If I find a word inadequate, I coin a new one that suits me. However,
... you are of course wrong.
You continue to be wrong -
lin·guis·ti·cal
/lɪŋˈgwɪstɪkəl/ [ling-gwis-ti-kuhl]
–adjective
(not in technical use) linguistic.
(Emphasis mine.)
Merriam-Webster and Oxford both disagree with your 'word' as well. With the term 'not in use' or 'not in technical use' as part of the description. It is perhaps a word that
should be, I grant, however, it is not at this time an actual word, being unnecessary as its meaning has been rolled into 'Linguistic'. It is deemed redundant, since the word 'Linguistic' can be used to refer to itself, and there is no need for a word of more constrained definition.
In case you could not notice, grammar, etymology, and philology are pets of mine as well. I was a parochial school student, with Jesuit training for English - I remember an enjoyable argument with the Jeb that 'ain't' is not in fact slang, but an archaic survival, relegated to slang status - a contraction of 'an it not'. (Arguing with a Jeb, with supporting evidence, was likely to result in a better grade....)
Now, let us drop it here, and assume that both of us are proficient enough to support our claims, but that you are choosing outliers, and will continue to do so, while I am being more conservative in my usage of the language that separates us. You may dislike S&W, but it is readily available and is generally considered to be an acceptable authority, despite your dislike.
We may enjoy the argument, but it is not the topic of this thread.
The Auld Grump, it was Professor Pullum, in the Conservatory, with the Lead Pipe.
