Then I guess we should drop real-world named stuff, since it sounds like it's from Germany (tiefling; derived from the German "teufel") or the Mediterranean (minotaur; "the bull of Minos"). Don't want anything that sounds that specific to confuse people, do we?
That's a nonsensical argument.
I've already said that mythology should preferably be the basis for stuff in the core, and where else are you going to get your mythology? Mars? Where did swords and chainmail come from - Jupiter?
Where did "Eladrin" come from in mythology? Nowhere - it's a contrived, made up word, and looks and sounds like one, even if it is Tolkien-inspired. That would be okay except the core should preferably have fidelity to mythology, else it becomes useless in representing fantasy that's outside the scope of WOTC's particular taste in it. For the core classes and races, classic tropes are by far the best, and should be stuck to IMO. As I've mentioned earlier, it's a matter of exposure - "Eladrin" as a monster is fine, but it gets too much screentime as a core race with a name like that. Now every world has got them by default. That'd be okay if they just named it right.
A game system that called wizards "magic-users" for years can survive 10 warlords and 20 eladrins.
The difference is that "magic-user" is generic (to the point of blandness, which is why it got changed I suppose), but at least Gygax was smart enough to understand that a term like that fits any world. It explains itself. "Eladrin" is non-intuitive, doesn't explain itself and will not stand the test of time...and "warlord" is ridiculous. Adventurers sitting around discussing where they're going to get a new warlord after the other one died just doesn't read. Movie makers talk about "selling" a concept, and both of these are weak sauce in that department.
it sounds like it's from Germany (tiefling; derived from the German "teufel")
As an aside, cambion is a better fit than that term anyway.
