I wouldn't call it print or cursive, I'd call it handwriting, a hybrid. How are people defining cursive? To me, more than a specific style where letters of the alphabet must be formed a certain way, cursive just means the letters are connected.

I see a wide mélange of upper-/lowercase styles mixed in with connected + separated letters in most handwriting. I rarely see uniform letter styles that are almost entirely or purely disconnected/connected, but I do imagine that print is easier and more common than (‘copperplate,’ hehe) cursive overall. I don't think it's age-related. I think anyone who writes a lot will blend cursive elements into their writing. I never used or really learned a strict cursive style, myself, but I've never written purely print either.

Really, I'd think that younger people would be using cursive, rather than older, because I imagine it being taught and then discarded or hybridized organically over time.

Edit: Ah.

When I write fast or the faster I write, I guess you could call it cursive, or rather, most of the letters, more than usual, are connected, and the letters tend to change shape to something more rounded as a result.

Waiting for rich_f to pop in and talk about ペン字.

Last edited by nest0r (2011 March 28, 6:37 am)

Practicing writing Japanese will result in handwriting that can't be differentiated from the average Japanese writer. This is a fact. It doesn't even take that much practice, an incidental benefit of incorporating muscle memory into reviews. There's no intrinsic ‘native’ writing style. If you want to caution against certain learning techniques or encourage certain writing styles, that's another matter.

Anyway, on cursive, ironically I've recently started using cursive fonts for my tablet handwriting recognition (e.g. I write in Windows Journal and if/when I convert it using handwriting recognition I use a fancy font).

Speaking of Windows Journal, worth repeating again that it comes with 原稿用紙 templates.

Last edited by nest0r (2011 March 28, 6:48 am)

pudding cat wrote:

That essentially is cursive isn't it?  Joining up your letters so your pen doesn't leave the page.  Maybe some people here mean more like 'copperplate' handwriting when they say cursive?

Nah, I think nowadays the term cursive refers to the more recent form of handwriting taught in schools.  Recent compared to Copperplate or roundhand, or Spencerian, which are regarded more as calligraphy nowadays, although I think these were taught in school a loooooong time ago using dip pens and nibs.

The hybrid type of handwriting that has been mentioned is commonly referred to as italic cursive.  This is different from the more formal cursive style of handwriting that is fast disappearing from US school curricula.  Because one does not lift the pen during the strokes, this is an efficient style of writing.

nest0r wrote:

Practicing writing Japanese will result in handwriting that can't be differentiated from the average Japanese writer. This is a fact.

It's not a fact. It's your opinion, grounded in your experience, (and likely tied to your own opinion of the legibility of your own writing).

My opinion differs because I simply cannot stand reading English written by Japanese people who spent years learning to write it. And Japanese have told me the same thing many times, about reading Japanese written by foreigners. Not written by me, but by people who live and work with them in Japan, and whom they are culturally forbidden from criticizing, especially when it comes to foreigners in their workplace who have made some attempt to learn Japanese especially written Japanese.

If people spend six years learning to write a language cannot master 26 characters and make them native looking, then it is less likely that we foreigners who are not in school are going to learn to write 104 characters, plus 3500 characters in native fashion.

Neat? Sure. Easy to read? Not likely.

Of course there are some who manage it, but adults spend little time hand writing anything, and far far less time (read as none in this case) hand writing with critical evaluation. If you spend hours practicing by yourself you will develop a consistent style, certainly, but it will not be a native (i.e. easily legible to native speakers) style.

I know a number of native English speakers with awful handwriting, so I still don't see your point...

I've never seen a non Chinese or Korean foreigner learn to write kanji that didn't look like an awkard Japanese 10 year-old's handwriting.

Including me.

Last edited by kitakitsune (2011 March 28, 7:23 am)

kapalama wrote:

My opinion differs because I simply cannot stand reading English written by Japanese people who spent years learning to write it. And Japanese have told me the same thing many times, about reading Japanese written by foreigners. Not written by me, but by people who live and work with them in Japan, and whom they are culturally forbidden from criticizing, especially when it comes to foreigners in their workplace who have made some attempt to learn Japanese especially written Japanese.

If people spend six years learning to write a language cannot master 26 characters and make them native looking, then it is less likely that we foreigners who are not in school are going to learn to write 104 characters, plus 3500 characters in native fashion.

When you write stuff like this, it makes it really hard to take you seriously.

