By 
We are not just wherever our little corner is, but in the world that is now a global village rapidly shrinking to a neighborhood, at least information-wise. Thus we speak and write thus.
1. Bribery and Extortion:
Many people here and there and elsewhere seem to have heard so much about “bribe money” that they have pleasantly forgotten about the incentives and enticements of the recipient by the briber, so it is rightly said that the giver bribes, induces and tempts the one who receives it. receiver. But where and when would-be takers are asking, demanding and insisting on what they want, we make a mistake if we report what is given and taken as a bribe.
Are we nullifying the effects of words or terms as really significant and practically significant, even legal, such as “extortion” and “extortion”? As it seems now, here we are used to reading and listening to high and low officials, in the field and at headquarters, “demanding bribes.” Are we too afraid or too confused to call them “extortionists” and what they do “extortion”? If we had long called these crimes and criminals by their correct names, many abusers of authority would have since given up on them; having learned that any act of “extortion” meaning “obtaining things by coercion or intimidation” can border on and may be called “robbery”, if the extortionist is armed or applies physical force in any way. However, let’s not get carried away with this, lest we get bogged down in legal jargon.
But then, we worry about the accuracy or correctness of the language; and this borders on integrity and good intentions, for which we earnestly pray:
Godly lawyers, please help pick it up from here.
2. Denial and Denial by Rebuttal and Rebuttal:
The misuse of this pair of words is perhaps the most persistent attack on global collective public intelligence by politicians, or rather, by reporters on behalf of politicians. Just imagine that: someone, usually a high public official, simply denies some claim, report or statement and the mere denial is widely reported as a rebuttal. No please ladies and gentlemen, you cannot and do not refute claims, reports or statements simply by denying them. You refute them by showing some good evidence or evidence contrary to the claims, reports, statements or whatever. Let our reporters diligently separate these terms to make the issues much less confusing, and our reporters’ diligence will improve public understanding of many issues.
3. Nip it in the bud:
Have you noticed? -keep reading and listening- in the media, even now, that some people are still advising the government, in relation to “Boko Haram”, to “nip it in the bud”? And when we’re done with it, or got rid of it, they’ll keep saying, “Yeah, the government nipped it in the bud.” Attention please! Note that “bud” really means a small bump on the stem of a plant that contains immature leaves and/or flowers. If a flower bud is spared, it will soon flower and turn completely into branches, clusters of leaves and/or flowers.
As a figure of speech, “to nip it in the bud” means “to destroy something at an early stage of development”, as does destroying immature leaves and flowers while they are still in bud, i.e. before the bud opens and blooms.
If we loosely use “nip it in the bud” for such a deadly matter that it has already blossomed into leaves/branches/flowers and was cut off, propagated and transplanted elsewhere, so to speak, guess how embarrassing and annoying that sounds to those ladies? and gentlemen who may be oblivious to errors so common that they amount to a lie that many others take so lightly. And what is the effect of such a widely accepted free lie on our sensibilities? Your guess is as good as mine, or rather, just as bad.
However, on a more serious note, I personally believe that good precision of language is an aspect of our personal and group integrity. As it is written, “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, and your ‘no’ be ‘no’.” Outside all vagueness, ambiguity, confusion, elusiveness, confusion and double meaning, they are all synonyms that tend to confusion. Please, let us strive to use words deliberately and precisely.
4. Amnesty is the official pardon, usually to a group or person:
This is one of the most recently invented aspects of deadly vagueness by Nigerian government officials. Of course, it goes without saying that genuine forgiveness is an option only when those who are forgiven are firmly under the control of the government that forgives them. Then one could correctly say that the Government is exercising mercy. Like it or not, these Boko Haram insurgents and other militants were not at the mercy of the government when leniency was presumptuously offered. We now easily remember so many “cautious” people warning us then that the insurgents would simply use the occasion to disparage the Federal Government. I considered and understood that some liked the scenario of a case of two guys (usually friends or business associates) still arguing about wrongs done to each other and one saying to the other, “I forgive you.” What do you think? The other will reject such “forgiveness.” The point is that you must humiliate them, having them “at your mercy” before you can magnanimously grant them mercy/pardon/amnesty. The “amnesty” that we persuade the supposed beneficiaries to accept may be as good and as desirable as the deal we pray for; but it is not appropriately called that. I plead with all governments and other leaders everywhere to see that political situations demand more precision and less ambiguity.
5. PERSISTENT MISUSE OF THE WORD “POLITICATE”
This is equally encouraged by many politicians and their supporters everywhere. Here and there and elsewhere, we continue to hear and read about them as they freely accuse anyone who disagrees with them or their positions of politicizing issues and events that are naturally unavoidably political anyway. Let’s think of it as it really is: to politicize (Br.)/politicize (Am.) is to “give a political character to” some issue or event that would otherwise lack a political character. Many political people are confused and confusing the public and fueling the rise of tensions everywhere. We should all be careful with them.
6. Themselves/Us Yourself/Yourselves Vs. Against Each Other/With Each Other:
The widespread confusion of these words that I like to describe as “strict and specific terms indicating beneficiaries” has much more than grammatical and lexical implications. Confusing these terms is fraught with deadly dangers in the practical relationships that arise from our knowingly or unknowingly recommending and rendering services intended for others for ourselves.
Think of a well-intentioned well-intentioned advising some newly inaugurated team members (a newlywed couple, for example), to “learn to love, know, understand, help, respect, trust, serve, and listen to yourselves” (that is, “themselves”), when the well-wisher really means “to each other” or “to each other”, as the case may be. Mark it well, couples and teams cannot be successful as such if members keep hearing that they should be doing to themselves what they should be doing to each other and/or each other. Of course, it can be fairly or reasonably assumed that the parties involved derive the intended meanings. However, let us be aware of precisely clarifying this point, repairing our collective image before those who are not yet used to such common confusions. Yes, please speak well if you have good intentions for the team.
We all know (some don’t?) that many simple matters of fact (even figures!) and meaning are easily and freely confused in our contemporary culture. Therefore, we must be able to fight for facts and meanings with adequate responses to the spurious claims and counterclaims that are rapidly infiltrating our culture, corrupting values. Our own collective culture is degenerating before us; and so many react to this only by romanticizing our history and antiquities, confusing them with our culture. We will come to this matter of culture in due course. In the meantime, think about it.