Against the constant attack of worms on language and logic


We are not only our own little corner but in a world that is now a global village shrinking into a neighborhood at least in the know-how. So this is how we speak and write.

  1. Bribery and Extortion:

Here and there and elsewhere many people have heard so much about “bribery money” that they have well forgotten about the allurement and temptation of the receiver by the bribe giver, to which it was rightly said. That the giver bribes, induces and allures. receiver. But where and when the 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 canceling the effect of such really important and practically meaningful, even legal terms or words as “extortion” and “extortion”? As it seems now, we are used to reading and hearing officials high and low – “asking bribes” – here on the field and at headquarters. Are we too afraid or too confused to call them “extortionists” and what they do to “extortion”? If we had been calling these crimes and criminals by their correct names for a long time, many abusers of authority would have turned away from them; Knowing that any act of “extortion” which means “obtaining things by coercion or threat” may be bordered on, and may be called “robbery”, if the extortionist is armed or applies physical force in any way. Let’s not get carried away with it, though, lest we get bogged down in legal matters.

But again, we are concerned about the correctness or correctness of the language; And this is the limit of integrity and good intention, so we still sincerely request:

Divine Counsel, please, help lift this out of here.

  1. Denial and refusal to refute and refute:

The misuse of these pairs of words is perhaps the most scathing attack on the global collective public intelligence by politicians, or rather, by journalists on behalf of politicians. Just imagine that: someone, usually a high public official, denies only certain claims, reports, or statements, and the mere denial is widely reported as a refutation. No, please, madam and madam, you cannot and do not refute claims, reports or statements by merely refuting them. You disprove claims, reports, statements or whatever by showing good evidence or evidence to the contrary. Please let our journalists diligently set aside these terms so that issues become less complicated – and the diligence of our journalists will increase public understanding of many issues.

  1. Nip this in the bud:

Have you noticed?-keep reading-listening-in the news media, even now, that some people still keep advising the government with regards to “Boko Haram” to “get it out of the ground”? And even when we’re through it, or get rid of it, we’ll say, “Yes, the government nipped it in the bud.” please pay attention! Note that “bud” actually means a small knob on the stem of a plant that contains immature leaves and/or flowers. If a bud is left, it will soon bloom, fully developing into branches, leaf-clumps and/or flowers.

As a figure of speech, “put it in the bud” means “to destroy something at an early stage of development”—just like destroying immature leaves and flowers while they are in the bud, i.e. at the bud opening and before blooming.

If we freely use “bud in the bud” for a lethal substance that has already bloomed and developed into leaves/branches/flowers and is cut, propagated and transplanted elsewhere So, guess how embarrassing and upsetting this sounds, ladies and gentlemen, who may be strangers to such common errors that amount to lying that so many people never take so lightly. And what effect does such widely accepted independent lying have on our sensibility? Your guess is as good as mine—or rather, just as bad.

On a more serious note, however, I personally believe that good language accuracy is an aspect of our individual and group integrity. As it is written, “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, and ‘no’ to ‘no’.” Far from all ambiguity, ambiguity, ambiguity, elusiveness, mix-ups and double-talk are all synonyms that create confusion. Please try to use intentional and precise words.

  1. Amnesty is an official pardon usually for a group or individual:

This is one of the most recently invented aspects of deadly obscurity by Nigerian government officials. Of course, it needs no explanation that genuine pardon is an option, when the pardoned is firmly on hold by the government to pardon them. Then the government would be rightly told to exercise mercy. Like it or not, those Boko Haram rebels and other terrorists were not at the mercy of the government when mercy was offered. We now conveniently remember that so many “vigilant” people were warning us that the rebels would only take this opportunity to bring down the federal government. I considered and understood because some people compared the scenario to the case of two people (usually, friends or business partners) who were still arguing with each other about the mistakes they had made and to each other. Says “I forgive you”. what do you think The other would reject such an “apology”. The point is that you should humble them by placing them “at your mercy” before you can offer them mercy/pardon/apology. The “pardon” that we persuade the intended beneficiaries to accept may be as good and very desirable as the settlement we pray for; But it is not aptly called. I request all government and other leaders everywhere to please see that political situations require more precision and less ambiguity.

  1. Frequent misuse of the word “politics”

It is promoted everywhere by many politicians and their followers alike. Here and elsewhere, we keep hearing and reading about them because they freely accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them or is in a position to politicize their issues and events that are inherently essentially political. are, anyway. Let’s think of it as it really is: To politicize (Br.)/politicize (Am.) is to “give political character” to an issue or event that is otherwise without political character. So many political people are confusing and confusing the public and adding to the tension everywhere. We all should be careful with them.

  1. Himself / Himself / Himself vs. Each other / Each other:

The broad mix of these words that I like to describe as “strict and distinct beneficiary-indicating words” has far more than grammatical and lexical implications. Confusing these terms is fraught with deadly practical relationship hazards arising from our intentionally or unintentionally recommending and providing services for ourselves or for others.

Think of an otherwise well wisher advising some newly inaugurated team members (a newlywed couple, for example) to “love, know, understand, help, respect, trust, serve and listening to oneself” (that is, “oneself”), when well-wishers actually mean “one another” or “one another” as the case may be. Mark it well, pairs and teams may not be successful as members keep hearing what they should be doing to themselves and/or to each other. Of course, it can be reasonably or reasonably assumed that the parties concerned get the intended meanings. However, let’s be careful to drive this point home correctly, improving our collective image before those still not used to such a common mix. Yes, please speak nice if you mean nice to the team.

We all know (nothing?) that our contemporary culture has facts (even figures!) so we must be apt to contend for facts and meaning with appropriate responses to spurious claims and counter-claims, Which are growing rapidly in our culture, corrupting the values. Our collective culture is degenerating before us. And many people react to it simply being forgotten for our culture, romanticizing our history and antiquities. We will look into this matter of culture when the time comes. In the meantime, please think about it.



Source by Elisha Olusegun Babalola

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: