LOL.... "People who redefine words corrupt and destroy history. If you care about such things, then you need to oppose them. If you don't oppose them, you may as well just go burn all the old books, because your descendants won't understand them anyway." Um, have you never done any historical research? Done any studies of sources in another language (maybe even a dead one)?? If you're using your current definition of a word you happen to recognize in much over fifty year old manuscripts, without checking that definition against its usage *within context*, you are not doing research. Nothing remains unchanged for very long, and we make up new stuff (and words to describe it) at a crazy rate. You don't even need to go that far back - most of the slang we were using as teenagers would leave a current one puzzled, at best. Here's the perfect example - US Law. Try reading it. It's crawling with words no one understands, because the legal system has attempted to do exactly what you propose - continue using a 200 year old language, so it can't become "corrupt". Unless you study law (and learn its language), you're lost. Which proves my point - you *must* study the language used within the context of its use, *because* change is inevitable.