Thread:Valeth/@comment-30314236-20181006182108/@comment-34364075-20181013193741

EnderShadowr215 wrote: >Using head canon to justify what they think the word means.

Just like to point out all the words that made in the past and in the present (as well as the future) still has meaning. Not all of them has multiple meanings, but we still give them meaning of what those words meant based on what we describe of something that has been done like vaporization or condensation being one of those scientifc terms.

Also that is a very odd way to interpret the meaning of the word "cameo" when it comes to a informal or even formal setting for that matter. I'm not using headcanon to justify anything.

I have never challenged that your definition of cameo is wrong, nor did I say that my interpretation of the word is the correct one.

What I did say was the word 'cameo' has been used as substitutes for the words 'short videos' or 'advertisements' which requires no justification, since it's a fact that some people do use the word that way.

Whether it's an odd way to use the word or not, is none of my concern. Language is a thing that evolves over time with or without official consensus. If a reasonable amount of people have coloquially invented a different meaning for certain words that don't exactly match dictionary definitions, I'm taking it as a valid way to use that word. As long as it's not in a formal setting ofc.