Report What do you mean by that? in The Pegbox Posted September 30, 2011 If the painters already have a language with a well-defined vocabulary, and in this instance, it seems to work, since it describes a situation involving varnish particularly well, is it really necessary that we steal their words, and give them new, different meanings, when the ones they already have are old, understood, and work? Having stolen their terms for how paints act when thin and thick and redefined them in an incompatible way, now you have to write a new term for something they've already explained and defined with their words. If that's how it's going to be, you can count me out. We need to build on what's already understood in other fields; we do not need to make ours different and incompatible by using old words in new ways that confuse anyone outside the field who already knows the way the words are defined in other fields. You picked a particularly good place to start the discussion with, I'll say that! Yes!! It's confusing to diverge from the general pigments and paints vocabulary when there isn't a need.