That's nice, but when reading non-trivial code, having "generic English names" makes the programmer's intention easier to decipher than a random sprinkling of 5 different one-letter variables - though it's fine to have ecosystem-wide conventions for the most common cases.
I would argue that in non-trivial code when variables represent meaningful concepts it is Haskell tradition to use long, descriptive variable names. Sometimes these are even longer than in other languages since that's a tool used so rarely.
The trick is that once you're exposed to short names at the right places you realize that there are relatively few times that variables are meaningful as much more than function-wiring notation. Especially in pure code!
As soon as you add in mutability this all goes out the window really fast. Subsequently, you see "meaningful" variable names all the time in IO or ST code.
