| Have taken this from an essay on early Roman slavery:
Emancipation
Freed slaves were called liberti, and formed a separate class in Roman society at all periods. The Pileus, a felt cap given to the slaves upon their freedom, was their symbol.
I have done quite of bit of searching in trying to find very old slave ads, (around 1800-1890) that may give some support to the notion that the word slave was used when not under ownership. Or even the term unowned slave.
And as noted in the above portion of the essay, the Romans had a different name for the slave that was freed.
I yet to have found any ads or liturature of a true slave selling itself and refering to it as a slave.
*sighs*
Understanding that the term slave would seem to def require ownership of a person or entity, and is not a state of mind, but a physical description of ones position in society.
Which of course make the term unowned slave quite impossible.
And of course what shall we then call the Master's in waiting sort of speak when they are between slaves?
Now that that is said, I would still hold to the idea that as we are not in early Roman days, nor 1800's. That I in modern times, still would not go to great lengths to try to change the hoards of lifestylers that use the term slave and Master as more of an emotional mindset to describe themselves.
Thousands of terms over the years have changed in their meaning according to generational acceptance. I remember when being cool required a sweater. Being hot required the sweater to come off. When zip it referred your pants not your mouth. And dude was a cowboy.
So is it possible that some terms can have more than one meaning within a given group? Yeppers. The question I guess as individuals will be do YOU accept it? 
YES DEFEATED! *hangs head* And slowly turns and disappears into the mirky green mists to return to battle another day! 
Respectfully
MeluthTur
Edited 31 Aug 10, 2:58 AM by MeluthTur
| 
