[carlosjobim]

No, there's an original and correct meaning. Just because a majority might be wrong, doesn't make them right.

[compiler-guy]

Language evolves. Historical meaning can inform our understanding of modern usage but doesn’t dictate or govern it.

Linguists call this “semantic drift” and it occurs in every language we know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Wikipedias first English example is:

Awful – Literally "full of awe", originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)", hence "impressive". In contemporary usage, the word means "extremely bad".

[jerf]

Possibly even more directly, the etymological fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

[carlosjobim]

Just because we can - and should - understand what people mean when they use words wrongly, doesn't mean that words don't have correct meanings. That makes the world poorer, for no benefit at all.

[sumeno]

Why aren't you responding in Old English then? Surely that would be more correct since it is closer to the origin

[carlosjobim]

Why aren't you busy burning old manuscript and books, since they don't conform to your "new meaning" of words?

[compiler-guy]

Because one of the principles involved here is that language evolves. Old books using old meanings are perfectly fine--in fact, it's to be expected.

It's the purists who believe that original meanings are the only possibly correct ones that need to stick to old English. Or perhaps even old Norse.