When did "Architechted" become a word?

Bases on the 337 occurences of “architected” on Google, it appears it is mostly used by those in the computer software industry, in reference to system architecture. It sounds like it is just lazy vocabulary by someone with a narrow technical education.

“I came into work after being sick and had 734 emails in my inbox” sounds 100% fine to me.

Yes, but that’s actually enumerated. If instead you said, “I came in to work after being sick and had a shitload of emails in my inbox” it would sound weird, and to my ear it should be “email” not “emails.” I’m kinda on board with this one.

Historically, utilize has the implication of putting something to a profitable use, especially when that use is not what the thing would be normally used for. “Utilize” generally should be used to indicate the accomplishment or expectation of a specific outcome or product. If you’re just using a car, you’re driving it around for any purpose. But I could say “We have that second car, the one we hardly drove, so I utilized it to generate a second income as a delivery driver.” For another example, you use a screwdriver to drive screws; if you were to find yourself locked out of your house, you could utilize the screwdriver as a lock-picking device.

I would agree that most of the time “utilize” is trotted out, it’s the wrong choice; “use” should be there instead. But once in a great while, it’s a slightly more precise word.

I can appreciate Indistinguishable’s point, but actually a lot of words claimed to be synonyms aren’t quite 100% synonymous. “Felicitous” has a subtelty of meaning, sort of an undercurrent of niceness and/or good luck, depending on the context, that “well-suited” lacks.

Having said all that, we still have otherwise seemingly intelligent SDMB members confusing “its” and “it’s,” and until we can clear up THAT goddamned eyesore I’m not going to be too harsh on “utilize.”

Ah, I think the word I would use there is “repurpose”.

Not really.

I went to Architecting school in the early '90s, and I guarantee you not once did anyone ever mention having architected anything, nor have I ever read it in any literature since. We all designed things.

I suspect Fear Itself has it right, it may be in minor use in the software industry. MC$E, what context did you hear it in?

In order to distinguish them from missives on paper. I would think that’s obvious.

Adhering to SDMB bylaw 4.3.2 I now give the requisite appropriate Simspson quote for this thread:

‘Architected’ is a perfectly cromulent word.

Absolutely, and I should have noted this. But, of course, the only reason such connotational differences are able to arise at all is because the synonyms existed in the first place. Among those who use the verb “architect”, it surely has a slightly different flavor than would be given by the verbs “design” or “plan”.

I think I accidentally called you “Indisputable” once, or something like that. :smiley:

And yet, “I came home from vacation to find 45 mails in my mailbox” sounds 100% wrong. No, you would use ‘letters’ or ‘pieces of mail’. But the ‘e’ changes everything and it shouldn’t.

Then use emissive and apply to email the existing language standard for regular mail (pmail?).

Architechted? That’s inconceivable!

Why shouldn’t it? After all, there are certain changes that you don’t protest; when people say “inbox” instead of “e-mailbox”, for example. And I imagine you have no problem with “mailing address”, but recognize “e-mailing address” to be quite odd.

Why would you even say box? It’s a ‘folder’ isn’t it? But it’s not really even that. Apples and oranges. Mail is still mail whether sent via post or electronically.

And, on second thought, ‘email messages’ works just fine and is already in use.

Actually, I prefer postal address and email address. It’s much more specific than “mailing address” which, incidentally, does sound funny to me.

We should go back to using the English language the way Shakespeare did. You’d never catch him making words up!

Ah, well, there go all my assumptions. Still, it just confirms that there’s no real reason why email terms have to match their corresponding snail mail terms.


Fred Bloggs authored a book.

Next thing we’ll hear that Wolfgang Puck cheffed a meal.

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, I ween.

In college I wrote a paper on The Master Buildeder. Or was it The Master Buildered?