Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Why doesn't that count as cursive?

It should, but for some reason, neither educators, nor graphologists
consider Italic writing to be cursive. [Show them a sample of Italic
writing, and the usual response is "That is not Cursive writing."]

> Or are you thinking that only "Palmer method" (early 20th c. US) or "Spencerian hand" (earlier than that) count as cursive?

I'll include pretty much anything ranging from d"Nealian to Chancery
Cursive as being cursive.


How to have Hittite, Alibata, Orkhon, Ogham, Manchu, Meroïtic, Pahawh
Hmong, Tengwar, Tsalagi, Hangul, Lepcha, and Nushu in the same