I do the same thing, but then I dig down to the etymological roots of the word and question whether even they had the right conceptual framework for what we need. Frequently the answer is no. Clearest example in this case is Capital.

Capital did not begin as an economic term. Its roots lie in the Latin _caput_—head, source, origin. The word shares ancestry with "cattle," and this etymology is revealing.

In agrarian societies, a "head" of cattle represented something more sophisticated than modern accounting captures. The animal was simultaneously:

**Stock**: Physical asset, tangible wealth, something owned

**Velocity**: Transformation engine converting grass into milk, meat, muscle, and more cattle over time

The language carried both components naturally. When someone spoke of their "capital" in cattle, they meant the productive system—both the accumulated animals AND the rate at which those animals generated value through reproduction and yield.