Loporrits quest title incorrect

[VelKallor]

That is, multiple and varied sources show that a word is in regular use and has staying power. If you have never heard the word parasital used in context, that's fine. However, the grammarians at Merriam-Webster have heard it in context. Many times. Enough to judge that it is an established, current, and meaningful inclusion in the language.

Noted and rejected, the proper usage of the word as defined specifically by the RACGP is the final word on the matter. You are free, of course, to argue the proper terminology as defined by the foremost medical authority.

Discussion OVER.

[Rongway]

Noted and rejected, the proper usage of the word as defined specifically by the RACGP is the final word on the matter. You are free, of course, to argue the proper terminology as defined by the foremost medical authority.

Discussion OVER.

No, it's not.

Authorities on medicine are not authorities on actual language use. They can prescribe terms all they want; it is up to people to choose whether they follow those prescriptions or not. As I have said and as you have ignored, descriptive grammarians keep track of how real people use language in real contexts. As much as I may cringe at other people's use of "a bicep" to mean the biceps muscle of a single arm, it is in widespread use and my insistence that a single example of that particular arm muscle is "a biceps" does not erase that, no matter how many medical authorities I may cite supporting that. Or when laypeople use "muscle tone" to describe the external visual leanness around a muscle rather than the muscle's baseline resting contraction. Anyone with any formal training in exercise physiology will tell you laypeople are using the term "muscle tone" wrong, but good luck dictating that it must be stricken from everyone's vocabulary.

You are caught up in being prescriptive and authoritarian, which is the absolute worst approach to grammar.