I don't think I agree with this framing because "definition" implies comprehensiveness in a way that "here are some properties which may not cover everything that's relevant" does not. Your "definition" implicitly ignores the safety mechanism that Rust has and Zig lacks, which does a lot of rhetorical work into making it seem like the only difference is in "flavor" rather than "substance". My argument that there is a meaningful difference in substance, just not the one that the parent comment (and plenty of others) expected.

Semantics on "definition".

"safety" is not why I use and love it. I brought this up because someone who hasn't used Rust, but reads about it may assume it's a "safe" language; I would describe it instead as a nice all-around language.

I don't know if I totally agree with your characterization here either. I'd argue that if you're not actively writing unsafe code, then you are using it as a safe language, in the same way that Python and Java are also safe languages. Yes, I also think it's a quite nice language, but safety is important enough that any time you're comparing a language that can be used safely to one that fundamentally can't enforce safety, framing the choice as purely ergonomic (even implicitly) is misleading.