"The right to bare arms"
(misunderstood in the North as "The right to bear-arms" ) !

Yes but keep in mind that "highte" is sort of passive in meaning so it cannot have a true object that is you cannot highte something; whereas cite is a true yoking verb. It's like heissen in German: it is already "passive" in meaning: Ich heisse, not Ich bin gehiessen or something..
It does sound right in the foregoing instances though.

"there was a knight that highte Theseus" - Chaucer, the knight's tale (opening) I think

Oddly enough, newswriters are often aware of short English words: they use "vow" for "promise" in headlines; and other words like "stoush"... Oh well at least here "in the South" (ie the real South) they do.

Much as I would teach "befuddled" to ESOL students, "confused" is more common and therefore comes first.
My own guess is that something like 250 000 people in India are fluent in English, compared to just 60 000 native speakers in England. We are indeed just the rearguard.
One can hear "informations" on the "English" version of Deutsche Welle. That, along with "She suggested me to do something", are at the spearhead of global English. However English is always changing - "thee" and "thou" are making a last stand with the older people in hidden dales in what was once Mercia. Soon they will be gone. But then if the doomsday forecasts for the umwelt are true, maybe we will all be too!

Wonderful thought to brook "yokeing" and "yokeless"; perhaps you could begin by writing to all the wordbook publishers like OUP, Websters, and so on and get them to rewrite the wordbooks with [Y] and [YL] after the verbs instead of [I] and [T]. That's the hurdle!

In England where English is spoke men say "full stop" at the end of a sentence.

Lastly of course it's all about collocations: for instance I wrote above: "komplett erledigt",
but in truth I am not sure if these words really go together. I thought about "schon erledigt" which I know is ok but not what I meant, "ausfuerlich erledigt", nearer to my meaning but perhaps weird.
The point is that while I like the word "threap" I find I am in threap as to how to use it!
You may threap me down if you will.

I should add that Korean like OE is an SOV tongue so word order is something like:
"Hair-breeze-in-blowing-Hee Jin morning-in park-to big-steps-with dog-her walked."

So English understandably them-for struggle-a-bit-of is!

Anwulf: I would love not to use grammatical terms like "subject", "object" and so on.
However it's quite difficult to talk about some mistakes without some terminology.
For example, Korean learners of English often write nightmare sentences like:
"How many population the earth can be supported?"
Try unclouding why this is wrong without using some good latinate terminology!
The reason lies in some oddness in Korean verbs which is mistakenly brought across into English. Although we do have bilingual teachers here, I myself have no Korean.
This from Wikipedia:
The passive voice is a grammatical voice in which the subject receives the action of a transitive verb. Passive voice emphasizes the process rather than who is performing the action. In Korean this form is called 피동. There are few patterns to help distinguish between active and passive voices in Korean verbs. This makes this more difficult to learn than a regular Korean grammar rule.

Using the passive voice is extremely common in Korean. Koreans often use it to emphasize what would normally have been the object of the sentence. The following two sentences are grammatically different in Korean but equally correct, notice that the English translation doesn't change:

Passive verbs still work as action verbs but now the object (that usually takes 을 or 를) has become the subject of the sentence (takes the particles: 이 or 가).

길을 막아요. [Traffic] blocks the road.
길이 막혀요. The road is blocked [by traffic]. (막히다 is much more common in this scenario)

We would not get far using "the naming part" and "the telling part" would we!