|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
It would sure help to have some samples of words and sentences using the script. And I don't mean someone's hastily written note--I mean the sort of words you get from a textbook, the most "correct" form, from which you can learn to ease up and develop your own natural form. Kilyle 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Here I am almost exactly ten years later with the same as-yet-unfulfilled request. Even for readers who are not trying to learn to write cursive Hebrew, it would be very useful just to see what it looks like. All we ever see in the news, movies and other media is the square letters.
- That's sort of a basic function of an encyclopedia, isn't it—to show people what unfamiliar things look like? As of today, the ONLY example shown here is some person's 400-year-old signature. Can't someone who fluently writes cursive Hebrew scribble off a sentence or two just to show us curious aliens what it looks like? And, unlike Kilyle, I'd be delighted to see "someone's hastily written note", as long as it's clearly identified as such.
- A variety of samples of the same sentence, each labeled with its relative formality—like "so clear that anyone could read it", "scribbly enough that only my friends can read it easily", "nobody can read this but me" (like a doctor's writing on a prescription form)—would be ideal as far as I'm concerned.
- Thanks! —18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
easier to learn?
The article states that the cursive form "is arguably easier to learn and faster to write than the traditional Hebrew script." It may well be faster to write, but I don't think it's easier to learn at all. I recently visited Israel, and had not had any prior training in Hebrew. I found that I was able to learn to read the print letters fairly well in just couple weeks, but the cursive was much harder. The print has very clearly distinct characters - usually with sharp angles, whereas the cursive consists of a whole bunch of curves and the letters end up looking much more similar to each other - as with the Arabic script. While the curvy stuff may be faster to write and more visually attractive, I think most people would find the block-letter form of the alphabet easier to learn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The standardized form is not standard at all, currently, there are variations between american religious script, israeli religious script, and israeli secular script; some people still use the 19th century german script.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Print is easier to learn and understand, and that's what is taught at first. Later you learn cursive, which may vary greatly from one writer to another. Print uses mostly straight rigid lines and there isn't much room for change.
Print: http://www.matzpen.org/data%5Cgilyonot%5Cfront-page68-big.JPG http://www.tau.ac.il/~stoledo/fonts/articles_oron_files/image011.gif Cursive: http://www.ort.org.il/zohara/img/amana.jpg But the cursive writing is badly scanned and even me, a native hebrew speaker is having trouble reading it. This is more readable but larger: http://www.nrg.co.il/images/news1/sela.jpg Print takes time and attention to write. Cursive gives a lot of freedom to the writer which means making it harder to read sometimes. Of course at first you learn a rigid form of cursive, but as you'll use it yourself your writing will change. The best examples of too warped cursive writing are notes from doctors or teachers... --188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to extend the material in the article on Yiddish orthography with material on calligraphic practice but wonder if it might not be more appropriate to place that material in the article here instead. Before proceeding, though, I'm curious about the repeated references to Ashkenazi cursive as German. The central locus of the script community shifted to Eastern Europe quite a long time ago, and resided firmly there until well into the 20th century. Its development during that period is an attribute of Yiddish, not German, linguistic identity. Although German sources that cling to the notion of Yiddish as a dialectic can readily be found, the editorial consensus in the Wikipedia, as well as in mainstream linguistic discourse, appears to have rejected that notion rather soundly — as certainly is done in the Wikipedia articles relating to Yiddish. Would there be any objection to my shifting the historiographic perspective of this article in the same direction, and then adding substantive material about orthographic detail specific to the cursive representation of Yiddish? --Futhark|Talk 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the bottom of the page, you might notice that the bulk of this article was taken from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (which is now in the public domain). I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about doing, so could you care to explain again. How would Yiddish curisve or Ashkenazi Hebrew cursive be different, wouldn't they have deveolped in parallel? Hebrew and Yiddish are the same script. And what do you you want to shift in the article's historiographic perspective? Epson291 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
History-?- And possible relation to Arabic?
Perhaps I mislabeled that heading. The first few sentences of the History section need to be verified, as the reference to Venosa leads to an article that also does not cite the reference to present Hebrew inscriptions (or said inscriptions being in cursive). Additionally, I am wondering if anyone knows the actual evolution of the Cursive Hebrew Alef. I posed this question on the article for Hamza after removing a citation (improperly) claiming that hamza incontestably derives from the Arabic Ayin.
Since I learned Hebrew as a kid, before I learned Arabic, it has always struck me that hamza's general phonetic and orthographic attachments to alef in Arabic made me think that perhaps the cursive alef (in Hebrew) is related. Think of it another way, the Arabic alef is a straight vertical line. The hamza is an often attached semicircular structure with a little line going diagonally right (usually). The actual evolution of hamza as distinct is related to a complex series of Arabic 'blips,' but the shape itself does not have as clear an origin. I have never seen the relation between the cursive alef and the print alef (in Hebrew), so does anyone know where the shape actually comes from?
Is there any reason why it is necessary to provide two tables illustrating the contemporary script, and if there is, why the one is presented at the outset of the article and the other at its conclusion? The two handwriting samples don't illustrate more than normal individual variation. The fact that there is such variation in everyday practice goes almost without saying but if words to that effect were added, nonetheless, I think that the article would become clearer if the first table were replaced by the second, and the section headed "Modern Table" then removed. Unless anyone objects to that in the next few days I'll make the edit. --Futhark|Talk 09:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)