One of the great things about the OED is how it allows for the way words change. It's the same thing that makes the English language great ... words can change as ideas and knowledge change. The OED tries to keep up with the language where other dictionaries go out-of-date fairly quickly (you mean "bad" can also mean "good?" ... section IV, definition 12 of the word "bad" in the OED; interestingly it's been in use like this since the late 1800's. And here I thought it was Michael Jackson who made it popular
)
It's a great tool for semanticists and I love the fact that I work at a place that has a subscription to it.
Are we now going to talk about what the OP meant by the word ghost? Would it be wrong of me to infer what the OP meant? I was thinking that we could just use the following interpretation of the word:
8. a. The soul of a deceased person, spoken of as appearing in a visible form, or otherwise manifesting its presence, to the living. (Now the prevailing sense.). The last part of definition 8a is what brought about my inference I'm sure:
now the prevailing sense.
However, I'm an atheist so I don't believe that ghosts exist because I don't believe humans have souls. That doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong at some point.
rb: can you elaborate on your post or at least clarify? Your writing style, while sometimes elegant, makes it difficult [for me] to follow your line of thought.