@WW Yes it's mainstream English for students. L1 influence very hard to counter, much like pushing shit uphill, " I observed of course sometimes too many informations" and so on.
In those wretched PD sessions, if someone started using 'lexis' instead of vocab I, ever the iconoclastic rebel at heart, would start using 'wordstock', just relieve the tedium (PD= prof dev or 'preventative detention' as you will).
Went to a business meeting last night, the chairman (neither a dimwit, nor an Anglisher) used "it's a doing-thing" a dozent times, and the word "action" once.
And "It's not a talkaboutit-thing" twice, "discussion" nunce.
There's no harm in being a little creative and hueful in the right place.
Haven't taught any poles recently (or Poles either) , a few Slovak and Ukrainian have come thru - so much easier than grappling with a non-Euro background!

@AnWulf+Warsaw Will
Wow it's just great to see you guys kicking off again!
1) Might I put forward the thought that there is some common ground: 'use short words and shun nominalisations' as a rule goes a long way to weeding out the worst Latinate borrowings and makes the style less snooty.
2) I find myself unwittingly reaching for familiar latinate words. As an exercise, trying to find other words seems to have made me more aware of non-latinate alternatives and brought them to the fore. If not overdone, I think if can make for a more sturdy and straightforward English.
3) When push comes to shove, it does make for a different ' register'. 'Shove' is not quite the same as 'push' in its register!

Oops I meant this list:
wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Latinates_of_Germanic_origin

https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_Germanic_and_Latinate_equivalents_in_English

So just how can everyone recall which are ok and which not when they all look latinate?

@AnWulf I thought 'fer' (ferro/ferre) was related to 'bear' in English and 'fare' to 'fahren' in German?
"I'd hav to how your noting the others to get a feel for the meaning so that I could find another word." -> no it's okay; it's just that in teaching English as a second tongue there comes a time towards the upper standards when it may be helpful to deal with the meaning of latin roots, latin forefasts, and latin afterfasts, just so that learners have some hooks to hang the wordstock on in their minds. So for instance one may begin with 'port' or 'pose' or 'cede' and go thru all the same-rooted words to build patterns. To me this is the bane of teaching English - when one ends up indeed teaching latin instead!

@Ængelfolc in the gelt-world 'short-term' is wont to mean less than a year; and 'long-term' to mean over five years. However in accounting 'current liablities' may also include stock such as spare parts which might not be used up within one year; it is jargon with a technical meaning from cross-border accounting standards. Google "IAS 1" for all the bollocks like:
"Current liabilities are those expected to be settled within the entity's normal operating cycle or due within 12 months, or those held for trading, or those for which the entity does not have an unconditional right to defer payment beyond 12 months."
So it makes it tricky to change the terminology.....

BTW inside the software, same-meaning words can be useful. But "wageslip" need a joining-mark or it reads as "wages-lip" not wage-slip!

@Ængelfolc: "1) "while that's all right between you and me it won't wash in the real world." > Warum?"
Als ich noch jung war (und Dinosauren die Erde herrschten),... in those days in England we used terms like "stock", "creditors", "debtors", "daybook". However English accounting textbooks were something out of the dark ages, so we all used the American ones - with "inventories", "accounts payable", "receivables", "journal", and of course the likes of KPMG, PWC, Deloittes use these terms all the time., so it's standard jargon now. One might get away with the older terms in an email, but not if one is writing payroll or general ledger software - it just would not be saleable.
This is what I meant by the "real" world.

4) "I'm afraid not all debits are outlays" > How so? All "debits" mean money owed to someone or some business, right? How can any holding of worth ("asset") be a 'debit'?
On the balance sheet (or "Statement of Assets and Liabilities", assets are on the leftside (debits) liabilities on the rightside (credits). Accounting can be as maddeningly mysterious as English!

@AnWulf "For aft-1066 latinates:...." I take on board the broad thrust of your standpoint.
There seems little point in tossing out words like "tax" and "term" (as in short-term,long-term). Much better to hone in on the horde of latinate borrowings that came later, like refer,prefer,infer, confer,suffer and their branch-words (derivatives) - referee, referral, reference. Trying to find stand-ins for these and all the -pose, -vert, -gress, -port words is task enough indeed.

@Ængelfolc Good. I was indeed a Kostbuchhalter for several years myself in my early life. I'm afraid not all debits are outlays; they may be assets or debts owing to the firm.
I found "Soll und Haben" quite hard to instead; "leftside and rightside" seem as good as any, but while that's all right between you and me it won't wash in the real world. "Holdings" is the best word for assets, though it may easily be muddled with a holding company. "boon" is from O Fr niet wahr? "Thing" marks a "chose in possesion", but assets also inholds "choses in action" - that is paper assets like debentures. The other thing is liabilities aren't always owing - they may be but a foresight (provision) for a lessening in worth, a writedown, or (as in the insurance world) a reckoning of what might need to be paid out in the to-come. That's how I got to 'beholdens' to benote an obligation or some sort.
Mightily beholden unto you