If I describe myself as an agnostic it is with the intention of stating that I believe that we cannot know. This goes beyond the common definition.
Does it? I thought Huxley said that the answer to the question "Who is this God person anyway?" was both unknown and unknowable I am, of course, speaking from my usual position of semi-ignorance, and am therefore likely to be wildly off-base, but since it was my understanding that he (Huxley that is, not God) "coined" agnostic, his definition should have primacy. Strictly my $0.02

More generally, I cannot agree with FF's other person if op is saying that words cannot change meaning and even diverge radically from their original meanings. One only need cite silly and nice to prove the point.
When I read the thread title, before reading its content, I thought of these two words first