Webster agrees with me, it should be two words, not a single word. That was my point (and is the point of the "notaverb" site).
Can you show me anywhere "shutdown" is used as a verb (in the computer industry or otherwise) where it appears as a choice rather than a simple error? Like in the title of a well circulated article, or otherwise in something that has been subject to professional editing?
https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1087717834975789056?l...
Not yet. But if that becomes common enough, then that just becomes how the language is, like it or not. I personally would hate it and would be that annoying pedant who always calls it out, but if people mostly accept it, then I wouldn't really be in the right. When usage is in transition like that, it's these sorts of debates that determine what the end result will be.
My current pet peeve is the use of "literally" for emphasis rather than actually meaning literally. Although I will always object, this usage has become very accepted by people (below a certain age), and so I can't really say they're wrong in some sort of objective sense. But I'll complain anyway.
There is also the issue that phrasal verbs are often split up or rearranged ("when will they shut it down?" "it is shutting down", etc), which isn't all that compatible with merging into one word.
Anyway I'm glad to see they changed the title on HN, even if I got downvoted for my complaint. :) I appreciate your pointing out the value of this discussion, though! ("it's these sorts of debates that determine what the end result will be.")
I'm personally ok with the non-literal use of the word "literal," but that's a different tangent...