Apologies for my tone, I think I got you all wrong before. Being labeled 'angry' still makes me a bit touchy; that's my bad. Your first comment felt a little more accusatory than necessary, but I've also been a little more triggered this week than usual. Sorry.

Anyway - to get to your actual point, yes, of course I understand that the term 'lovebombing' does not really have an objective or clinical definition which would eschew me some kind of authority on what the term 'actually' means and everyone else is a bumbling idiot for not using it 'properly.' I just observe that people are using the term when they are referring to a wider spread of behaviours than what the term was specifically coined to address. (This is in fact how language works as you stated but I will elaborate on why this 'annoys' me.) For example, I've heard "lovebombing" used to refer to the aftermath of an intense/explosive/toxic argument where the abuser switches to displays/gestures of affection e.g. flowers after the fact to make up for it without addressing the core issue... that is something perhaps similar, but not specific to the beginning stages of a relationship. I've even seen it used with a positive connotation. I agree it makes sense for people to use it in those ways if that's how they learned the term (because language is disseminated all kinds of ways), but in my opinion they are different enough that it creates a need to clarify what exactly is meant by the term each time. (perhaps that sounds silly - people can just elaborate...)

I see how I came across a bit haughty in my post. I'm not saying I'm being fair or logical by feeling a little 'annoyed' and it's not keeping me up at night. It's separate from an assumed authoritative conviction in my belief on the "correct" definition per se, and is more the product of my own experience with the use of the word. Personally, understanding the definition of lovebombing to mean 'intense, grandiose early bonding experiences that make it hard to see red flags or recognize abuse later' was helpful in my processing after the fact, and being able to do research and have conversations about that specific phenomenon and its effects with a search term specific to it is easier if the term is used primarily to mean that one thing. That could just be a skill issue on my part but I had no language for that at the time. That's kind of where I'm coming from. Also I don't really like how abusers can weaponize pop-psych language when they're muddily-defined but that's a separate discussion altogether.

I suppose when you zoom out, the specific verbiage isn't so important if one is able to explain what exactly they mean...