Soldier, you seem to be enjoying the intended ambiguity of the question.
Simply disagreeing with someone is neither a stand, nor a logic.
You can point out as many alternate definitions of the word as you like. The idea is to pick one which fits a position.
If you choose to state that a key loses meaning without its lock, you should do so like this;
An object which cannot carry out its purpose is meaningless.
A key with no lock is an artifact, not a tool; just as a city without inhabitants is a ruin, not a city.
Likewise, a person without a home is not a citizen, they are a hobo.
None of these things are transformed in the examples, just as the key with no lock is not transformed. The key's physical form remains the same, but its purpose is now to describe the inverse of the tumblers of a lock which no longer exists.
It is a relic of time which has passed.


Theres your mystical answer.
If you wanted me to play devils advocate, just ask.
I am not single minded.
I am utilitarian and tend to argue the first point which comes to mind. I prepair for debate by coming up with solid counter-logic and planting the kernals of retorts in my opening statements.

I'm not being mean or abusive, so anyone who feels threatened, spare me the response.
This is meant to be taken as a demonstration of proper debate.
And possibly, narcissism (did I spell that right?)