I accept that “architect” can be used as a verb, quite legitimately, but I can’t help finding it clumsy. The words “architected” or “architecting” seem to denote a perfectly innocent noun ruthlessly twisted into a verb. Their counterpart, “engineering”, doesn’t appear to suffer in this way, since “engineering” makes a perfectly serviceable noun in its own right (e.g. “heavy engineering and construction”).

“Architecting” used as a company name or slogan would work well, being a slightly unusual word and therefore somewhat distinctive.

As Calvin and Hobbes remind us, “Verbing weirds language”. For an inspired elaboration of this delightful phrase, point your Googles at “First they came for the verbs”.

-Aidan

It’s worth noting that anyone who would argue that ‘architect’ cannot embrace the proposed (and already oft-used) verb-form ‘architecting’ should also be willing to argue that ‘engineer’ should not be valid in it’s formal verb-form ‘engineering’.

As those two paradigms are virtually identical (even largely down unto definitions), to me this is all merely a pointless topic of semantic preference and not a worthy argument.

You state in the blog:

The OED provides citations from as far back as 1813, quoting a letter from Keats, in which he writes “This was architected thus By the great Oceanus.” The OED also specifies that the word, in addition to being used as a verb, is used in a figurative and transferred sense.

I took our Oxford English Dictionary (OED) off the shelf, looked up architect, and it became immediately apparent that the author of this blog was taking unacceptable liberties and was extremely careless and even reckless in his citation.

But before I go into detail, let’s make clear that just because one poet used a form of a word one time in a poem (NOT a letter), that does not make correct usage in non-fiction prose in a professional context.

Here is what the OED actually says on pages 434 and 435:

Architect: All the definitions of architect are as a noun — NO VERBS. THE BLOG IS WRONG.

The first citation of the word architect in English is from “1563 Shute Archit. [title of a book] A ij b, John Shute Painter and Architecte.” SO THE EARLIEST DATE STATED IN THE BLOG IS WRONG BY 250 YEARS.

The OED cites architect as part of two verb form variants. The first is Architecturalize: to adapt to architectural purposes or design 1879 G. Scott Lect. Archit. II. 139 To architecturalize the arched opening.

This usage is rare and one of a kind; as you can see from the citation it is both cumbersome and redundant.

Finally the citation from Keats reads:

Architecture, v. rare. [f. prec. sub] To design as architect. a 1821 Keats Fingal’s Cave (D.) This was architectur’d thus By the great Oceanus.

This actual quotation shows that THE BLOG IS WRONG on many counts.

1. Keats wrote the poem circa 1821. According to one of his biographies, he visited Fingal’s Cave on the island of Staffa in the Hebrides in 1818, so he could not have written it in 1813 in any case. THE BLOG IS WRONG ABOUT THE DATE.

2. The quotation is not from a letter it is from a poem. THE BLOG IS WRONG AGAIN.

3. The citation is not for architect as a verb but architectur’d. THE BLOG IS WRONG.

4. Even the OED states that architectur’d is a rare verb, which for the OED — which is packed with obscure and arcane words given as ordinary usage — is going very far to show how exceptional it is.

5. The blog claims that the OED says that Architect is “in addition to being used as a verb, is used in a figurative and transferred sense.” What does the OED say?

Architecture, . . .
5. transf. or fig. Construction or structure generally; both abst. and concr. SO, WHAT IS THE BLOG’S POINT? These usages are rather obvious and have nothing to do with verbs.

This blog is nothing more than further proof that at least 95% of everything on the web is pure excrement. This situation is what I call the infodemic. Just because someone posts something online does not make it accurate or true — quite the contrary in the majority of postings

“Rifling”, or do you mean riffling?

Agreed. Similarly, any sentence that begins with the phrase “See, …” can be safely ignored as patronizing dogma.

- Karl Jones

Any statement starting “The last time I checked…” can safely be ignored. It’s just someone trying to be all snotty and superior.

Beyond that, unless you’re a rock-ribbed and diehard prescriptivist, listening and reading might well be a better way to assess changing usage than simply picking up one dictionary.