Reasonable, but if you have conclusions that refer to meaning A and meaning B is now dominant, your conclusions may be false.
For instance, let's say "begging the question" is a logical fallacy and we're in the universe where it refers to the circular argument fallacy. Fallacious arguments are bad and so we can dismiss an argument that relies on this.
Now, let's say over time "begging the question" means "the question begs asking". If we still act as if "that begs the question" means "that is a fallacious argument" then the shift in meaning has made us reach incorrect conclusions.
That is, if meaning shifts, you must bust your cache on conclusions that follow out from the original meaning.
>That is, if meaning shifts, you must bust your cache on conclusions that follow out from the original meaning.
Certainly. But most of the time the problem is not people that have a "stale case", but that know perfectly well what the new meaning is, but are opposed to others using the word in that sense for ideological or pedantic reasons.
I mean, nobody really thinks "I'm literally dead from exhaustion" means I'm actually dead. They know perfectly well what it means, and have no meaning-cache issue. They just want to be pedantic...
I felt like this was a case of that. i.e. imposter syndrome is the narrow zone of lack-of-self-confidence-in-the-face-of-counteracting-evidence. i.e. you score 40 points a game but you don't believe you're actually a good basketball player.
My lack of confidence at playing recreational basketball, on the other hand, is fairly well-founded. It does have a basis and I will probably succeed better if I focus on building my game. I'm bottlenecking on skill.
The 40-point-guy, on the other hand, is not going to get any better if he focuses on improving his game. He's bottlenecking on confidence.
On the gripping hand, though, you're right in that this case seems to have just been a prescriptivist speaking and personally I usually find terminology-discussions boring, so I'm horrified to have found myself having participated in one on the side of prolonging. I'll leave the previous bit in just because it's a thought I already wrote.
For instance, let's say "begging the question" is a logical fallacy and we're in the universe where it refers to the circular argument fallacy. Fallacious arguments are bad and so we can dismiss an argument that relies on this.
Now, let's say over time "begging the question" means "the question begs asking". If we still act as if "that begs the question" means "that is a fallacious argument" then the shift in meaning has made us reach incorrect conclusions.
That is, if meaning shifts, you must bust your cache on conclusions that follow out from the original meaning.