No, it's not a semantic discussion.
Your definition, widely used by laypeople today but incorrect, fails to differentiate between real inflation caused by an increase in the money supply, and "inflation" as in price rises.
By your definition, after the money supply has been jacked up by, say , 6000%, and prices go up massively but stabilize after several years because among other things the money printer miraculously was put back in the closet, there is at that point no inflation anymore ("look ma, prices have not gone up this year!").
By the correct definition, the fact that there have been no price increases over the last year is immaterial, fact is the money supply is up by 6000% and THAT is inflation.
What you're saying is akin to someone who weighs 80kg on year 0,
90kg on year 1,
110kg on year 2,
130kg on year 3,
and then remains at 40%+ bodyfat and 130kg for the rest of their life,
saying they "have not gained any weight lately".
Sure, they have not, but they still put on 40kg of fat over a period of 4 years in the past and they're still obese and unhealthy.
I am sorry that your ego prevents you from seeing such an obvious point. Really at this point I'm no longer trying to help you see that you have a wrong definition which will invariably complicate your thinking surrounding this & adjacent topics.
No, I'm bothering typing this up so that others who may end up reading this in the future understand why the erroneous, currentlt predominant definition of inflation is wrong and misleading.