It is more difficult to imagine something like this happening for "bachelor", but according to Quineans, the difference is only of degree.

Considering the present controversy over "the definition of marriage", I think we can imagine many such cases.

Is a man who has lived with the same woman for ten years — but has never had a wedding — a "bachelor"? How about a man who has had a commitment ceremony with another man? (Does it matter if the invitations said "marriage" or "commitment ceremony"?) A man who has a marriage of convenience to a woman he has never slept with, for purposes of immigration? A man from a culture where he was, as a young boy, married by his family to a young girl, but who has left that setting and never seen her since? A man who believes he is married to a particular woman, but subsequent careful inspection of family history reveals that she is his long-lost sister and thus the marriage is invalid for incest? A Catholic priest?

Just as subsequent physics discoveries can problematize the definition of "momentum", subsequent social and personal-history discoveries can problematize the definition of "bachelor". The "ordinary meaning" is only had by choosing to ignore problems.