I've corrected thousands of English essays written by Japanese, and they're extremely easy to read.  It generally looks like the native handwriting of a neat American (I have a bunch of old English assignments in front of me as we speak). The only ones that are hard to read are really low level students who hate English, and therefore purposely aren't putting any effort in and just write scribbles (they write like that in Japanese too).

On the other hand, I've had lots and lots of German exchange students, who I also teach English to.  And I often can't read what the hell they are writing at all.  I also often have to read their work even for classes of theirs I'm not teaching, because the other teachers can't read them AT ALL.  They write a lot like native English speakers--messy!

If you think Japanese writing of the roman alphabet is harder to read than the handwriting of people who use the roman alphabet in their native language, you are 100% wrong.  The only possible argument you could make for them not looking native is that native writing is harder to read because it is usually more messy.  There are a lot of non-handwriting mistakes that can make Japanese English annoying to read (not understanding paragraphs, going down a line after every sentence, etc), but that's not what we're talking about.

I also don't believe for a minute that many Japanese people have told you that about reading foreigner's Japanese.  I'm guessing somewhere around ONE person told you that, if anyone did at all.  For one thing, apart from Japanese teachers, it's not like a lot of Japanese get a chance to see foreigners' handwriting.  But, I could be wrong, so enlighten us--just how many people told you this, and why have they seen so much foreign handwriting?

kapalama wrote:

'Neater' does not mean native looking. Most foreigners write Kanji that is 'neater' than native writers that is also extremely hard for natives to read (misshapen), since what they read is written by native speakers. Same for hiragana/katakana.

I don't understand what you mean by writing being neater but misshapen.  If it's misshapen then can it still be classed as 'neat'?

Last edited by pudding cat (2011 March 28, 8:57 am)

nest0r wrote:

I think hybrid forms of cursive and print are the most common, across the board. I rarely see printed, individually separate letters, except on some official forms or tests that are scanned by computers or somesuch.

Definitely.  For English I use a print/cursive hybrid that can range from virtually unreadable even by myself, to neat enough for most people to see.  It's been years since I've used "real" cursive of the type we learned in grade school.

Responding to another poster, it's not necessarily the case that knowing the stroke order will automatically lead to native-like cursive as the picture earlier in the thread.  Even natives have to study that sort of writing to do it "correctly".  In particular, the top left part of 警 and the way the 言 is written itself definitely are related to the stroke order, but it's certainly not the case that any person (native or not) would naturally come up with those exact forms of abbreviation.

I've developed a sort of cursive way of writing characters that I use for my own purposes (i.e. taking research notes and such), but multiple native speakers have told me that they don't like the way it looks and it's not the same as the cursive they use (although it does follow the stroke order).  It's not something I'm overly concerned about, though, because I hardly ever have to write things in Japanese by hand for other people to read.  The short notes that I do have to write aren't that long and I don't need to write cursive for that.

Last edited by yudantaiteki (2011 March 28, 9:59 am)

Would anybody recommend practicing this type of "native looking" script early in the process of learning kanji, i.e. while studying RTK1? Is the "Yamasa" cursive script reproduced in one of the first posts in this thread possibly a good reference for that purpose? Or can someone suggest a better one?
To me, the proposed "abbreviated" form of 警 does not look straightforward at all : in particular, it does not seem to follow, even in a subliminal way, the recommended stroke order for the "flower" radical.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind wanting to have the handwriting of a native speaker in any language.  If you follow stroke order and write nicely sure maybe your handwriting will stand out, but why is that a bad thing?  It will likely be far more legible than anything said natives write themselves.

I think foreigners learning a language actually have an advantage when it comes to handwriting.  You may not have native handwriting and what have you, but it will probably be easier to read.

I mean honestly the handwriting of most people I know, including my own in English is rather terrible.  There's nothing very impressive about native looking handwriting.  It can sometimes be very difficult to read the handwriting of another native who wasn't taking the time to make things look nice.

jmignot wrote:

Would anybody recommend practicing this type of "native looking" script early in the process of learning kanji, i.e. while studying RTK1? Is the "Yamasa" cursive script reproduced in one of the first posts in this thread possibly a good reference for that purpose? Or can someone suggest a better one?
To me, the proposed "abbreviated" form of 警 does not look straightforward at all : in particular, it does not seem to follow, even in a subliminal way, the recommended stroke order for the "flower" radical.

I wouldn't touch the abbreviations until you've got the proper stroke order drilled into your head. Wait until all your RTK cards are mature or something, and then maybe start thinking about it.