I think the reason for the semantics comes from the assertion that increasing the money supply always correlates (usually argued as causes) price increases. In

I think the reason for the semantics comes from the assertion that increasing the money supply always correlates (usually argued as causes) price increases. In one of your quotes "inexorable consequence". Are there examples of people talking about money supply inflation where they aren't bringing up price at all? I mean, the argument that I'm making is that nobody cares at all about money supply in itself, they only care about the consequences. So, it makes sense that the language evolved to focus on the actual issue that matters. The assertion that the connotation is "utterly confusing and misleading" seems quite hyperbolic. And the assertions about "inexorable consequence" and so on are similarly extreme in their overconfidence. At any rate, given that price index and such is very clearly the case now (as in the government link I posted earlier), I will stick to my assertion that today it does mean price increases. But I am willing to qualify that and acknowledge that it's not a universal or historically consistent meaning.