Message-Id: <199602071211.HAA26519@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:39:44 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: <polti>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1507

>I think you're trying to co-opt the fun side of slang by trying to "plan" it
>by introducing new words with formal definitions and place structures.
>Slang doesn't and shouldn't work that way.  What you are in fact doing is
>competing in the area of language planning, and calling it "slang" in an
>attempt to fly it under Lojbab's radar.  That's not slang!  Slang comes up
>as humor or poetry in conversation and just kind of sticks -- it can't and
>shouldn't be prescribed.


My you boil one of my long-winded posts down into something admirably brief!


But I agree - my objection was that what he was describing did not seem like
the standard linguistic definition of slang.

And Lojban, post baseline, is supposed to TRY to make a go as a no-longer-
planned language.  The result of that experiment may be a little more
planning, or it may not.  many people hope that we will need no fuirther
formal changes - that slang usages that evolve will be superfluous, and that
the core language will suffice for those who want/need the rigorous machine-
parsable language.

Whatever the controls, there is no constraint that will force people to
speak whatever the machine-parsable dialect is, so there is no point in
trying to rein in usage by the parser.  Or rather, by keeping the parser
fixed for a LONG period of time, those wwho care about being parsable will
avoid usages that are unparsable providing pressure against change of the
sort that older generation native-speakers do for natlangs.

lojbab