"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb:
Yes, I agree that conlangs are the more serious
problem than natural
languages. However, I don't think that there should be no criteria at all
for natural languages. The three criteria that Andre proposed - ISO 639-2,
more than 50 archived documents, or more than 10,000 speakers - seem
reasonable, and would probably kick out most obscure conlangs, while
leaving in legitimate spoken tongues, and dead languages too, if there's a
written record of them (not that I care at all about those, but in the
interest of wikipeace ..).
Actually, I think these might be too inclusive when looking at dead
languages. While I am all for the Latin Wikipedia, and would not mind
a Sanskrit one, Hittite or Sumerian are another matter. Many dead
languages are only in passive use, and to exclude those, I would
like to restrict ourselves to those languages in which (new) documents
have been written within the last 50 years or so.
Andre Engels