reword

Author: JelleZijlstra

peps/pep-0800.rst

@@ -62,11 +62,11 @@ incorrect in general, as discussed in more detail :ref:`below <pep-800-mypy-inco
 The experimental ``ty`` type checker uses a third approach that aligns more closely with the :ref:`runtime behavior of Python <pep-800-solid-bases-cpython>`:
 it recognizes certain classes as "solid bases" that restrict multiple inheritance. Broadly speaking, every class must
 inherit from at most one unique solid base, and if there is no unique solid base, the class cannot exist; we'll provide a more
-precise definition below. However, ty's approach relies on hardcoded knowledge of particular built-in types.
+precise definition below. However, ty's approach relies on hardcoded knowledge of particular built-in types. The term "solid base" derives from the
+CPython implementation; this PEP uses the newly proposed term "disjoint base" instead.
 
 This PEP proposes an extension to the type system that makes it possible to express when multiple inheritance is not
-allowed at runtime: an ``@disjoint_base`` decorator that marks a classes as a *disjoint base*, the term we introduce
-in preference to the term "solid base".
+allowed at runtime: an ``@disjoint_base`` decorator that marks a classes as a *disjoint base*.
 This gives type checkers a more precise understanding of reachability, and helps in several concrete areas.
 
 Invalid class definitions