Congratulations, you've just discovered one major problem in prescriptivist linguistics: it just doesn't work. Words change their meaning over time. Words with

Congratulations, you've just discovered one major problem in prescriptivist linguistics: it just doesn't work. Words change their meaning over time. Words with pretty clear and unambiguous definitions get re-purposed (often initially as a metaphor) or used in fuzzier and more ambiguous ways. This can happen as an import from one cultural context into another (where one use of that word develops entirely differently because there is no or only a small overlap between the population that originally used the word and the one that adopted it) or it can happen as a linear evolution in the same cultural context over time (see the euphemism treadmill). Just as it is impossible to dictate one permanent definition across all cultures sharing (some variety of) the same language, it is also impossible to dictate the same across different sub-cultural jargons, even closely related ones (or even a single one, even if it involves only one person over time). Isomorphic JS is a thing and its definition is unrelated to the definition of isomorphism in mathematics, computer science or anywhere else. And there's nothing you can do about it. Just be happy that the term is relatively unlikely to collide with CS isomorphism because the context will generally make it clear which definition is being used. Other words weren't as lucky and lost their "original" meaning entirely. Prescriptivism in linguistics is dead because linguists learned that it is futile and it's better to observe the actual meaning of words and how it changes than to insist that everybody is wrong about every word they use unless they follow a narrow set of rules derived from Latin (which, by virtue of being a dead language, is less likely to change a lot). If you enjoy battling conflicting definitions, ponder the use of "transparency" in CS and politics some day.