Grammarphobia

Not only are you nitpicking, you are also wrong.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/07/architectural-criticism.html

We should add that the use of “architect” as a verb isn’t a recent phenomenon. The Oxford English Dictionary has written examples going back to the early 1800s.

The earliest example in the OED is from a July 23, 1818, letter that the poet John Keats wrote to his brother Thomas after visiting Fingal’s Cave on the island of Staffa in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland.

Here’s how a poem in the letter describes the cave and its distinctive basalt columns: “This was architected thus / By the great Oceanus.”

Your view of language is incredibly prescriptive. If I want to, I can say architects architect buildings. There's nothing wrong with that. If there's a useful distinction between designing and architecting then there's 0 reason I shouldn't bring attention to it.

For example. If 'to architect' is synonymous with 'design', would you say someone architects a logo?

Well, by the 19th-century mainly in (British?) English, according to those sources. By then had been abandoned in other European languages.

Britannica [0] says:

- invented by Romans c. 1st century BCE as a shorthand for 'et', can be seen from Pompeii

- was [also] prevalent in German manuscripts throughout the 19th century.

- gradually abandoned by most [non-English] languages by the end of the 19th century, with the notable exception of Gaelic, where it's also still used [as an evolution of the rival Tironian symbol].

and [1] has a really interesting illustration by Houston (1957) citing Tschichold (1953), showing the evolution of the ampersand over the years, from Pompeii through 8th-C Merovingian Latin to modern-day.

[0]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ampersand

[1]: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/ampersand-2.html

The word “copy” in the early 1700s when copyright was codified in law meant both a written text and a reproduction of a written text. The meaning you’re using, of text at an intermediate stage of a publishing process, is much later, 19th century. [0] So, the original meaning was a noun (the right to make “a copy” of a book) but meant the book itself, not the abstract text of the book. It would be interesting to research whether there were any rulings in that period about hand-copying a book, which was the only alternative to printing it.

Nowadays of course copyright covers much more than text, and includes such “copies” as the public performance of a theatrical work or reproduction of a sculpture, so the modern copyright clearly doesn’t have the meaning you’re using.

[0] https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/08/copy.html

It's the common abbreviation, but I wasn't sure as to its origin myself; the closest to a straight answer I can find is from https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=639390:

> mfg came from manufacturing; its existence meant that some people started using it for manufacturer as well; but having a g in the abbreviation without one in the word bothered people, so they added an r to make it mfgr.

This leads me to wish there was a well-researched blog for abbreviation/initialism/acronym etymologies, the way https://grammarphobia.com/ is for English word etmologies. But I guess there aren't that many of these that are in need of explanation; usually they're pretty obvious.

Begging the question isn't usually used like this these days, even if it did originate thus. The English language is used the way English speakers use it; yes, even that is quite circular, because there is no formal academy setting down rules that everyone agrees on. Institutions only teach stylistic choices. We use beg the question in exactly the way you say we shouldn't far more often than not to the point that its history is merely a bit of trivia, at least to most American English speakers; Oxford has yet to catch up, but I can't imagine the English situation is that much different than the American one.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2021/11/beg-the-question.html

They read like 'half scare quotes', not "scare quotes", to me -- 'mildly cautious quotes'.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/06/scare-quotes.html

>Are scare quotes scary?

>[...] But the warning quotes you’re referring to, sometimes called “scare quotes,” should always be double quotes, not singletons, in American writing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/12/the-scare-quote-2016-in-a-punctuation-mark/511319/

>The Scare Quote: 2016 in a Punctuation Mark

>Doubled quotes developed as indications of a rational world. Now they’re developing as indications of the opposite.