Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-12481512-20130717104617/@comment-24590102-20140830103314

96.3.30.235 wrote: Corundum is literally sapphires and rubies Google  it. It is the technical gem name. It's not copper.

This is an interesting point (and quite the can of words too   :)

Corundum is aluminium oxide and includes, sapphires, rubies and a marvellous window-glazing material called sapphire glass. On the one hand, this is a matter of English language definition. The excuse that this is another universe and corundum can be anything you like in another universe doesn't fly because it has no relevance to the fact that the word, corundum, is an element of the English language and is, thus, defined in English.

However, translation of terms from ancient cultures does, in reality, become less accurate as the distinctions in translation begin to take on less relevance to the overall context. It is known in Western Culture that Hermes wrote a book called the "Emerald Tablet". However, in Middle-Eastern Culture, the same book is referred to as the "Chrysolite Tablet". Both are green gemstones but from very different minerals and with greatly differing value. However, the problem rests with the precision of translation and has nothing to do with "emerald" referring to "chrysolite" in Middle-Eastern culture, for example.

If you tale a close look at gemstones mentioned in the bible, this little problem becomes even more spectacular. Some accounts translate the primary foundation of New Jerusalem being made of diamond (adamant) while others translate the same as jasper (iaspis). One is a precious stone known for its hardness and transparency while the other is, at best, a dimension stone considered inferior due to the sheer expense of working the material. There are valid arguments for both translations and, yet, the matter remains unresolved to this day because the key evidence which would confirm one translation or another has been lost to the ravages of politics and time.

So, while there are a lot of other things which make sense as possible products of "another universe" (such as magic) and, while there is no excuse for messing with diction, there are arguably exceptions to this rule when dealing with periphery vocabulary because the same issues are known problems in our own reality.