Jonathon Blake wrote:
> 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.

I don't know what d"Nealian is, but Italic is, by definition, cursive;
but the question is what your "educators, nor graphologists" mean by the
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...