I suggest we use the word “Dux”.
Here’s the thought behind the word: The purpose of TypoScript is to guide Fluid.
Imagine two rivers flowing together. One river is “Fluid” the other is content from TYPO3CR. Sadly the name “confluence”, which means the joining of two rivers is taken. But, it’s not the joining of the rivers that we care about. It’s the channel they flow in. The riverbanks guide and direct the rivers. That’s what TypoScript does, it guides the meeting of those two rivers. And riverbanks can be very “hierarchical” in that they can be high or low, and they can divide a river into many tributaries, so something that guides liquid, or guides fluid, would be perfect.
Enter, Google Translate. Here is the English to Latin translation of “guide fluid”:
Dux looks almost like “ducts”. Ducts are often used to move some kind of fluid (which according to physics includes liquids, gases, and plasmas). Heating ducts move air, which is a kind of fluid. Aquaducts move water. Etc. So the idea of a channel or duct fits within the “Fluid” “Flow” water-ish motif.
The word “dux”, however, is not as common as “duct”, making it easier to search for it. Unlike the latin “ductus” (the origin of the English word duct), “dux” is the origin of the English word “duke”. The latin definition of dux is: leader, commander, general, prince, ruler, or duke.
TypoScript leads fluid. It commands, guides, and rules it. It is a commander, a marshaller, a director, and many other words that are overused and have too many layers of meaning (at least within the world of technology). “Dux” is a fairly clean slate.
The word is short, and I think it has a nice ring to it. So, how about “Dux”, or perhaps FlowDux?