Magmas aren't mentioned much in Haskell because they don't have much structure to them, it's just a closed binary operation and typically we'd just refer to them as being subsumed by a Semigroup(oid) or something more complicated. Monads on the otherhand are "magical" in some sense because they all this rich structure to them that we can use to model computations of all kinds in a very abstract and useful way.
As for the name "monad", it's an arbitrary name that comes froms mathematics but I argue it's as good a term as any until the English language comes up with first-class way of talking about the relationships between natural transformations! The abstract algebra names are great because they force a different mode of thinking than the "nominative adjective" style of naming things in OO languages tends to prefer.
I understand what you're saying. My point was largely that I don't think there can be a better name, the English language doesn't have terms that describe abstract concepts like monads well. That's why mathematicians invent new arbitrary words that have a precise meaning tied to a very specific set of definitions and rules.
As for the name "monad", it's an arbitrary name that comes froms mathematics but I argue it's as good a term as any until the English language comes up with first-class way of talking about the relationships between natural transformations! The abstract algebra names are great because they force a different mode of thinking than the "nominative adjective" style of naming things in OO languages tends to prefer.