This statement of yours is so apparently false that it borders on the dishonest to propose it.
Here’s where I get to “come on” you back. This purported implication is a false construct. For 100 years, the official title was “of the Supreme Court” and for 100 years, the official title is “of the United States.” The job is exactly the same and the change in terminology implies no functional change at all. There is absolutely no such implication as you suggest, and common usage supports the notion that the two phrases are exactly equal in meaning. One phrase is merely the current official title, while the other is used informally. It’s conceivable that things may change again.
When I was growing up there was a country whose official name in English was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was often referred to by informal variants, like “Soviet Russia,” or “Russia.” These names were not the official names, but they were commonly used by people at all levels of society in all kinds of positions, even official ones. Would you have gone around correcting people all the time?
Here’s another example – Since 1947, municipal and state governments in India have made a lot of official changes to names of geographical entities, particularly names of streets and cities. There are hundreds of such instances, but just for illustration, in 1947, Benaras was officially renamed Varanasi; in 1995, Bombay was officially renamed Mumbai; in 2001, Calcutta was officially renamed Kolkata. But millions of people continue to use the old names, in the case of Varanasi, more than 60 years on. In Varanasi, nobody will blink if you refer to it as Benaras. Someone who continually went around correcting everyone would be seen as a weirdo.
Yes, exactly right. Why do you think I keep going around and around with you? My life is built on language and words, as a hobby and as a profession. I’m not a linguist, but I am a writer and editor and language is important to me. Words mean something, no question. And my focus is on the word “incorrect” here. The law does not get to decide what is “correct” in language. That’s not how language works.
There’s ignorance and there’s ignorance.
If you had merely said. “You know, even though most people say X, the official title is Y,” that’s fighting ignorance.
But saying, “X is incorrect.” Is contributing a new flavor of ignorance to the mix. Words have meaning, but they also have multiple meanings, and the meanings change according to context.
It’s like people who just have to comment when a chimpanzee is referred to as a monkey or if someone uses the phrase “koala bear.” “You know, a chimpanzee isn’t a monkey; it’s an ape.” “You know, a koala isn’t a bear.” It’s using one kind of knowledge (knowledge of zoological classifications) to spread a different kind of ignorance (regarding the meanings of words in informal usage). The first kind of knowledge does not apply in the latter context. It’s the same as knowledge of official titles.
These cases are not equivalent. In the case of the chief justice, you have loads of evidence in support of the nonofficial usage: (1) Functional equivalence of the meanings of the terms, (2) Past official sanction of the term you disfavor, and (3) nearly continuous usage by the majority of the people of the term you disfavor.
Common usage makes a huge difference. Yes, language is important and words are important. But context is important to language.