[partdavid]

Since the jargon we've invented in technology has derived from natural language, it's often repurposing common terms as terms of art. In my opinion this leads to ambiguity and I sometimes pine for the abstruse but more precise jargon from classical languages you can use in medicine (for example).

For example, how many things does "link" mean? "Process"? "Type"? "Local"? It makes people (e.g., non-technical people) think that they understand what I mean when I talk about these things but sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Sometimes we use it in a colloquial sense, but sometimes we'd like to use it in a strict technical sense. Sometimes we can invent a new, precise term like "hyperlink" or "codec" but as often as not it fails to gain traction ("hyperlink" is outdated).

That's one reason we get a lot of acronyms, too. They're too unconversational but they can at least signal we're talking about something specific and rigorous rather than loose.

[dlcarrier]

Medical jargon (or at least biology jargon) using can still conflict with common language. For example: thorn, spine, and prickle all have different meaning in biology, and the term thorn doesn't cover anything native to England, where that word direves and was used in Shakespeare's plays.