It has been said that any sound the human voice can utter is rude in some language.
It is also rather obvious that people who acquire second and subsequent languages informally tend to learn a very high proportion of "taboo" expressions. (Possibly because in many cases their principal source is military, and Mother's not around to say "No dear, we don't say that".) Even the most rigourous definitions are made more comprehensible by clear, correct, examples, but any attempt to make technical writing anything but utterly moribund encounters a barrage of managerial and editorial flak, (at least in my experience). I think it's a residue of academics' attempts to achieve profundity through obscurity. If it's clear, it can't be important, (and won't attract grants.) Project teams tend to acquire a specialised jargon from shared experiences, which speeds internal communication, but (sometimes deliberately) excludes non-members. Given that, and an unusually deep acquaintance with the topic, the people who know most about a piece of software are probably the least suitable to document it for general users. They've forgotten what other people don't know. (Their "unknown unknowns".)
