See, TT, here's the real problem:
You come to a skeptic forum, and in the process of setting up the OP, you made a specific claim. That claim, that in Greek, Skeptic means Thinker, can NOT go unexamined, in a forum for skeptics. That claim, like all others, is to be examined (thus, the term skeptic, from the original Greek for 'examine').
In examining that claim, we have consulted the lexicons and other Greek speakers, and found that claim to be unsupported. Skeptic is not a word in Greek. There are words with similar-appearing structures, which may even share a common root; but the actual word 'skeptic' does not, itself, exist in the Greek.
So you have since moved the goalposts, and instead are now claiming that you can see 'skeptic' in words like 'skeftomai', so they must have a similar meaning. Yet, as pointed out by others, you can see words like 'corps' in 'corpse', 'heat' in 'wheat', and let's not even talk about 'assume' or 'dictionary'.
In this 'semantics game', as you've chosen to call it, what's happening, is that you've presented a claim, and the skeptics are examining that claim; and rather than join in the skepticism, you've instead taken on your claim as a sacred cow, defending it dogmatically against all evidence.
So in a way, our attack on your initial claim IS exactly what this thread is about - we're demonstrating an actual skeptical methodology, while you're demonstrating a dogmatic methodology. Rather than simply accepting your husband's claim, we're examining that claim, and finding it invalid; and rather than examining the claim yourself, you're dogmatically attempting to defend his claim, using methods that skeptics first began criticizing the stoics for ages ago.
So while your purpose for posting this thread may have been to get at how people approach skepticism, the fact is that the discussion over the meaning of 'skeptic' is itself a fine demonstration of the skeptical approach versus the dogmatic approach.
Congratulations for starting a fine thread!