Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.
On the other hand, "hit" is arguably an abstract term:
-to deal a blow or stroke to
If your PC is "hit", it could mean lots of things. A glancing blow on armor is still a "hit". But that's OK when hit points are abstracted and doesn't require a hit to penetrate armor. When you say "you are hit" metagame vs "you are hit" ingame, there need be no dissonance.
"Damage" is also arguably a generic word:
- injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness
Damage can correctly imply a wound, concussion, shaken confidence, damaged morale, etc.
Unfortunately, the real meaning of the word "bloodied" is pretty damn specific:
- To stain, spot, or color with or as if with blood
- To make bleed, as by injuring or wounding
The metagame definition of bloodied is NOT the in-game definition of bloodied (it can be, but it usually isn't).
So yes, "bloodied" is a misleading term, and I think that's just the tip of the iceberg, and I think the overall lack of caring about reconciling 4E metagame elements to fluff is one reason why a) 4E reads so badly and b) 4E can feel very gamist, a big obstacle to attracting the Disenchanted.