Can't we just call it "Mass"?

Or in more formal speech, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
Believe me, I understand and support trying to change default terminology as people become more sensitive to the meaning of their words and the impact for good or ill they may have on others.
"Politically correct" while not an absolute value is not a negligible one, either.
But what happened to the word "Mass"? what was wrong with it?

Was it the Latinate origins?
Was it, Oh that's what Sr Mary Strict-with-me, or Father ScaredMeInConfession called it, pre-conciliar and therefore pre-rejected by the now grey-haired and saggy Young Turks of the SOVIET (SpiritOfVatican[IgnoringEssentials]Two)
Was it too plain jane, too simple?
In an area of endeavor that of necessity is heavy with jargon , loaded phrases, complex vocabulary and arcane terminology, I think it is utterly GLORIOUS to have that simple, single syllable word that means exactly what is says and naught else.

For look at what has replaced it:
One diocesan middle management type likes "Eucharistic Celebration." Hmm... would that be a Eucharistic Celebration with a consecration, or a Eucharistic Celebration in the absence of a priest?
Liturgy? It's a good word, (despite the attempts to obfuscate its actual import in the Greek from which it derives,) but it can mean more or other than the Mass, leading to such howlers as the DRE who, when someone objected to a practice during the Liturgy, declared, "we're not talking about a liturgy, we're talking about Vespers."
Eucharist? The word can mean both so much more, and, even, less (the "Liturgy of the Word" is an important part of the "Mass" but since the rest of Mass is properly referred to as "the Liturgy of the Eucharist," calling the Mass the Eucharist could be misunderstood as to exclude the Scripture readings and opening rites -- the, "Oh, I got there in time for the consecration" mind-set.)
I know these are not new thoughts, it's just a burr under my saddle today...