I call all my people with physical magic "wizards" though my exception to it is that I have a category called "battle mage" though only as a subset. Seers are a type of wizard (according to most other wizards), though typical people do not call them that (or think of them as such) - it is more of a cultural thing. My reasoning is that all "wizards" inherit their magic, but the specific magic ability is based on their experiences/education that cause them to develop in their specific ability. The simplicity of this magic system makes it easier keep track of what people are while allowing a great diversity of abilities.
The inheritance part though, is very complex, but that I leave for a long article.
But the naming remains rigid, not variable, in order to avoid confusion - which I agree is necessary to make the story easier for the reader.
I skimmed down to your final paragraph. Have to agree with that premise. We can get too carried away with our vocabulary. We're not writing thesauri or word-a-day lessons. We're writing fiction. And a good writer can make it work.
He used half a dozen terms *in different languages of his own devising*. Which languages were all built into the world, and many things had more than one term.
I call all my people with physical magic "wizards" though my exception to it is that I have a category called "battle mage" though only as a subset. Seers are a type of wizard (according to most other wizards), though typical people do not call them that (or think of them as such) - it is more of a cultural thing. My reasoning is that all "wizards" inherit their magic, but the specific magic ability is based on their experiences/education that cause them to develop in their specific ability. The simplicity of this magic system makes it easier keep track of what people are while allowing a great diversity of abilities.
The inheritance part though, is very complex, but that I leave for a long article.
But the naming remains rigid, not variable, in order to avoid confusion - which I agree is necessary to make the story easier for the reader.
Sounds like an excellent setup!
I skimmed down to your final paragraph. Have to agree with that premise. We can get too carried away with our vocabulary. We're not writing thesauri or word-a-day lessons. We're writing fiction. And a good writer can make it work.
The words are there for the story and not the story for the words.
So very true.
Ah, but would JRR agree? (Actually, I think he would, but still . . . )
He used half a dozen terms *in different languages of his own devising*. Which languages were all built into the world, and many things had more than one term.