>In grammar school we had a chemistry tewacher who drummed precision into us. For instance, when reading an experiment report that stated, "I took the test tube with the solution and ran it under the tap..." he took a test tube and held it under a tap (that wasn't running) and proved that the test tube had no means of running whatsoever, under the tap or elsewhere. So we couldn't use idiomatic English like this but would need to say something like, "I held the test tube under running water to cool it." :-)

The verb "run" by itself should be banned. Or given just one meaning, for example, "to perform fast bipedal or quadripedal motion". The rest, as in "run an article", "nose is running", "run a program", "second run"... should be replaced with new verbs.

With so many words which have too many meanings (and for "run", Merriam-Webster lists 15 meanings for intransitive, and 15 for transitive, plus "run acriss", "run a fever", "run after", "run against"... up to "run short of"), the listener is supposed to deduce the desired meaning from context. But then, it is too often that the context is just another word or two, with equally ambiguous set of meanings. "Press charges" - what, have the ammunition ironed? Or is it the gentlemen of the press charging their cell phones? No, they are jumping out of the trenches and attacking the enemy. No, no, the machine is accusing...