" My question is why does Rand define sacrifice differently than the conventional definition? I understand that Rand would say the conventional definition is not a sacrifice it’s a profit, and I’d agree its a profit but that still doesn’t stop it being a sacrifice too..
Because Ayn Rand was not a conventional thinker and seeked to destroy that package deal and its inherent contradictions. Her re-definition of some words taken for granted with little analysis, like Sacrifice, or Selfish, can be seen as her biggest contributions. That is what checking your premises means.
Concepts and its “material” representations, words, have a constantly evolving and changing relationship; Ayn Rand decided to make it explicit and spell out unapologetically words and meaning according to her. Defining and understandig, thinking, what everybody does privately, in the worst cases automatically, she did explicitly and “objectively” as possible. The more abstract the concept, the more definitions it’s inherently opened to: not causing deformation of an otherwise clear-cut concept, but furthering its discovery. Things like Freedom, Happiness, ultimately God, are so abstract a word that they depend on us finding its meaning and not the other way around.
The opposite of this would be an onomatopoeia, a word so bound to reality, the connection to it is direct, requiring little conceptualization and interpretation of definition, like Snap, Crash or Whisper.
I believe you question is not only genuine but very much needed to clarify some things. Objectivism has been in the past compared to a cult, and that is, mainly, because cults deliberately change the meaning of words so that it can only be (mis)understood by its members. In Objectivism, Ayn Rand tried to deprogram us from the biggest cult of them all: an altruistic egotist humankind, in all its horrible (Russia) and less horrible (America) ways (Just by taking a peek at the conventional definition of sacrifice in English and in Russian you’ll see that life in Russian-speaking places is more miserable). In doing so however, her readers begin to actually change the meaning of some words, like sacrifice and selfish but also Capitalism, and it may look weird. But is it not true? or more true? It could be said, in the conventional sense, that Ayn Rand “sacrificed” freedom from proneness to difamation for the quest for the truth. And isn’t that sacred after all?
Both the Atom and the Galaxies were less known in the past and will probably will be better known and thus inexorably redefined in the future.
IF you are lucky enough to find an old Physics book, or even a dictionary, you’ll see how Atom is defined as the smallest integrating unit of material existence, irreductible. When it was split the definition had to be changed. It was around the time Ayn Rand changed the definition of Sacrifice, that other irreductible value of sheer good, to a more acurate, analyzed (splited) definition.
On another note the word “sacrifice” in Russian, is, according to google, translated as:
sacrifice - жертва (zhertva)
Which according to Babelfish is translated to a series of words that don’t look the least good when bunched together:
жертва in English
sacrifice, offering; immolation, oblation; victim, prey; price; casualty