While we all need a clear understanding of what we intend to obtain the best results, arguing about particular term usage instead of simply defining what is meant precisely is a huge waste of effort and resources! First of all, language may be followed and codified by observation, but in reality language usage defines the 'codes', the codes do not define the language. Secondly, as recognized international standards, the arcane definition of particular ENGLISH word/grammar usage is going to be completely lost on most of the intended audience/users (including auditors) without specific explanation.
SO, just as in legal documents and contracts we have found it necessary (unfortunately) to spell out what is intended as clearly and agreeably as possible, it will serve the purpose of Quality Standards to simply provide a clear lexicon/dictionary of all important terms. How does the QUALITY PROFESSION define those terms? How does it expect to see them implemented? Whether it agrees with any (or no) common uses, within the context of the Quality Standards it will be defined specifically. The semantics - and changing linquistic landscape - of terms like "continual" vs. "continuous" will NEVER be settled. PICK ONE TERM, define it as you wish in the relevant document, and that's it.
As background, I am a Senior ASQ Member, CQA, CQE and have spent my career in international assignments and consulting. Although English is most often the "language of business" it is not the native language of most Quality System users. As a comparison, given the basis of "ISO", maybe you should consider converting ALL legitimate documents, standards and definitions into FRENCH alone. I thought not... Don't be bigotted with English either.
Cheers,
Steven Cooke