> Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others Just as you're impos

> Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others Just as you're imposing your specific formulation? > Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out I would very surprised if "homeless" as a term were not used orders of magnitude more than "houseless". The standard term quite simply is "homeless". You (and your acquaintance) are the ones fighting the language. You may win and your terminology may become standard, but language has hardly evolved to the point where the people using the (supposedly) old terminology are fighting the tide. That said I find your acquaintance's position interesting. I don't, however, think that saying "houseless" instead of "homeless" is making the "language to be more accurate". "Home" has multiple meanings. With one of them your acquaintance is unquestionably "homeless" while with the other she is not. For what it's worth, I consider homeless people as members of the community and that the city is just as much their home as it is mine. I don't find the multiple meanings all that confusing.