It’s not about what’s better, or more spiritual. It’s about what a thing is and what it’s name evokes.
I agree, it just happens what the name evokes varies a lot between people and contexts. That's why I think prescriptivism on the subject doesn't make sense: as long as there's an understanding of what's being talked about, it matters little if the words don't fit on what you or me would prefer. Sometimes there may not be such understanding, but it's not difficult to disambiguate. It is easier than to attempt to "correct" people, particularly when the one being corrected is already aware of the issue (just to be clear, I'm not referring to you here).
To add some perspective, the popularity of the Quechua name "Ayahuasca" is in itself testimony to this: the name has extended beyond the Quechua-speaking or Quechua-influenced peoples to peoples that didn't use that word at all. In many cases the same has happened with the use of caapi itself, as you know. So appeals to tradition, which I would consider more convincing in other contexts, seem unconvincing to me here.
A vine only brew IS ayahuasca to me.
And that is perfectly fine. Indeed it seems more historically correct to call a caapi brew "Ayahuasca brew" that to call any particularly admixture Ayahuasca. I'm not debating that.
Words don’t have to loose meaning as they cross cultures
They forcefully do, what was called "Ayahuasca" by the Quechua-speaking peoples some hundreds of years ago surely has little to do with any meaning a completely different culture can give to it. Some people think you can transplant a whole concept outside of its original culture, I don't think so. Our understanding of it is forcefully going to be very different. And if what is being labelled can't be transplanted, the label matters little. So to me the name is a minor issue, as long as there's no confusion to what's being talked about.
I do understand and respect your point of view. I just don't share it and find it more practical to make a different use.
I think the best play is to just dismiss the original ayahuasca as an archaic term and redefine it as the synergistic combo of DMT w/ harmine or harmaline (which are the only two harmalas that ever activate it) or herbs that are predominant in those chems
I agree in principle (not with it being archaic, but with it being of limited usefulness outside its original context), but the problem with neologisms is that either they become popular or they make communication harder instead of easier.
So basically, I think that the definition of ayahuasca should be both narrowed to refer to both caapi and DMT
To some people, that's not narrowing but expanding it, as Ayahuasca would be only caapi, with DMT being an admixture from many possible ones. That's why I think it's a fool's errand to try to make everyone converge towards a single definition, it's better to just be aware of the issue, use it as you think more reasonable, and ask whenever there's some ambiguity.
upon hearing the term, (rightfully) associate it with pharmaceutical and assume that one is referring to ℞-activated DMT
Yes, that seems to be a common issue with that term. As you say, it's a confusion that's very much to be expected.
In a way, all oral DMT+MAOI combos are just "oral DMT", as I'm not aware of a way of having active oral DMT that doesn't involve a MAOI. But that name completely ignores the effect of the MAOI, which often tends to be more decisive than the DMT itself.
As I said, I don't see a solution other than being reasonable with each other. Discussions about the "right" word for something IME tend to serve to polarize the participants even more about why their use is the "right" one, and often lack much substance.
