Interesting list. I expect I've never read a paper pre-1980s. I find older papers difficult going. Firstly because they are often scans from typewritten text and can be difficult to read, but more importantly because notation and nomenclature changes over time. Trying to work out if the old term is the same thing as the new term can take a surprisingly long time, particularly if the paper references other papers for its core definitions.
> because notation and nomenclature changes over time.
That is why there are desires to standardize Physics notation [1]. It would be nice if a newer field, such as CS, could learn from those mistakes early.
It is probably a safe bet that a large portion of notation and nomenclature that is in wide use, was put forth as a means to standardize its use. It isn't like folk thought, "I want to confuse folks with my terminology."
Even that is problematic, society and media take and manipulate terms outside of official channels. Words will differ greatly from their layman use versus their professional terms.
That was a cute nod to Growing A Language, the one-syllable description.
I liked the first two papers. Also when two years prior I did read the Shannon's paper. Must read for anyone looking for some Theoretical Mathematics.