Here’s a problem with redefining words. In astanga style yoga, one of the sayings is repeated in every book and print out containing the astanga primary series or others. It says, “Yogi, never do yoga without Vinyasa”. This is said by a famous yogi from the past. In the astanga context, what this means is that, do any number of jump thru’s. Jump thru’s are what is defined is Vinyasa, which is totally wrong from the actual meaning of doing asanas in a proper sequence. So, redefining something classic is not to be taken slightly.

So, for such a student to go about changing classic definitions is unacceptable. If anyone else had done it, it is ok. I can attribute it to limited knowledge or ignorance. But, not PJ, having known and studied with the source of it all.

I agree with you that languages change over time.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=vinyaasa&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

From the meaning of the word, it is clear that when applied to Yoga, vinyasa means a sequence of asanas, rather like a symphony is composed of individual movements and instruments. However, all living languages change and evolve. The evolution may not be in a direction that one likes, but change is better than stasis, which for languages no less than organisms, means death. A few decades from now, given that more Westerners practise Yoga than Indians, it’s possible that vinyasa will mean whatever uber-McYogi Bikram says it means. The narrative of a practice is shaped by its practitioners, and sadly, today the likes of Bikram shape the narrative for Yoga.