I don't want to enter a debatte about SIL's attitudes, but I want to
remark, that their database is flawed from the beginning.
Defining `language' as opposed to `dialect' is a very hairy, politically
charged affair anyhow, therefore one should first state criteria of
classification and afterwards try to follow those criteria as best as
possible. However, SIL's definition of `language' is blurred, and they tend
to go too deep into dialects, but not cutting at the same level for all
dialects. It is just a thrown-together pile of information of different
quality, not the product of real reasearch.
For a comprehensive list of languages, one should asked university
linguists (there exist some pretty complete compilations, some continents
and language families are better covered than others).
--J"org Knappen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:30 EDT