Let's imagine moving a positive test charge from a point $i$ towards a positive source charge at a point $f$ that is far away.
The electrostatic force of the source charge is going to be fighting us the entire way, so we will have to do positive work $W$ on the test charge, giving the test charge energy, while the field does negative work $-W$, taking that energy and storing it as electric potential energy.
The total change in electric potential energy is
\begin{align*}
\Delta U = U_{f} - U_{i} = W
\end{align*}
We can take $U_{i} = 0$ as a reference point, and say that the point $f$ has a potential energy of $U_{f} = W$.
Now, this is a little confusing because only changes in energy have physical meaning. How can a single point have a potential energy? Well let's see what happens when we don't make $U_{i} = 0$, or give it any value in particular at all.
We'll measure the change in potential energy between two points, $a$ and $b$, both of which have been measured from a common reference point $i$.
\begin{align*}
\Delta U &= (U_{b} - U_{i}) - (U_{a} - U_{i})\\
&= U_{b} - U_{a} - U_{i} + U_{i}\\
&= U_{b} - U_{a}
\end{align*}
The potential energy at the reference point $i$ was cancelled out! I have tried to visualise why this happens with a one dimensional example (and if you are familiar with vectors this should be intuitive):

The length $b-a$ does not depend on the position of the point $i$. You can move the point $i$ anywhere, and while that will change the length of $a$ and $b$ individually, the length of $b-a$ is constant.
Therefore, we can just set $U_{i}$ equal to anything, and the difference in potential between two points will be the same no matter what. For ease of use, we set $U_{i} = 0$, and we call $U_{f}$ the potential energy at the point, as in, "when the charge is at this point, it will have this potential energy". We then drop the $f$ and just call it $U$ as shorthand.
Now, this all applies exactly the same for electric potential differences, because they're just the same values divided by the charge. Instead of saying $\Delta V = V_{f} - V_{i}$, we recognise that
\begin{align*}
V_{i} &= \frac{U_{i}}{q} \\
&= \frac{0}{q} \\
&= 0
\end{align*}
and so we say that the potential at a point is $V_{f}$, and then drop the $f$ and call it $V$ as shorthand.
For emphasis: The voltage at any point is specified as $V$, and is measured compared to a common reference point.
Why not use $qV$ since $V$ is already a change in potential? Is there some
semantic reason to treat voltage as a synonym for electric potential
or am I just being pedantic?
They absolutely could have just used $qV$, and some books do! Especially when you start talking about capacitors. The author is using $\Delta V$ specifically, to make sure you realise we're talking about a difference in potential between two points. Those points could be points like $a$ and $b$ (in which case $\Delta V$ is appropriate), or they could be points like $a$ and $i$, the reference point (in which case it would be appropriate to just use $V$ as shorthand for $\Delta V$ measured from a reference point of $0$ potential).
Again: When we see $V$ or $U$ by itself, we're talking about $\Delta V$ or $\Delta U$ measured from a reference point of $0$.