To be fair, it was used for comedic effect.
Well, humour is both subjective and culturally specific.
Professional jargons exist for a reason. Prose would not be a suitable style in many cases. When you write prose, you’re telling a story. You want to draw the readers into your story, you want them to immerse themselves in it. Language full of pictures, ambiguity and associations is called for.
Yes, but.....
This is an area where I would draw a clear distinction between a "professional vocabulary" (which I have absolutely no quarrel with - in fact, it is necessary), and "professional jargon".
The former serves to supply a subject matter, or, an area of expertise, a profession, with a specific set of words - a vocabulary - with which to describe that world (maritime vocabulary, which is both specific and precise, and has found its way into aviation and space, offers an excellent example, as, indeed, do both medicine and law, and any other profession, music, etc).
On the other hand, "professional jargon" exists for a different reason; it may serve as a useful short-hand for those who work within the profession (who can be expected to have mastered it) when they wish to discuss something orally or, in writing.
However, it serves - or, can be made to serve - to confuse and obfuscate (and, unfortunately, is often deliberately used in this way), and is also - or, rather, can be also - used to make those who are not familiar with this vocabulary feel inadequate and ignorant, and uninformed, as a consequence.
Unfortunately, the world of business is especially prone to this sort of self-indulgent nonsense, where language, instead of providing clarity, is used to distort and disguise and mask.
Sometimes, to my mind, (especially in some of the social sciences), there seems to me to be an element of wishing to make the subject matter appear more elevated (through the use of jargon) than it actually is, in order to persuade people that this field of study is somehow serious, and worthy of the respect bestowed on the physical sciences.
Now, to my mind, it is perfectly possible to write about law, or science, - describing what needs to be described - in clear, elegant, prose - the very best legal judgments manage to achieve this, rendering the judgment in clear, crystal, comprehensible yet elegant prose - without seeking refuge or recourse in impenetrable jargon.
Not so when drafting a contract. You need to be explicit and precise, and avoid any trace of ambiguity to prevent your contract partners from exploiting it. You’re going to spend considerable page space on defining the words you intend to use in the text.
You need to be explicit and precise, agreed, in law, medicine and diplomacy.
However, the language allows for that, and equips one with the necessary words with which to achieve these goals.
English is a language with an exceptionally extensive - yet exquisitely precise - vocabulary, which is well up to the task of describing, or expressing, whatever is needed, in words.
Nevertheless, you do not need to be impenetrable, still less use the fact of the impenetrability as an excuse not to have to explain what you are doing in terms that your interlocutor can understand.
Language (and prose, for that matter) need not be the enemy of clarity of expression.
Likewise with technical documentation. The readers will not want to relive your adventure of building the gadget, they’re looking for factual information about it.
Factual information that they can understand, and apply, as needed.
Notwithstanding all of that, I remain baffled that so much of the literature of science, technology, appears to prefer not to have to take greater pains to be comprehensible to a wider audience.
All three styles of writing will be grammatically correct, but they will be very different. In short, know your audience and tailor your writing style to them.
Yes, this is true.
