You could go the other way and say all the letters on your keyboard are shortcuts for entering the characters specific to your language. After all, there are far more characters in unicode for all the languages in the world and there is no shortcut for those. In Emacs I could do absolutely everything via M-x commands, even typing: e.g. M-x "insert-char" "LATIN SMALL LETTER J".
OK, this is becoming a bit silly. My main point really was that by adopting a keyboard-driven workflow you no longer think of the keyboard as "shortcuts", it just becomes the way to do it and, yeah, I definitely think Ctrl-C counts as that.
I get what you mean and I can see why they are referred to as "shortcuts". I just think it's a deficiency in UI design that leads to such a term. I have used software like Inkscape a lot and using it efficiently is a bit like playing guitar: one hand on the mouse, the other on the keyboard, working together. Discoverability is good (although I think massively overhyped) but a good UI should lead you to discover the most efficient way to do something, not the least efficient.
I guess what you don't like is (excessive) key combos or "chords".
I've been using a 65% keyboard for a few years now and I don't miss the function keys one bit, but I do occasionally miss the arrow keys. A lot of UIs are built with the assumption that the arrow keys actually exist and aren't just "arrow commands" that might be bound to other key combos. It's just awkward then if they want you to press "Shift-Left", for example, which is I guess what you call "shortcuts in shortcuts".