{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015317286652078774, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00437636761487965, 'mean_word_length': 4.903225806451613, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating merit—the evolution of writing reconsidered

This article examines the question whether the merits of a writing system have a bearing on its spreading. While it is well known that the diffusion of writing systems and scripts follows that of religions, empires and other non-linguistic factors, the adoption and reform of a writing system or orthography is invariably promoted on the grounds of systematic merits. Since writing is an artefact it stands to reason that some systems are superior to others. Yet, it is difficult to define an absolute standard of goodness against which different writing systems could be measured and compared. Instead this article raises the question why, if it is true that in the long run quality prevails, after 5000 years of writing a universal visual code for language has not won world-wide recognition. Discussing a variety of examples it offers six partial answers.