The SIL ethnologue list is quite flawed.
In this respect the ISO codes are more
dependable...
The Ethnologue lists
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=827
Esperanto, Europanto, and Interlingua.
It further mentions that Interlingua is
a language of France...
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=INR
It also claims that Esperanto is a language
of France, and that it has "200 to 2,000 people who
speak it as first language". If so it would be a
natural and non-artificial language for them
wouldn't it, those French native speakers of
Esperanto.... Highly irregular!
The list is flawed, and the fact that they include
"Europanto" is quite a joke, no kidding,
Europanto was a joke language developed
by translators within the EU and only for
amusement. To exclude Volapük which
had at one time hundreds of thousands
of learners and users and still has a small
community of active users is just wrong
if one is going to include "Europanto"
which no one really uses as a community
except joking translators within the
EU Brussels, European Union buildings...
as Ethnologue points out.
We're not interested in language classification, number of native
speakers or country of origin, so I don't really care if there are
errors in that respect. We are not suggesting using the ethnologue as
the only source for our articles on languages. Mistakes in the inclusion
or non-inclusion of languages I'll admit is a more serious issue.
However I did point out that SIL has little time for artificial
languages, so mistakes in this section are hardly suprising.
-- Tim Starling