Language is about communication. Is it more effective to communicate a new concept using a word that is “close enough” and will likely be understood by your audience, or making up a new term which you will have to explain over and over to everyone you meet, and which may or may not “stick” and be remembered? Obviously the former, which is what happens in practice. This is not laziness, this is efficiency.
Holy crap, you complain about people “overloading” terms, then bring up the most generic and overloaded word ever, which literally means “remember”, straight from Latin, and was originally used to say “reproduce so it can be remembered” more than “store away”. It’s the most imprecise and generic word you can use when you want to indicate you are saving some sort of experience in any format. You might as well tell people to smurf the smurf 
Let me guess: all the times you’ve been watching films, you’ve actually been staring at plastic strips, not at the light projected through such strips while they’re quickly flipped in front of a lense so that you can experience a story through moving images. When you’ve been filming something, you’ve been wrapping such strips around something. “Films” and “to film” have long overlapped “record” and “to record” when the item being recorded is a visual experience. In fact, they are much more precise terms than “record” will ever be. You will never have people doing something “for the film” so that it’s official, or “look up a film in a directory” that is a generic data store.
By the way, you’re probably using a camera to record; I go to my Italian camera when I want to sleep. Wanna bet which term is more precise and closer to the original meaning?
Honestly, that mirror you’re trying to climb is not worth it.
That’s a philosophical statement, and a very wrong one. All words come from somewhere, but more often than not, they come from previous words. We are even now communicating in English, the most bastardized language on Earth, one that rarely ever “made up” words from first principles and instead repurposed and remixed terms from “more original” Latin and Scandinavian languages. There is a reason we have an entire science called etymology.
Obviously we did have to “make up” a lot of words at some point, but that was a long time ago, before we even knew how to write anything down. Almost everything after that came from a process of mangling and refining existing terms. Which is why today you say you want to “bring back into our heart” the stuff you see through some lenses, when in fact you want to store it away in some sequence of electrons for further use. The Latins did not “make up” that word to indicate what you want to indicate, but over the years people agreed that was an acceptable use of the term.
This has nothing to do with what icons are or are used for, they were very much a late addition to IT. Use a terminal (which is something like a “boundary”, of course, something where stuff ends – nothing to do with typing text on a screen!), it’s the same thing - you “cd” to change “directory” (a guide or system of guides / managers), you “open” “files”, you “print” to screen without anything ever getting pressed. None of those terms are specific or made up, not even “input” and “output”. The made-up words are pretty much all acronyms and abbreviations like RAM or CPU, or remixes like “network”, so again, very little is really new.
