Was about to complain you can't google them, but I tried it and it worked. Huh. I guess you can google symbols now, even traditionally escapey-ones. News to me.
Like seriously isn't it obvious that I'm stating my opinion? And that the citation is my personal professional Haskell experience? We're talking about intuition building here it's not like I'm gonna be able to Debate You with Hard Facts -__-
Yes it's clear that you're stating your opinion. I asked for supporting evidence because I'm not persuaded by your opinion since I have the opposite opinion.
Calling Functor "Mappable" and Monad "Thenable" doesn't really add much to understanding.
The best advice I ever got was that a Functor is `f` with a function `fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b` that follows its laws. Same goes for Monad. If it has the type signature & follows the laws, it's a Monad. That's the definition. No need for a cute analogy-oriented name like FlatMap-able or Then-able.
Once you do that, you realize that the way to understand these things is to play type tetris with highly-generic type signatures. You stop needing English/real-world analogies to understand them and instead use the type system to understand the world (the reverse of using "nice" names)
It works really well but it is a steep hill to climb. It helps to talk to others who have climbed it, and it helps to just grind on a project and use Monads without being an expert. You can go a long way just knowing how `do`, `traverse`/`mapM`, etc work and not having big Monad intuition.
I've been writing Haskell for over 5 years and to this day when I see <$>, <*>, >>= in my code I don't substitute English words for them.