At 09:29 +0200 2003-10-19, Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
>We have received a request to add an ISO 639 alpha-3 identifier for Klingon.

Good.

>Please see http://www.kli.org/ for inside information. We are talking about
>an "invented language" (although I suppose we will classify it as an
>"artificial language").

Håvard, of course there is no difference.

>A sufficient number of documents seem to exist. But I still think that we
>have a case where we need to discuss other criteria.

Why? There are grammars and dictionaries of this
language published. There are audio tapes
published for learners. There is at least one
journal which publishes about and in the
language, and a number of monographs. In
addition, there is a not-insignificant web
presence.

>If 50 people get together and invent a language,
>and each write one document in the language; do
>we register it?

Marc Okrand invented the language.

>This language has not "native speakers"

Neither does Sanskrit. Cornish doesn't either,
though there are some who learn it very young
indeed.

>(50 native speakers and 50 documents, and I
>wouldn't hesitate at all). It has also not been
>developed as an artificial language for the
>purpose of international communication.

That is not a specified criterion for assigning a
code to an artificial language.

>The language was developed for a film.

So?

>It may be a "good" invented language. Is that a criterion?

Of course the Klingon language should be given a
code. It is more worthy of one than Volapük.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com