Well, of course, languages do change over time, and I'm well aware of that. And yes, effort spent correcting people who are using a commonly accepted definition may be akin to tilting at windmills. Maybe not.

That said, the use of 'gambrel' is not however a commonly accepted definition outside of vernacular practice. The 2004 Dictionary of Architectural and Building Terms I linked to earlier obviously is not on board with 'common acceptance'.

Further, what you are offering there, the fact that the word has come to be "commonly accepted" (so therefore it shouldn't/can't be changed) is an "appeal to popularity" which is a logical fallacy. Simply because 1) most people approve of X, does not lead to 2.) X is therefore true. That was Ken's position it seemed, or at least my interpretation of it. Yours too Gabel?

Another way of looking at what you're saying is that because the practice of using the word 'Gambrel' is now commonplace, that makes it correct/moral/justified. If so, this forms an "appeal to common practice" and is also a logical fallacy. You're saying, in short, that since "most people do X, therefore X is correct". Most builders use a nail gun, so that is the correct way to frame a house, I suppose?

Finally, one might interpret your statement in terms of 'appeal to belief', another fallacy. Perhaps you are saying "most people believe that X is true, therefore X is true".

These sorts of reasoning, either 'appeal to popularity', or 'appeal to common practice' or 'appeal to belief' are quite common and might be an effective persuasive device, but not on me, not today anyhow. Since most people tend to conform to the view of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get them to accept it. Similar claims in this regard would include, "the world is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "doctors agree that Pall Mall cigarettes are refreshing", "humans can't survive speeds over 25 miles per hour", "Our society has always ridden horses. It would be foolish to start driving cars", and "We've been calling that form of roof a 'Gambrel' for more than 100 years, so therefore that roof is a gambrel and nothing can change that".

I happen to agree, as I said above, with the observation that language changes, and that also includes the possibility that words that have changed might also be able to change again. If you accept the fact of language change, then I can't see how you can object to my efforts to 'engineer' change. Or are you saying that we've had quite enough change now, and that you're planning to cling to the current meaning, thank you very much?

That is my hope with this particular word - change it. I thought if I showed how it had been borrowed wrongly in the first place, that the core meaning of the word meant something quite different than what it is now used for, how the word was defined in the past (1848) in a dictionary, and how authoritative sources now still keep to the correct definition, then maybe a bunch of people who appear to care about 'tradition' (whatever that means), people who might care about the meaning of something in 1850, might see the point. It's not simply some quaint historical curiosity I'm bringing up, nor is it simply some difference in usage between French and English. The word 'gambrel' is of Dutch origin after all.

Some people I've seen, when confronted with information that contradicts something they have come to accept, or have been using without thought, react to the news by covering their ears and loudly singing "la-la-la-la-la" to drown out the information.

So, I'm happy to be in the company of Don Quixote then, and will continue my tilting at windmills - I prefer it to accepting something that is clearly wrong.