I don't think so? I've been clear that there are three distinct kinds of thing here - constants, immutable variables, and mutable variables.

In C the first needs us to step outside the language to the macro pre-processor, the second needs the keyword "const" and the third is the default

In Rust the first is a const, the second we can make with let and the third we need let mut, as Carmack says immutable should be the default.

There are surely more than three! References can support mutation or not, "constants" may be runtime or compile time.

The point is that the word "variable" inherently reflects change. And choosing it (a-la your malapropism-that-we-all-agree-not-to-notice "immutable variables") to mean something that does (1) is confusing and (2) tends to force us into worse choices[1][2] elsewhere.

A "variable" should reflect the idea of something that can be assigned.

[1] In rust, the idea of something that can change looks like a misspelled dog, and is pronounced so as to imply that it can't speak!

[2] In C++, they threw English out the window and talk about "lvalues" for this idea.

The term variable is from math is 100s (probably) of years old. Variables in pure functional languages are used exactly the same way it’s used in math. The idea of mutating and non-mutating variable is pretty old too and used in math as well. Neither are going to change.