Someone never studied etymology (or spelling)
'"Kyn" was derived from kinship [...] "Dryl", was drawn from tendril.'
They'd maybe get away with "Kyn" at a pinch, but "dryl" makes no sense at all. The components of "tendril" are "tend" (to wander) and "ril" ( a suffix indicating the thing that does it). This problem is far from new, and typified by 'copter for helicopter. That breaks down etymologically into "helico" (rotating) and "pter" (a wing), so the particle "co" is actually meaningless.
This is not pedantry. Evolved words really do have intrinsic meanings based on their origins (albeit often pretty distantly). Just making up new noises is not how language genuinely evolves. Unfortunately the advent of mass communications has allowed what once would have been ephemeral arbitrary coinings to spread fast and widely so they enter the canon before they have been properly tested for their capacity to impart ideas.
The advantage of language evolving from its etymolgical roots is that it often allows an informed hearer or reader to be able to work out what an unfamiliar word may mean without recourse to a dictionary. Arbitrary coinings don't allow that - they have to be explained, which defeats the fundamental purpose of language.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
