The Cursive Capital Q
joetaxpayer
I was in my 3rd grader's class and saw a poster with cursive writing.
The capital 'Q' looked like like an O with a tail at the bottom.
I recall a capital Q looking more like the number 2, and a Google search
confirms this. Is the 'O' style a commom variant? Did it change and I
just missed the memo?
JOE
tony cooper
Web examples of how to form a "Q" in cursive show the "2" form.
However, the "O with a tail" is commonly used in everyday writing. I
would. I'd have to stop and think if I saw the "2" version as a
single letter as, say, an abbreviation for "Quantity".
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
mm
<joeta...@nospam.com> wrote:
I'd have to see these things to be sure, but I thought we used the
first style in 1953. At the vary least, I think we should.
OTOH, my handwriting is so bad, I've printing for the last 30 years,
so I don't really know.
>JOE
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Cece
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:16:04 -0400, joetaxpayer
>
When you remember the capital Q looking like a 2, it's probably Palmer
Cursive, which was the common handwriting taught to children for years
and years. There are other fonts with this shape, but Palmer was
ubiquitous!
Then there were no penmanship classes for quite a while.
Nowadays, Palmer is so old and irrelevant -- or whatever it's called
-- and there are a couple new styles of handwriting that children are
taught. Zaner-Bloser and D'Nealian are, I think, the most common.
Both of them are very like Palmer; in fact, my own personal variety of
Palmer is very close to ZB! Almost the only difference is that I
turned the Q into a circle with a tail, instead of that confusing 2.
A Reason For and McDougal, Littell are also very close to Palmer, but
both have the closed Q. Getty-Dubay also has the closed Q, but is so
far from Palmer that it really isn't even cursive!
Here's a good overview: http://www.zanerbloser.com/
Cece
Pat Durkin
"Cece" <ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190752837.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
I was raised with some form of Palmer, I suppose, at least that was what
I learned in the third and fourth grades. I don't know when I decided
to turn the "2"-styled "Q" into a modified "2", starting with a little
loop at the line, swooping up to upper-case size, and then down, to put
the "2's" tail in a minor size on and below the line, and linking it to
the beginning loop. By that time, I was already printing most of the
upper-case. I don't know why I bothered with the "Q".
Adam Funk
> Nowadays, Palmer is so old and irrelevant -- or whatever it's called
> -- and there are a couple new styles of handwriting that children are
> taught. Zaner-Bloser and D'Nealian are, I think, the most common.
> Both of them are very like Palmer; in fact, my own personal variety of
> Palmer is very close to ZB! Almost the only difference is that I
> turned the Q into a circle with a tail, instead of that confusing 2.
> A Reason For and McDougal, Littell are also very close to Palmer, but
> both have the closed Q. Getty-Dubay also has the closed Q, but is so
> far from Palmer that it really isn't even cursive!
>
> Here's a good overview: http://www.zanerbloser.com/
I'm glad to hear they're not teaching Palmer in the US any more. (I
hated it, especially those stupid things like the 2-Q, and my
resistance to it is probably part of the reason my writing is so bad.
But I have to admit laziness and taking hurried notes didn't help.)
Of the styles on that page, I prefer Getty-Dubay. It looks a bit like
the one I've been trying to use to improve my writing.
--
NO CARRIER
Barbara Bailey
wrote:
Interesting. I looked at that page, and none of them are exactly what
I learned in grade school (around 1966-68). Peterson Directed is the
closest -- was that around then? I always thought that it was Palmer,
but both the capitals F, T, and V are wrong in that one. The capital B
in the Peterson Directed is wrong, though, . The style that we were
taught was used in the spelling books; the words were both printed and
written out n the word lists, and we had to copy the cursive style. It
rather makes me wonder.
Adam Funk
>>> Here's a good overview: http://www.zanerbloser.com/
>>
>>I'm glad to hear they're not teaching Palmer in the US any more. (I
>>hated it, especially those stupid things like the 2-Q, and my
>>resistance to it is probably part of the reason my writing is so bad.
>>But I have to admit laziness and taking hurried notes didn't help.)
>>
>>Of the styles on that page, I prefer Getty-Dubay. It looks a bit like
>>the one I've been trying to use to improve my writing.
>
> Interesting. I looked at that page, and none of them are exactly what
> I learned in grade school (around 1966-68). Peterson Directed is the
> closest -- was that around then? I always thought that it was Palmer,
> but both the capitals F, T, and V are wrong in that one. The capital B
> in the Peterson Directed is wrong, though, . The style that we were
> taught was used in the spelling books; the words were both printed and
> written out n the word lists, and we had to copy the cursive style. It
> rather makes me wonder.
On closer examination, I think what they tried to teach me (in the
mid-70s) was closer to the Harcourt Brace style on that page.
--
"Hey Myron, I'm a lawyer!"
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:16:04 -0400, joetaxpayer
> <joeta...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> This may be slightly off topic, forgive me.
>>
>> I was in my 3rd grader's class and saw a poster with cursive writing.
>> The capital 'Q' looked like like an O with a tail at the bottom.
>> I recall a capital Q looking more like the number 2, and a Google search
>> confirms this. Is the 'O' style a commom variant? Did it change and I
>> just missed the memo?
>
> I'd have to see these things to be sure, but I thought we used the
> first style in 1953. At the vary least, I think we should.
>
All characters vary between typefaces, and the more familiar one
becomes with typography the more different they look -- no one could
mistake a Bembo W with a Baskerville W, for example. In the case of the
Q that looks like a 2 there are certainly some modern typefaces that
use it -- Snell Roundback, Schoolhouse Cursive, Hoefler Text Italic,
for example. These are perhaps not used much for setting long stretches
of text, but Bookman is, and its Q, although not looking like a 2,
still deviates quite a lot from a basic Q.
--
athel
Odysseus
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> All characters vary between typefaces, and the more familiar one
> becomes with typography the more different they look -- no one could
> mistake a Bembo W with a Baskerville W, for example. In the case of the
> Q that looks like a 2 there are certainly some modern typefaces that
> use it -- Snell Roundback, Schoolhouse Cursive, Hoefler Text Italic,
> for example. These are perhaps not used much for setting long stretches
> of text, but Bookman is, and its Q, although not looking like a 2,
> still deviates quite a lot from a basic Q.
I presume you refer to ITC Bookman, with the large backward-pointing
tail on its Q. A "cut" of the font that follows the original 1936 design
more closely (Bitstream's for example, or Monotype's Bookman Old Style)
will have a quite modest and conventional Q.
--
Odysseus
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I certainly met it first in its ITC manifestation, yes, but I checked
yesterday with the version that comes with LaTeX installations (I don't
know if it derives from ITC or not), and saw that it has the Q that I
remembered.
--
athel