I think this is just the nature of English. It's not a static defined thing. Words shift over time and concurrently mean different things within different con

I think this is just the nature of English. It's not a static defined thing. Words shift over time and concurrently mean different things within different contexts. One of my favorite examples is "Lord." I'll probably mess up details, since this is from memory, and I'm just going to write the modern English equivalents. It starts with "loaf warden" meaning the person that protects the food for a clan/group/whatever, then associated with the leader of a group, providing protection. Then it's abbreviated to "lord." Then it gets associated with a land owner. That associates it with authority and eventually God. You end up with phrases like "lord over X" being negative and "our Lord and savior" being positive at the same time. Heck, "reside" has different meanings in different sections of some laws, some of which you have to go to precedent to determine. And there's always George Carlin's bit on the F word :). In some contexts "a project" has the very technical meaning you ascribe to it. In others, it's "an effort" or "a body of work." Definitions are derived from usage and not the other way around in this crazy language. Every once in a while rule makers get something to land. Double negatives became "bad" after the renaissance influence of Greek logic, but were frequently used in old and middle English for emphasis. There are examples of quadruple negatives in fancy literature (maybe Chaucer? I can't remember). Each was like negative++.