Traditionally, “victima” est animal quod interfectum est ad deorum gloriam, sed nunc non loquimus lingua Latina. Verba ab illo tempore multo mutata sunt.
Ah, sorry, I was using the words in the traditional way.
You actually do have a point about the word’s original, literal meaning, and its misappropriation. Only, you’re several centuries late. Back then, it was anthropomorphic hyperbole. But back then, people probably agreed that natural disasters were indeed acts of God with quite some agency behind them.
So you suggest we use the word “casuality” instead?
Literally, “casus” means a fall. As in, the act of falling down. A bit later, it started to take on the additional meaning of “chance”, and the word “casualiter” was made up to mean “accidentally” or “fortuitously”.
So, “casuality” basically means “accidentality”. Being hit by a meteor certainly has a high degree of accidentality about it, but I’m sure you would agree that this word describes the event which is accidental, not the person* who suffers** from the accident. Applying that word to a person is very dehumanizing.
The only way for a smart and educated person to escape all the misused words and misplaced connotations of modern language is to switch to the most ancient language you can find, so that all possible earlier meanings of your words are safely forgotten.
* person: A theater mask. Often interpreted as per+sonare “to sound through”. Applying that to a human being means accusing them of being false and hiding their true character. Not nice.
** suffer: contains “ferre”, to carry. This time, you’re flattering the accident victims by implying that they manage to bear their burden and do not succumb to it.
