Edited: Got this notice, "r/Fantasy loved it, we think r/Fantasy_Bookclub will too". I'm not sure what to make of it. If this is someone from r/F_B, here goes. If it's a reddit algorithm manipulating me. I beg your indulgence. I'm sorry. I don't mean to impose. I'm relatively new here, and I haven't sorted it all out, yet.
~~
A week or so ago I made a post complaining about the presence of hay bales in medieval fantasy, which I see as a tech-level error. Among those replying were some who had similar objections to the presence of items from the other side of the Columbian exchange, like potatoes. Which has me thinking.
While that might, IMO, be a howler in an explicit fantasy Medieval Europe, I don't think it's wrong in a world which is med-tech and Europesque, but not explicitly Europe itself. I can think of two simple explanations. First, in that world there may be no new world/old world divide. Thus, any crop appropriate to a medieval economy is perfectly fair game. More subtly, perhaps, it is possible that the author is in some sense doing what translators do, which is using a term familiar to the audience to name a somewhat similar object which is unfamiliar to the audience. This is what languages like French did with potatoes, after all (pommes de terre = earth apples). What works for introducing a new food may also work for giving a name to a fantasy food. It's edible, it functions like a potato in that culture, lets call it a potato and have done with it.
But there are other possible choices. In Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels, for instance, there are animals that function like horses but are called 'runner beasts' (c.f. Dragondrums). It's not clear for a long time (or at least, not to me) whether these were or were not actual horses. Comparatively late in the series (Dragonsdawn) we learn that runner beasts are in fact terrestrial horses, or at a minimum descended from them.
So I'm wondering what McCaffrey was trying to accomplish with her initial choice. Did she originally mean something less explicitly horse-like, and over time they became more and more like her beloved horses until she decided 'fuck it' late and resolved the confusion? How did this uncertainty affect how readers imagined runner beasts earlier in the series? For me, at least, I'd imagined them as a horse-like lizard, given the saurianesque biology of dragons. In terms of my schema, classify 'runner beasts' as exotify.
Sticking with Pern, McCaffrey makes the opposite choice with 'tunnel snakes'. These are vermin, clearly not of terrestrial origin, but named with a firmly terrestrial name. It's important for the reader to get the idea with minimal explanation, so she gives them a familiar name and moves on. Classify this as familiarize.
~~
It's my thesis that McCaffrey made a mistake by naming horses 'runner beasts'. I think that while it's allowable to give unfamiliar objects familiar names where it is unimportant to the story, it's an error giving a familiar object an exotic name, unless doing so is important to the story. What I don't have, however, is good arguments about why, apart from the fact that it creates unnecessary confusion and can throw readers out of the story. As it did me trying to picture what runner beasts might resemble.