Physics could contest such an assertion… elements can be identified under any of the three states of matter, solid, liquid, gas…
Would we argue then that a hippopotamus is a liquid and that the ocean is a solid? Or should we only say that iron is a liquid and neon is a solid?
Gold can melt to become a liquid, then vaporize into a gas if it is heated enough, so it could be solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature - though since it melts at such a high temperature, it is usually solid in our daily lives.
Similarly, iron can melt to become a liquid with enough heat, and neon can freeze to become a solid at a low enough temperature. They are still called gold, iron and neon when this happens because they are still made of gold, iron and neon atoms.
So the idea is, it's wrong to say gold is not a gas, because it would become one if you heated it enough, and still be gold. It's also wrong to say iron is a liquid and neon is a solid, because while that can be true, often it isn't. It's the same reason you wouldn't say humans, as a species, are seated - sometimes we stand up.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as "hippopotamus atoms" or "ocean atoms", so this logic doesn't apply to hippos or the ocean. If a hippo became a liquid, we wouldn't call it a hippo anymore, and the oceans are specific bodies of water which are liquid right now.
A melted hippopotamus is not a hippopotamus anymore. While melted or even vaporised gold is still gold (chemical element Au)
no! what I meant is elements (as meant in Mendeleiev table) can be met under different physical states — which would be Greek αέριο, στερεό, υγρό (differing from 'aerial, aquatical, terrestrial' attributes of entities, such as hipopotamus) Do the Greek terms cover both meanings? then i'd suggest to give context and or more examples so that learners get aware of the ambiguity... (Physically [thermodynamics] speaking, you need to say 'iron is liquid when in a relevant set of temperature and pression and mass'.)