Does “squaw” mean “prostitute”? Rep. Donald Soctomah, the Passamaquoddy tribal representative to the Legislature, thinks so, and he’s urging the state to drop “squaw” as an allowable name for geographic features.

It’s difficult not to empathize. Rep. Soctomah and many Maine Indians clearly feel the word is an insult, and no one should have to endure racial epithets — especially those fostered by the government in the form of official place names.

The problem here is whether Rep. Soctomah has proven that “squaw” is pejorative. In short, he has not yet.

Linguists and lexicographers who have reviewed the word in similar battles in other states reported that they did not find evidence to bear out the claim that “squaw” means anything derogatory; to their knowledge, the word has always simply meant “woman.”

That’s not to say that usage does not change constantly, and that words that once were acceptable terms do not later become insults. But it isn’t clear whether that is the case here; Rep. Soctomah has the job of demonstrating that the average Mainer, or anyone else, uses “squaw” with the intent of humiliating, dehumanizing or ridiculing Indians.

Changing the name of a place is literally monumental. People know common locations by their names, and asking them to remove such places from their vernacular ought to be a rare practice, saved only for the most insulting, and obvious, instances.

In other places across the nation, most notably Phoenix, Ariz., the argument that “squaw” is an inappropriate name has been rejected — partly, for lack of proof, and partly, because those involved in choosing place names know that political correctness quickly transcends from responsible to ridiculous.

Rep. Soctomah’s objection to “squaw” begs a question. How can one object to a word when few can agree on what it means?