Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.
I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.
It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.
Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").
> its meaning is in the minds of the participants
Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.
> entirely insufficient to justify its use
Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.
