I know that varies by region, but schoolchildren are generally taught cursive as a faster way to write. It already requires some memorisation with some glyphs being different from block letters. Why not make an additional step and completely replace it with shorthand, making writing an order of magnitude faster?
The other argument for learning cursive is A LOT of historical documents have been written in cursive. Not teaching someone cursive means their literacy becomes handicapped.
I guess the same could be said for shorthand.
“Students must learn latin so they can read the bible”
Its in English, not Latin
That’s the Bible?
No, its a historical document that is written in english cursive.
Who were you quoting?
I was quoting religious cultists
for americans yes, it is their holy bible
Id love for you to find an example of a single historical document that is relevant to someone today and hasn’t already been transcribed hundred of times on the internet.
https://www.loc.gov/item/mss351210535/
This is labeled # Frederick Law Olmsted Papers: Speeches and Writings File, 1839-1903; Undated; On religion, fragments
According to wikipedia:
This is why I specified relevant. Just because something was once written down, doesn’t make it worth reading.
That was just the first result after a search. Its going to depend on who is trying to find historical documents, their goal, what they’re researching, who they’re researching, the time period they’re researching, the types of documents they’re researching.
For example, there are a lot of historical documents during the slavery era written by free african americans. The Library of Congress has a lot of it scanned and available as images, but not transcribed into digital text yet.