slang (was Re: Phat [was Re: gay/ghey/ghay])

[Amorelli]

> well, yes, there's a problem.  the solution is either to use "slang" as
> a technical term, but explain very carefully what it embraces, or to
> adopt some fresh label.  the first solution, the one almost everyone
> adopts, will mislead some people, who will complain that slang words X,
> Y, and Z are not in dictionary but should be (even though they're
> excluded by your definition).  the second solution has the minus of
> strangeness, opacity.  either solution will work if you're addressing
> an audience of specialists -- mathematics get away with both major
> wrenchings of ordinary vocabulary and flagrant innovations, but that's
> because they're usually addressing other mathematicians, or people who
> propose to learn some mathematics -- but both are troublesome when the
> audience has lots of nonspecialists in it.
>
> arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)

Or use something like the 'Broad' definition (used for Australian speech)
when indicating usage outside of the technical which would have the
advantage of indicating the lower register, and keeping 'jargon' to indicate
in-house usage? We'd have to use it in fixed collocations tho': Cockney
Rhyming Broad just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Maria Immacolata Amorelli