From: "Tim Starling"
SIL seems to have little time for constructed
languages, listing only
three. ISO 639-2, on the other hand, has a policy allowing any language
with more than 50 documents to obtain a code. Hence, Klingon is included
in ISO's short list, but not in SIL's much longer one.
My proposal is to automatically allow any language considered one of
SIL's main languages, and to only seek community approval when it is not
listed. I think we should largely ignore the ISO list.
Hi Tim,
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.
The Ethnologue list is definitely flawed and
worse as a resource in this respect than the
use of ISO codes.
With regards,
Jay B.