Regarding the spacing between letters like e to m, n - transforming the upstroke into a left curve - again, you have astutely observed the connector stroke and the spacing issue.
Short curves happen frequently as the connecting strokes between the principle strokes or elements. (These form the upper and lower turns.) Sull states that these turn ratios are too minute to perceive (measure) accurately with the eye and there is a tendency for students to make the turns too broad or by a given measure. He says the aim should be to make them as short as possible with a continuous motion of the pen without cramping the letters (which you have keenly become aware of).
The difference between the e connecting and i connecting is that the loop of the e intrudes into the space between the next letter. Thus there should be an ever so slightly wider curve at the bottom to the next letter. In the example below, you can see Barnes’s spacing difference between the i and e is minuscule and barely perceptible to the naked eye except when analyzed as I’ve done here.
Note in the word gentleman - Barnes was consistent in the spacing for the second two e to m connections, but much wider in the first. Unless you are doing a strict analysis of this, it is barely perceptible to the eye. The joining of letters reflects the speed at which you are writing. The distance will vary between 1 to 1.5 letter widths.
By the way, your spacing is incredibly consistent. Bravo! The spacing is virtually identical which makes it seem a bit too narrow after the e (because of the loop). So you can work on just increasing that space ever so slightly.
It’s so helpful to analyze work like this so thank you for sharing. I know I will be more cognizant of this spacing in my own work going forward.
