I think the wordplay in category theory can be taken too far, sometimes, so that it almost starts to seem to other mathematicians like a private language. Peter

I think the wordplay in category theory can be taken too far, sometimes, so that it almost starts to seem to other mathematicians like a private language. Peter Freyd’s coinage “lluf”, for example (which is “full” backwards). But I like Paul Taylor’s notion of “prone” and “supine” morphisms: so much more vivid than Cartesian and co-Cartesian. (If you say epic then you are morally obliged to say monic; but you can’t very well say “isic” for the isos, so you’ve painted yourself into an inconsistent corner. I’m not sure it’s worth it.)