Linguistics is inherently descriptivist. Words only have meaning due to community consensus. Yes, we have dictionaries to record what the consensus is (or, mor

Linguistics is inherently descriptivist. Words only have meaning due to community consensus. Yes, we have dictionaries to record what the consensus is (or, more accurately, what the consensus was at a particular point in time), but the dictionary cannot predict semantic drift, nor can it adapt with sufficient speed in the modern era of light-speed communication. The dictionary only works because most people who use a given word already use it consistently with how the dictionary describes it. It is not the case that most people learn the word "dog" from the dictionary; the dictionary's definition is "correct" because it aligns with the way people already use the word. If Merriam-Webster published a revised definition stating that a dog is "a large, four-legged creature with wings which breathes fire", people would immediately agree that the dictionary is wrong. It only reflects words as they are used, not words as they must be used. (The Merriam-Webster official Twitter account is adamant in promoting this view of dictionaries, for what it's worth.)