Talk:Jat Kusar/@comment-163.172.132.199-20180531212840/@comment-35875161-20180614030554

I created an account just to participate in this thread.

OP, you're correct that "innate" literally refers to the birth of its subject in its root (through the Latin nasci, natus.) You're arguing that, because the Jat Kusar is not a living thing, it is precluded from the predicate class of [things that are born]. If it isn't born, its characteristics can't literally be called "inborn."

I think there's a strong argument for a less-than-literal usage of the word, mostly just because it is has come to be a synonym for inherent, and, Latin be damned, usage is what really defines a language. This can't be used to justify all misuses of words, but at a certain point the definition changes to reflect popular understanding.

What I want to ask you all is: can a characteristic be truly innate to an infested weapon, given that they're biological (and probably could be called living organisms)? Maybe we'd need to know how they're made.