Not sure what you are arguing with in my comment because I never said that languages are static; obviously they change. But to pretend that language, as practiced today, is not well defined is absurd. Every part of English grammar and syntax has been methodically systemized, and this information is widely taught in public education programs. Some common set of definitions/rules (may vary by people or region) is conformed to by speakers of the language.
Oh, the police is gonna show up if I verb something that isn't a verb? People only ever use grammatical constructs and vocabulary that they have learned in school?
It is super common for authors to introduce new words or bend the grammar. Again, bloodydamn Shakespeare invented so many new words! Oh, and bloodydamn is such an invented word from a very contemporary and popular book series called the Red Rising series. You don't even need to be high brow to invent new words and get away with it.
I urge you to explore more literature and poetry. There is more to English than what they teach you at school.
> Oh, the police is gonna show up if I verb something that isn't a verb? People only ever use grammatical constructs and vocabulary that they have learned in school?
That's not at all what I said in my comment and I'm not at all refuting your point that languages change and can vary depending on who is using it.
> Every part of English grammar and syntax has been methodically systemized
No, it hasn't. None of it has, ever.
So far, you have been wrong about writing, about human language (specifically, English), about programming languages (specifically, Lisp and Java), about poetry, and about the rules of English and how they're set.
I am intrigued. Is this performance art? What next?