We have no right as individuals or as a group to alter that language and those who do get books written about them - have you read 1984?

There is a world of difference between language getting altered by committee or by state dictat and language changes evolving as a result of changes in popular understanding and use of a word or phrase.

The change in the meaning of the word "folk" is a case in point. Ask most people in the UK what they mean by folk and they'll probably come out with some variation on "quiet stuff done on acoustic guitars". They'll probably also link it with singer songwriters and may give examples like "The Times They Are a Changing" or "Streets of London" or "Annie's Song". They'll also probably make a few jokey references to fingers-in-the-ear and hey-nonny-no. They may even come up with something about Irish music.

What they won't have is an understanding to 1954 definition folk (hell, most people in folk clubs don't) or any variant thereof. They won't know about the folk process or the difference between traditional songs and anything else that floats out under the folk banner. and why should they. Counting angels on the head of a pin is seriuosly specialist stuff.

That's because popular use of the word folk is far less specialist than folk music listeners' use of the word folk, which is far less specialist than folk club regulars' use of the word folk, which is far less specialist than '54ers' use of the word folk.

Despite, with some justification, seeing themselves as the guardians of the "true" meaning of the word, the '54ers don't own or control the use of the word any more than anyone else. To presume otherwise is to live with the same confusion as the man who thought he was going for a dance at a "carefree and happy" nightclub.