One, English doesn't like the combing of words nearly as much as Finnish or German (or Eskimo I hear. Don't know for sure). So, that argument doesn't quite work.

But, what I find most interesting is that when we have such issues, noders continually turn to Webster, whether it be 1913 or otherwise.

I know a part of this is the convenience of having a noded dictionary, but someone had to write the definition. Meaning, this "definition" is the opinion of a person or group of people who thought they understood how We, the People, use the language. Webster is not the End-all-Be-all.

Better yet, and this is good general advice, is to make your own definition. A typical (and classical) form is:

____ is a X with characteristic Y

It's not nearly as easy as you might think. The goals are accuracy - meaning the subject is properly designated, and singularity - meaning only the subject is designated. One example:

A word is the most basic functional-unit of language composed of letters.

You'll have to forgive my lack of parallelism but that's a rough draft of such a defintion. To be formal about the matter, we would need to define functional-unit and concept but instead of trying to bottom-out, we'll just run with what we've got.

With this definition, then, saying something isn't a word implies that it's either not a most basic functional-unit or not composed of letters.

In general, I think most people when they say that a word isn't a word mean that it's not a functional-unit. Meaning, they don't accept that construction of letters as having meaning (i.e. they've never heard it before). "lkajk" is a group of letters, but since it doesn't refer to anything, it's functionless, i.e. not a word.

Now, whether or not a "word" like "downvoting" should be called a word or not, depends on your own definition (and not Webster's!) Personally, I see "downvoting" as functional, it's made of letters, and so, according to my definition, it's a word. QED.

A similarly short reply: I never said it shouldn't evolve. (I'm also of the opinion that evolution can't be stopped, but that's another node.) In fact, my definition encourages mixing and combining as long as its functional. I'm pro-change, my friend. But, in general English has other methods of word-creation rather than combining. That's all.