That dictionary only records the fact that most English speakers now use the word "macro" incorrectly, which was my point, because they do not know Ancient Greek and they follow some previous English speakers who also did not know Ancient Greek, but that did not stop them to use a Greek word they thought as sounding fancy and whose meaning they attempted to guess, without bothering to look in a dictionary, so they have guessed wrong.
This incorrect use of "macro" in English appears to have started in the second half of the 19th century, when the study of the classical languages in school was already in regression.
The funny thing about prescriptivists is that they don't have a consistent story or makes arbitrary choices.
I don't know any Greek or non-English European languages, but assuming what you said is accurate:
> ("macro" is cognate with words from other European languages which mean slim/slender/thin/lean, only in Ancient Greek its meaning has shifted from "slim" to "long", replacing the older word for "long", "dolicho").
> most English speakers now use the word "macro" incorrectly, which was my point, because they do not know Ancient Greek
Given that the Ancient Greek meaning is not the "original" meaning anyway, is there a reason to assume that the Ancient Greek usage is "correct" and modern English is "wrong"? How long do we have to go back in time, given that most of us don't have time machines?
Also, why would you draw the line between using existing "wrongly constructed" words and creating them? Aren't using words part of the creation process? Why don't you create alternate versions of words that are more correct? Wouldn't you say that those who allegedly created "wrong" words have the same consideration as you do (i.e. if they used the "correct" way to construct new words nobody would understand them)?
Like everybody else, I also have to use the words with their current meaning, so I use frequently words like "macroinstruction", possibly abbreviated to "macro", or "macroprocessor".
That does not mean that one should not be aware that the creation of such words was based on laziness and ignorance and one should not coin any new words of this series.
> That does not mean that one should not be aware that the creation of such words was based on laziness and ignorance and one should not coin any new words of this series.
You say this, and yet you are writing English and not Proto-Indo-European. Curious!
That approach seems overly prescriptive and is certainly overkill for creation and day-to-day use of non-critical words. For a word to be used widely, it has to go through a process of adoption.
Individuals around the world are still mostly allowed to use (or not) any word they choose. It may look like patchwork to you, but the importance of etymology of a word takes a backseat to its ability to successfully convey meaning.
Language is a living thing, so it's in a constant state of change. A certain class of linguists would even go so far as to say there can be no incorrect use of words :)
This incorrect use of "macro" in English appears to have started in the second half of the 19th century, when the study of the classical languages in school was already in regression.