Cursive is the sloppy form of latin characters that you use when you have to write by hand a lot, the reduced specification on word separation and form really help the letters get out quick. see shorthand for an even quicker modern engineered version of this. When you no longer have to manually produce a large body of text(you have your machine spirit do the writing for you) It no longer makes as much sense to keep the cursive forms around. A cultural loss for sure but in the same vein as knowing how to skin a rabbit.
Some languages (arabic comes to mind) have had their cursive form completely replace their block form(I actually don't know if arabic ever had a block form, it would certainly be incorrect if you tried to use a block form of arabic today). Unfortunately the same slurred features that make cursive so quick to write also make it difficult for the machine spirit to handle. Now I want to look up arabic typewriters.
This is a an incorrect view on the derivation of cursive, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding in the precise and systemic nature of script.
Source: professional penman & calligrapher.
In the USA, widespread use of cursive died out in the 1970s. Widespread use of personal computers came about a decade later. In public education over the 1970s, they largely abandoned the formal teaching of handwriting.
When I was in California public school in the 1990s, cursive was taught in elementary school. We spent a lot of time practicing it, far more than it deserved, even if you believed it was important, and many of the teachers were quite strict about it. In junior high, teachers still required in-class assignments to be written in cursive, claiming everything we wrote in high school would need to be in cursive. (Luckily, this wasn't true. I even had a few high school teachers who mandated a no cursive policy.)
The Burmese script was originally square format but became round and cursive due to the popular use of palm leaves (and others) as a medium: straight lines would rip the leaves, so softer round strokes were preferred [1].
The round cursive style is in stark contrast to modern Devanagari (India) where the strong overhanging line is a core feature [2] despite both scripts descend one way or another from the Brahmi script [3].
As for the OP, ballpoints have come a long way such that one could easily find a ballpoint that is sensitive enough for a Palmerian style (but perhaps not Spencerian as that genuinely requires varying line thickness).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_alphabet
But more recently the space has become popular, probably because it's easier on computers and due to English/Western influences.
The nice thing about that Wikipedia page is that the first three – and presumably the oldest – paragraphs use the classic ፡, after which it mostly switches to spaces in the newer texts. Traditionalists will think it's horrible and you should stick to the "old ways", but languages and scripts have been changing ever since they were invented, and you can see the evolution of a writing system right there on a single page, which I think is kinda neat.
(Note I do not speak Amharic, I "discovered" this while researching different writing systems for some code I was writing).
[1]: https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%88%9B%E1%88%AD%E1...
We put up with a lot in the name of cost. The thin blue Bic pens are much cheaper, but when I have to use one I really hate it.
However, the fundamental issue of not needing to write as much as we used to I believe is dominant. I have abandoned using cursive because it takes practice to keep it readable--and I simply don't write enough. I can type faster on a keyboard than I can write with a pen and what's in the computer is more useful--paper is only of value when you need to do something other than make letters. At this point most of my use of a pen is filling out forms.
So I think the story we face is one of gradual degradation of the average condition in which writing is done: the pens are part of it because ballpoints train you into a tighter grip with more pressure. But equally as important is that we've moved away from desks specifically for writing and drawing towards generic flat surfaces, so nobody realizes what they lose by not having such a surface or what kinds of compensations they are making. If you have the height and angle correct, a relaxed grip is easier and you can make more accurate marks from the shoulder, with decent control over swooping curves. It's the single easiest way to boost your draftsmanship and penmanship.
> Sassoon’s analysis of how we’re taught to hold pens makes a much stronger case for the role of the ballpoint in the decline of cursive. She explains that the type of pen grip taught in contemporary grade school is the same grip that’s been used for generations ... modern pens requires that they be placed at a greater, more upright angle to the paper—a position that’s generally uncomfortable with a traditional pen hold.
I was lucky enough in college to study calligraphy & penmanship through an independent study program. Most days I would be at my desk writing for six to ten hours. It was an obsession. After graduating, my practice continued at this pace for the next four years. I have experienced zero cramping or discomfort in my hand.
In that time, I've used an array of pens. From traditionally cured and cut quills, dip pens, to modern fountain pens. Ultimately, the vast majority of my practice was done with a ten cent Bic pen. They're cheap, reliable, and write quickly & consistently.
The actual difference between writing then vs. now has less to do with the pen itself, and more with how it's handled. Your poor, unpracticed, overly-tense grip on the pen is what causes discomfort. As does manipulating the pen with the fingers, rather than the larger muscles in your arm/shoulder.
Penmanship education, I'd argue, has been non-existent in America for well over a full generation. The further you go from the so-called "Golden Age of Penmanship" (~1860-1920), the more distance there is from real, quality professors of penmanship. Institutional knowledge is lost, and present day teachers are merely parroting back things they were told to be true, rather than educating based on a deep-seated practical knowledge.
Penmanship, and thus cursive, was incrementally killed by ever-easier ways of putting text to paper. Typewriters -> word processors -> computers -> cellphones.
For me, writing with ballpoints required more pressure and a more upright grip, while fountain pens love to write in one flowing line at an angle to the page. When writing with a fountain pen, I will tend very naturally to cursive. With a ballpoint, cursive is a real chore.
I do agree with your last point, though: OneNote has replaced my fountain pens and ballpoints nearly completely at this point.
The letter forms of cursive evolved when people were writing with quill or dip pens, and rely on stroke forms that are facilitated by the natural grip of using a quill/dip pen. Ballpoint pens require a more upright angle, a firmer grip, and more emphasis on axial rather than lateral force. Ballpoints encourage stroke forms that conflict with traditional letter shapes. Fountain pens, on the other hand, are properly held more like a dip pen. That is why people experience an improvement in their handwriting when they switch from ballpoint to fountain pen.
Hmm. Can you point to more information on this conflict?
Maybe what's needed is a new non-traditional form of cursive that embraces the stroke forms that come naturally with a ballpoint.
This was the case for many years after dip pens were retired.
They stopped teaching cursive handwriting. Full stop.
And my writing, for the first time ever, was legible. This is what killed cursive, it's bloody hard to read.
