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).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:30 EDT