Re: <polti>

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>Here is where I am coming from:
>
>1. Slang is a vital omnipresent feature of living languages.
>2. Slang serves as an important source of valuable new ideas for accretion
>to the formal structure of a language.
>3. Much slang is mimicry of legitimate constructs in the language.

You forgot:

4. Slang is silly

Slang is the silly side of language evolution; people trying to be funny or
clever or picturesque, while saving themselves a few syllables at the same time.

><slani>  [x1 is a slang/unofficial word/expression/term in language x2
>disapproved by x3] :-)

I would guess that when we see *real* slang evolve in Lojban it'll be things
like:

<sluni> x1 is a russian orthodox church

because someone won't know a good lujvo and will start abbreviating a longer
phrase involving the word "onion".  Techinically it would be correct, if
they were saying "le sluni" and not "lo sluni"!

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.

                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  http://www.quetzal.com
 Boulder, CO          \/   cbogart@quetzal.com

"I used to braid my long, bald hair; then I discovered Nutri-Nair!"