Compilation of the Quran, verse location and chapter ordering were all done by the Prophet He used to say to his scribes, after reciting verses that were freshly revealed to him, "Write those after such and such", referring to another set of verses previously written down. Even places of pauses and places forbidding pausing were done by the prophet as well and Muslims simply copied him. The prophet often listened to a Sahabi reciting the Quran and there is no mention in any tradition that any Sahabi made even one deviation from the way the prophet recited the Quran. We also know from the Hadeeth that the angel Gabriel reviewed the Quran every year with the prophet during the month of Ramadan.
The way the Mus-haf was written was to ensure that all those considerations were noted. That includes verse endings, annotations of where to pause and where not to, etc. It preserved the oral tradition.
Well, that is definitely the "sacred history" that you will find in mainstream media and school curricula. The classical literature, however, includes other descriptions, including most notably كتاب المصاحف by السجستاني, which reports on many disputes, especially involving عبد الله ابن مسعود.
More broadly, however, I should also comment on Pragmatic's view that this is the way Arabs have read the Qur'an for centuries. Well, for a newcomer who wishes to read an English translation, which is more important: to translate the Book as it is read today, or translate it the way those who listened to it for the first time did?
An added problem is the following: How do you indicate to the first-time reader that a certain verse has been abrogated? This is particularly important for the verses that address dealing with non-Muslims, where the accounts on what was abrogated by آية السيف are obviously contentious and of paramount importance.
I am sorry if I am being argumentative, and not necessarily sticking to what you wish to do, but you'll see that my proposed translations actually stick to your program (adding rhythm and some rhyme). However, I think that there are fundamental issues that make this approach far from optimal (although what is optimal is even harder).
So, if we have the three approaches "Linguistic", "Pragmatic", and "Poetic", I think that we need a fourth: Historical. Otherwise, if we translate an Arabic word based on its current meaning, we would not be translating the Qur'an as it was revealed. There are obviously the other issues that I have raised in this thread that are also historical in nature.