This attempt, which I call violation without wanting to offend you, of course (we now just think as better as we can, we don’t offend or defend, just learn), even this attempt is really desperate, because in the case of a simple wash too baptism may mean immersion, the immersion into the water of the body members we want to wash. This then is what the seminarians do: they use a doubtful (at least) meaning of a very few occasions of wash, in order to define religious baptism! Does this still seem a solid way to you? Not to mention that in any case they shouldn’t use a purely linguistic approach in a case where the most important thing is the theological dimensions, that religious baptism corresponds with the total death of the old man and his rebirth in a new life, which is better described symbolically with the immersion, the total disappearance of man into the water as a complete vanishing of the old man of sins.
I received no answer after that. Perhaps my direct ‘attack’ to the seminarians offended.