No, I'm hinting at the potential corruption of language, if not used properly. Sorry for the sarcasm. >An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Anyway, it

No, I'm hinting at the potential corruption of language, if not used properly. Sorry for the sarcasm. >An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Anyway, it's still a good indicator. >Given the wink, you may well know this Indeed, I have no hope of convincing the MW editors here, or correcting what seems to be >A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment. It's not derived. It is the same word given a second meaning. Languages aren't separate entities, they are intertwined and defined by the speakers. In that sense you are right, a word should mean whatever it is intended to mean. Still, it's a loanword and that implies a certain responsibility for the user, as with any loan. I don't see any argument for the necessity of transforming the meaning. I think the transformation is a mutation, coming from ignorant usage and that goes against my grain. Simplification might have merit, but I'm all for generalization. >You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder. What's the reverse of the euphemism treadmill? Apology is suffering it. A proper apology would explain all the reasons for the laws, which are by the way still in action. The focus shouldn't be on acknowledgment, but on correcting the understanding of the situation, to ease any confusion. To my understanding >As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking. Exactly. Therefore words heavily rely on context and the context here was clear. The GGGP demanded an excuse, a justification or most importantly a clear explanation as to why the law has changed. Obviously though, that couldn't be expected, because there is no clear situation, on the federal level it's still illegal, there was no change. That, I think, really requires an explanation. That is a double standard, don't you see a new-speak reference in this?