The specific problems I see at this time - confusion between a number of related words for what they represent, both in isolation and in relation to each other, (and the rest of the language) - would simply not exist in the manner that they do, were it not for ultimately confusing HOW the language is used for WHAT it represents.
How we currently use the language, in order to describe the language itself, for the most basic types of information it is used to represent, is generally incomplete, inaccurate or just plain inconsistent.
As I said, the basic rules of English grammar, deal with how words are used and the type of concept they represent. At this time, the relationship between the two is not fully recognised.
In order to describe such a relationship, we've split our language up into types of word, based on how they are used. This gives us a number of different groups (width) within the taxonomic hierarchy of our language, within which all of our words can be placed (hopefully).
The problem, is that we're not describing the basic concepts each group of word is used to represent, and therefore contain, in a consistent manner. This causes problems, not just vertically - for each word to be related to and by broader and narrower concepts, within the overall type, (armchair->chair->furniture->object->(tangible) thing) - but also horizontally, between different concepts, if using the same or similar words, ((a) hammer and (I) hammer, again, for example), and/or between different, but related, concepts, (e.g. agile and agility).
The latter is especially problematic at this time. Words can be related for what they represent, independently of how they are used. Understanding how and why they are related, because of the different types of concept they represent, (the different groups they belong to), is not currently happening, because we're not describing such concepts in a manner that determines how they are, (or even allows them to be described as being), related.
Because we're concerned with HOW they are used, more than WHAT they represent, even though the latter is the only reason the former matters in the first place.
EVERY type of word needs to be described not just for HOW they are used, but the basic concepts such words represent that cause them to be used in such a manner to begin with - (WHAT).
This is where we are currently failing. Every English lesson, every (English) dictionary and every (English) encyclopaedia needs to be re-written in this manner. The basic concepts this language represents, need to be described in a manner that makes sense as the root of such a taxonomic hierarchy, which, in general, isn't happening.
The words my blog is ultimately about, (game, puzzle, competition and art), is concerned with one type of concept the language is not currently perceived, recognised and understood to represent. This can only be happening if the focus is placed on how the words are used, instead of what type of concept they represent.
(The type of word we call noun, has three types of word that are used in such a manner, representing three different concepts. At this time, only one of these concepts is described in a consistent manner - (using the word thing). The other two concepts that are used in the same manner, are currently problematic, because they are further related to, and even derived from, two other concepts, used as two other types of word. We do not currently describe these types of concept in a manner that is fully consistent with how the language is used, and therefore consistent with what it represents.
The two further concepts that are used as nouns, represent applications of what words used as verbs and adjectives represent:
Movement (noun) is used as an application of move (verb).
Decision (noun) is used as an application of decide (verb).
Competition (noun) is used as an application of compete (verb).
Agility (noun) is used as an application of agile (adjective).
Strength (noun) is used as an application of strong (adjective).
Dexterity (noun) is used as an application of dexterous (adjective).
Which means we need to describe both verb and adjective in a manner that not only describes the basic concepts words that are used in such a manner represent, but also allows such types of word used as nouns, to be described as applications thereof.
The only description that makes any sense whatsoever for verb, is things that happen (a thing that happens). Unfortunately, at this time, we use words such as activity, occurrence, action or even event or state, ALL of which are nouns, representing applications of what verbs are supposed to be described as. Likewise, we have problems with describing the word adjective, aswell.
The failure to describe such a type of noun is, in my opinion, the direct cause of the problems I see with the words game, puzzle, art and competition.
The fact is, is that every type of word needs to be described for the both the type of concept they represent, and how they are used because of that, in a consistent manner, which is not currently happening).