I always find these threads really interesting, not because they solve issues of semantics or etymology to anyone's satifaction, but because they reveal that fundamental difference between people who think that there is a need for specific terms to mean the same things to everyone, and people who see it as a load of pedantic nonsense.

I remember when I was at uni (and later teaching my first-year students about essay-writing): a basic academic function is to define your terms. This is key with any specific jargon you may be using, because you need to make sure that the people reading your work understand what you meant by certain words and phrases, and that your meaning is clear.

Some people on Mudcat hate this kind of intellectualisation of the folk process, seeing it as pedantic and limiting. On the other hand, some of the people here are working in an academic, or semi-academic, context. For them in particular, the definition of terms probably matters. They are often looking to the future, and wondering how these things will be categorised and defined in 20 or 50 or 100 years' time, if we can't be bothered to make clear delineations now.

Why does this categorisation matter? Well, from my point of view it's all part of the caretaking process. Folk is a living entity which ought to be evolving and developing all the time, but there is an element of it which requires conservation. This is an academic process. And I think that the people most concerned with terms and definitions are interested in that conservation, and in the legacy we'll be passing on to future generations.

Does that make sense...?