[This case] “etymology shows this usage of the word is acceptable”
[Typically] “language change shows the usage of that other word is also acceptable”
IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).
I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if $vegetable milk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.
It’s more like
IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).
I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if
$vegetablemilk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.Just my two cents.