Archaicisms

[Lizzie]

What if a word is used that is not archaic to the user but is archaic to the reader?  I don’t mean used out of place to sound cool, but just that writer and reader have a different understanding of which words have stopped being in use. If it is confusing to a reader, does it have to be changed?  How does someone know when a word becomes archaic?  Also, why is it wrong to use a word that has become archaic? Does it become acceptable if its definition is the most correct one for the situation?  Is it better to use a less accurate word if the more accurate word is considered archaic?  I understand that using archaic speech patterns would possibly throw the reader off, but what about if it’s just a word that’s gotten a little dusty?

Isn’t there a degree of subjectivity involved?  Or is that just wishful thinking?

Well, this is just my opinion about specific words: I object to them most when it's clear that the writer is only using those words to make a rhyme work. Then they stick out compared to everything else, which is usually typical modern speech. 

I also feel like the practice of deliberately shortening words with an apostrophe to make meter work is frowned upon these days. Four hundred years ago, it was common to write whole narratives and plays in meter, and so I can understand using the apostrophe in those contexts because you're attempting an epic work and concessions need to be made. But, if it's just a sonnet....no. Think of another word. 

As to entire poetic techniques being old fashioned....I don't know about that. Extremely sus.