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.
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.