Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cursive exists for a reason. It is much, much faster than printing.
And there is a lot of signage you won't be able to read if you can't read cursive. I have a daughter who can't read it and a son who taught himself. Neither was taught it in school. He does use it.
This is an oft-repeated claim. But it's not borne out by actual research. Comparative studies show that neither cursive nor printing are faster than the other. It might be faster for you, but no one should think that their sole data-point of themselves is statistically significant.
There will always be people who can read cursive, just as there are still some historians who study and can therefore read defunct languages. You think the Bible was originally written in a modern language still used today? And yet, somehow we still have translations readily available - imagine that!
Exactly how accurate you think that translation is?
Just as an example.. i entered a phrase, translated to Persian, Hawaiian and then Russian and back to English
The result is..
Welcome to the undergrowth
The original text?
Welcome to the Jungle.
Not horribly off, but.. enough. Makes you wonder how accurate those Bible translations are.. Especially once you consider that some of the translators likely had their own agendas.
Exactly how accurate you think that translation is?
Translations from other languages, even ones still in use today, are always complex. My point was that cursive isn't even another language and if we can manage to translate defunct languages (however complicated that may be), defunct cursive is not going to be a problem at all. You are going off on moot points that really have nothing to do with cursive.
There will always be people who can read cursive, just as there are still some historians who study and can therefore read defunct languages. You think the Bible was originally written in a modern language still used today? And yet, somehow we still have translations readily available - imagine that!
Yeah, and there's never an argument about what exactly it says. Or, based on it's interpretation....
News flash! English written in cursive is NOT A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE and NEEDS NO TRANSLATION! The letters are just formed a bit differently, that's all.
I'm as big a proponent of learning how to write properly as anyone, but the idea that documents written in longhand will require some kind of translation during which errors and changes in interpretation could occur, is just ludicrous.
[/b] Yeah, and there's never an argument about what exactly it says. Or, based on it's interpretation....
You just made my point, better than I did.
Kudos to you!
I already responded to someone else who said this - since you missed it, here it is again: "Translations from other languages, even ones still in use today, are always complex. My point was that cursive isn't even another language and if we can manage to translate defunct languages (however complicated that may be), defunct cursive is not going to be a problem at all. You are going off on moot points that really have nothing to do with cursive."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
