Does a variation of the etymological fallacy have a different name?

When reading and trying to interpret intent of writings, we can forget that current meanings may not reflect historical meaning. The Gay 90's of the 1890s had a much different meaning than the Gay 90s bar of today. In argument form it looks as follows:

a meant b
b now means c
therefore a meant c

or

a meant b
a means c
therefore a meant c

This seems to be variant of the etymological fallacy in which modern meaning is erroneously assigned to historical writings when deciphering author intent. This is frequently found in translations performed decades or centuries after originals were written.

Is this just a variant or is it a different fallacy?