On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 4:48:43 AM UTC-4, Olivier Morin wrote:
> Dear Peter Daniels,
>
> I happened on this google groups discussion which discusses my paper with Helena Miton, "Graphic complexity in writing systems".
> I would like to attract your attention to the fact that we published our complete dataset, including (obviously), the list of 133 scripts used in this study. This is written in the paper on p. 4: 'Data and R scripts used to produce the results and figures can be found at https://osf.io/9dnj3/ '
> The fact that you missed this seems to suggest you barely skimmed this paper before rushing to dismiss it.
> Regards
> Olivier Morin

Belated welcome to the party, OM. PTD knows something about writing systems..
I do not, as they are largely vision-based, like physical gestures, whereas my interest lies in prehistoric/pre-script verbal communication, specifically Paleo-etymology, (a specialization in Biology, not "Linguistics" per se).
DD

> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 10:28:09 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 10:28:48 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Helena Miton et al, Graphic complexity in writing systems, Cognition (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104771
> > >
> > > Journal information: Cognition
> > >
> > > Provided by Santa Fe Institute
> > >
> > > Phys.org
> > It's not really about writing systems, but about the shapes of characters. It
> > quantifies a variety of obvious observations, and though it says it's based
> > on 133 scripts, it doesn't list them.
> >
> > And it doesn't use the actual shapes, but it manipulates the Unicode shapes
> > which often don't resemble what people actually write.
> >
> > And there are various factual errors -- it excludes Cherokee from its "invented
> > scripts" category because it mistakenly things the shapes of the letters were
> > taken from the Latin alphabet. (The shapes used for printing came along later.)