As Andre Engels already made clear, neither the ISO code nor the SIL
list can be taken for granted in all cases, regarding what we actually
look for in their lists. He gave good examples, and so did Tim Starling.
In fact, my opinion on this topic is, that we should use both the ISO
and the SIL when were unsure again whether to allow a certain language
or not. What were the 3 artificial languages on Ethnologue again?
Esperanto, Interlingua and... Europanto or something, I dont remember.
Well, we have a Volapük Wikipedia, to which I and some others even
contribute, from time to time. Volapük is not included in the SIL index
but in the ISO codes. Thatd be a pro.
Thus, if the language can be found in either the ISO or the SIL list, it
has a right to exist. But we should still consider each new language if
there are enough contributors for it. Maybe 3 or 5 could be enough. That
would speak for Klingon as well there is an ISO code (tlh), there are
more than just 3 or 5 contributors, and the vocabulary and grammar is
large enough as well (a fact that in my opinion doesnt really apply for
Sindarin/Quenya, for example). I dont know off-hand which other
constructed languages could be found in the ISO codes (too lazy to look
it up now ;)), but I doubt that there are more fictional languages
besides Klingon.
And Toki Pona is wiki-fied already itd be unfair to remove it now, if
its included in ISO/SIL or not.
Okay, I think you understand my point.
- André