Words don’t work this way. They more often than not have multiple, somewhat overlapping, meanings. For example, Wiktionary lists five meanings for the word, when it comes to quadrupeds:
- (strictly) An adult female of the species Bos taurus, especially one that has calved.
- (loosely or informal) Any member of the species Bos taurus regardless of sex or age, including bulls and calves.
- (uncommon) Beef: the meat of cattle as food.
- (uncommon) Any bovines or bovids generally, including yaks, buffalo, etc.
- (biology) A female member of other large species of mammal, including the bovines, moose, whales, seals, hippos, rhinos, manatees, and elephants.
You’re likely referring to meaning #4 or #5, but keep in mind that #1 is the most common and #2 is likely the original one (due to the cognates).
See in number 2, where it says loosely or informal?
That means, “people have said this wrong for so long, that some may become argumentative if you try to tell them it’s wrong.”
Kind of like how literally, literally means literally, but it was funny to say literally when you meant figuratively, so literally literally is literally literally figuratively literally. Literally.
“Loosely or informal” solely means that it’s associated with an informal register, specially in contrast with #1. Any claim past is assumption.
“Wrong” is relative. Which is the standard/reference that you’re using for contrast? Your own usage?
And odds are that #2 is the original meaning. It isn’t like “people suddenly started to refer to Bos taurus regardless of sex”, it’s more like “people have been using it with this meaning for thousands of years”. #1 (the more common meaning) is likely the result of semantic narrowing, and #5 (the one that you’re defending as “correct”) is probably fairly recent. None of those meanings should be seen as “incorrect”, but picking on a meaning that backtracks all the way into Proto-Indo-European is extremely obtuse. (And no, the situation is nothing like the one for “literally”.)
