Alt text:
๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ท๐ด ๐ฌ๐ช๐น๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ช๐ต ๐ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐น๐ป๐ธ๐ซ๐ช๐ซ๐ต๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ผ๐ฝ ๐ฏ๐พ๐ท ๐ฝ๐ธ ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ, ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ธ๐พ๐ฐ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฌ๐ช๐ผ๐ฎ ๐บ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐ช๐ต๐ผ๐ธ ๐ช ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ป๐ธ๐ท๐ฐ ๐ฌ๐ธ๐ท๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ท๐ญ๐ฎ๐ป.
But cursive is more useful and practical than writing print. If you're taking notes, you want to take them quickly and still be legible. Cursive is a system for this.
If you want legible from me, I'll be continuing to use print.
fair lol
I would argue shorthand is probably more valuable than cursive for this.
I don't disagree with that! Maybe we should start learning shorthand.
I do think it is valuable to read cursive though, for historical study. I joined an informal LGBT history study group and we got to spend a lot of time reading love letters people sent each other. Not everything is transcribed, so I'm glad I was taught to read cursive.
You could argue that only historians should learn it, but I think that historical research is something that should be widely accessible, and also it's easier for young kids to learn language skills. I don't think there is any harm in teaching cursive.
Reading cursive should be a thing, I think with kids being so digital centric you could probably just teach it to them as a font? It is, after all, supposed to be English text written in the Latin alphabet, just all joined up.