 or 7 years old.
What is written by hand is “manuscript”.
Merriam lists that as a synonym for longhand.
I’m not misremembering it meaning writing in preference to using a machine, I can find plenty of examples. Whether that’s right or not I can’t say.
I can read that! 
I can read that too, but I have to think about the context and what could be meant. The next one, Lessing/Kleist, on the other hand: no chance.
That is not what I expected at all! Exams where all the alumns type at the same time? Isn’t that loud and distracting? And you claim it makes cheating more difficult? I would have expected the opposite, with hidden scripts and other illicit helpers. I guess it depends on who is more proficient with computers and hidden programs, teachers or pupils. 15 or 20 years ago it was probably the kids, today it may be a draw.
My gut feeling tells me this is right. Is it because I grew up with handwriting, and learned to type later? Will it be different for kids who learn only typing? No idea.
So, first of all, my understanding is that many American schools have given up teaching handwriting altogether. They just sort of let students figure it out.
Yes, this is a misnomer, but it came about because what Americans call “printing” is not actually what was originally called handwriting. It was meant to mimic what printed letters looked like.
Handwriting instruction in America has always been deplorable. Yes, the first mistake was in teaching handwriting twice: first as “printing,” that is, letters that mimic print, with vertical lines and circles, and then in teaching an actual script meant to be written by the human hand.
They should have skipped the first part, because vertical lines and circles are unnatural for the human hand. Instead of teaching mimicking of printed letters, they should have gone directly to a script developed for the natural motion of the hand, primarily made up of slanted lines and oval shapes.
And, you have also correctly identified the second mistake–the choice of handwritten script. That ridiculous, ugly, curlicued script was not meant for ink-on-paper or pencil-on-paper casual writing. It was developed for copperplate engraving, for Pete’s sake.
They should have instead taught a simple italic script, such as shown here: The Advantages of teaching Italic Cursive – Print Path
Interesting: In calligraphy and typeface construction, it’s the opposite: cursive is separated letters and script is joined up.
I have the impression each language has made its own mess of the hand-writing related nomenclature. It is quite a mess: cursive, italics, short-hand, print, script… seem to have opposite meanings in at least one pair of languages each (the languages in question being English, French, German, Spanish and Italian, based on a couple of wikipedia articles. I guess more languages would make it even more confusing).
IME what is truly effective is reviewing the notes later! I can type OK but I never considered doing it in class (plus it does seem like things could get clicky). An e-ink tablet seems like a good solution, however.
Don’t forget, just within English itself. I believe in Britain and other countries, what we call “print” and “cursive” is known as “BLOCK LETTERS” and “joined-up writing.”
Yep. And even if you never learned to write cursive, you can read it . I never learned calligraphy, but I can read that just fine- slower, yes, but I can puzzle it out when it gets weird.
And "How will they interpret the past?" the Atlantic asks? Easy. They will read books, articles, etc written by people who can read cursive. I can’t read Cyrillic hardly at all, but I can easily read books by experts who can read it and have translated.
This is pointless whining. Teaching cursive is stupid, lets teach the kids keyboarding instead. I also read a study ( which I can’t find now) that teaching cursive set kids reading abilities back.
Printing. Or on a device.
So? Then assign the letter that has been printed. Big deal.
Unless he had really bad handwriting (very possible) people can puzzle out cursive without having ever learned to write in it.
Right.
It’s possible that handwritten class notes are more effective because you need to go back soon after writing them and either type them or write them out more legibly, thus reinforcing the information.
My elementary school may have been an outlier, but we had a penmanship assignment every day, usually two or three sentences. Test answers and reports were done with handwriting. That was in the sixties.
I had a temp job once, grading academic tests with essay questions. These were experimental tests for elementary school students. That is, they were newly proposed tests that were being analyzed to see if they provided the needed grade spread to allow them to be used. Kids taking them knew that the grades on the test were not going to be added to their record in any way. This did not improve their essays or their writing.
There were also math tests that included multi-step results. Those were also in handwriting.
I ended up being the person that they’d bring the bits that the other graders couldn’t read.
I was taught Palmer – I think; it had the ‘2’ looking Q – method for cursive writing but was never any good at it. My parents bought a tablet with the letters inscribed in it that I was supposed to trace over and over with a scribe so, I guess, muscle-memory would improve it. It didn’t work. I suspect being left-handed didn’t help any.
I used to know a woman who had been raised in Britain but had lived in the US for some time. She used to say that she could read joined-up writing, but couldn’t read cursive. To her, “cursive” seemed to mean strictly the over-elaborate Palmer method letters. At the time, I lacked the technical knowledge to convince her that they were just two different terms for the same thing, like lorry and truck.
Well, Wikipedia cites a study that seems to say the order they were taught in does not matter, at least when it comes to speed:
A study of gradeschool children in 2013 discovered that the speed of their cursive writing is the same as their print writing, regardless of which handwriting the child had learnt first.[1]
From here. It’s just one study, but it’s a start. I wouldn’t make any assumptions that one way is better than the other, even if they seem to make physiological sense, without further study.
Not sure how reliable my recollection is - or the info I recall, but ISTR hearing that writing something down causes you to remember it better than keyboarding the same info.