Shouldn’t Rafters Be Roofters And Holster Holdster

It has often been stated that languages are living, breathing things, they are ever evolving, growing and changing to accommodate current trends and needs in a likewise ever-changing world. One needs only to consider the many additions to the English language that arose from increasing computer and particularly Internet usage; reboot, blog and, of course sexting to mention just a few.
I’d like to take this opportunity to put forth some of the ideas regarding the evolution of English I would slip into the “English language Suggestion Box” – assuming of course such a box exists.
First I suggest we start by looking back at some existing words and adapt them.
For instance, considering what it does, a holster should really be a holdster; and given where they are, rafters would more appropriately be called roofters.
While we’re at it, let’s do something about raise and raze; engineers and construction companies can raise a building to scrape the sky, then years later a demolition crew can raze it to the ground. Was there no imagination used at all, couldn’t we have come up with a different sounding word for one of them? Homophones with diametrically opposed meanings – not our best moment.
If the criterion for acceptance as a new word is the number of people saying it I fear we will soon be adding Old-Timers Disease for Alzheimer’s Disease as more and more people erroneously use that term; I trust we won’t succumb to the pressure, but then we did accept fax for facsimile, even including it in respected dictionaries no doubt much to the chagrin of English purists everywhere.
And why don’t we look at some of the current pronunciations? When did it become acceptable to place the emphasis on the second syllable of the word student so that it tends to be pronounced stu-DANT today?
Contractions such as didn’t are supposed to be used to ease the flow of the language from two beats – did not – to one, didn’t. However I hear many folks saying didn’t with two beats – DID-INT. Completely missing the point of the contraction. This holds true for shouldn’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t, well I could go on, but I will not – or won’t.
I imagine the current political campaigns will lead to all sorts of gibberish being considered for inclusion in the language – Obamacare and Romnesia spring to mind – but I hope we can hold off on those.