@oralloy,
Quote:It seems to me like you are mainly asking why we can't change the meaning of words to whatever we want them to mean at a given moment. So that was the point that I focused on in my answers.
Not at all. You seem to be under a misunderstanding relating to how language works, and
why a word means a particular thing.
A word means a particular thing because people
commonly agree on it's meaning. But that 'common agreement' varies from place to place (ie. there is not universal agreement on definitions), and time to time (ie definitions evolve over time). Language
definitions evolve and vary.
- When 'gay' it first started to be used as a term for homosexual, some who didn't understand the nature of language would have called it wrong / incorrect / fraudulent use of the word. 'Gay' never used to mean homosexual. It evolved to mean that. It is not 'fraudulent' to use it to mean homosexual, despite it's original definition. It was commonly understood to mean happy...and that common understanding evolved over time to now mean homosexual (and you would get odd looks now, trying to use it to mean happy)
- An Australian in the US saying he liked wearing thongs, would be misunderstood. He/She is using a different definition of the word, but it's not fraudulent, because it's name was commonly agreed upon where he/she came from, but in the US they commonly agreed that it would mean something else.
As mentioned, the nature of changing language is 'common agreement', which is why some words differ from place to place, because common agreement in those places differ. It's why dictionaries differ - because they are trying to define what the common agreement for the word is, and the fact is (shown by their varying definitions), there often isn't universal agreement to all that a word entails.
You are arguing semantics on a technicality. To you it's important one way. To others it's important it be defined another way....there's common agreement in both camps, and they don't agree with each other on technical points. The motivations behind it (what they consider dangerous, or highly problematic, or unacceptable risk) is likely largely behind the different interpretations of the same word, in this case. Arguing who is correct, is then futile, because both camps have common agreement of their camps behind them.
Who will 'win'? Who knows. That's the nature of evolving language. What is fact is that one camp had the power to change the definition legally.
