The subhead of a piece that appeared on the New York Times Web site today: "A ginormous public lands bill failed to pass the House, and is stalled." Ginormous? Really I thought ginormous was a silly combination of gigantic and enormous a clever tween somewhere in Westchester or Orange counties thought up a few years ago that just sort of caught on. I was surprised to see it caught on with The New York Times, though - in fact, a quick search shows that it's been used at least 1,870 times in the Times. Apparently, I was under a ginormous misimpression about ginormous; the Merriam-Webster dictionary says the word dates to 1948 (though it does not specify its first use). Meaning "extremely large," ginormous is also what's known, according to the Times itself, as a neologism, or a newly invented word. I know, there's a contradiction here: "newly invented" yet around since 1948? I can't explain it. I'm just glad to know I can use it without sounding like a 13-year-old girl.
When I lived in England in 1985, all the kids used "gynormous" and I remember seeing it in books with that spelling. So when I started hearing it a year or two ago, I just figured it was an import.
Posted by: Chris Goldrick | April 02, 2009 at 06:58 AM