I guess it should come as no surprise that I am now officially on the losing end of my years-long battle against the word,
ginormous. Trying to curry favor with the post-literate generation, those old bus drivers Merriam and Webster have officially added
ginormous to their dictionary, as reported by the AP and
regurgitated here by CBS.
“There will be linguistic conservatives who will turn
their nose up at a word like `ginormous,”’ said John Morse,
Merriam-Webster’s president.
You bet there will be, and we’re mad as Hatters. Come on guys,
ginormous isn’t even in the
OSPD, and they’ll take anything. Has the world really changed so much that we need more words that mean big? What does
ginormous give us that
gigantic and
enormous
didn’t? Were they not big enough? What, if anything, is the difference
between those two words anyway? It just seems gratuitous to me, and it
sounds like it should be spelled
gynormous and mean really big and also female. (I think there should be an
illustration by R. Crumb next to the definition under that spelling.)
I’ve always been a fan of using big, even made up, numbers to denote
serious bigness. Instead of saying, “That was a ginormous waffle I had
for breakfast!” one might say, “That waffle I ate must have had about a
zillion grams of fiber in it!” Although wikipedia lists umpteen “
indefinite and fictitious numbers” including zillion, they omit my personal favorite, the engagingly modest exaggeration,
eleventeen.
I love a good
neologism or
portmanteau
as much as the next red-blooded American man, (probably more) but not
every one should get added to the dictionary. I say no new words for big
until you’ve used up the ones we already have. I guess I have to get
used to the fact that we already have
ginormous.
Tags:
neologism