Yes, I’m quite familiar with the etymology, and if I weren’t, the initial post would have taught me. My point was that it’s a completely useless word, since it merely expands “huge” into 4 or 5 syllables and a few really difficult phoneme transitions, without really adding meaning. Why is Jonathan Swift that references to his stories are counted as words? Why is “Brobdinganian” for “huge” any more correct that “Sauronic” for “evil?” Why shouldn’t I call Europe’s response to Islam “Theodenic?”
The only difference is the pretense of being literary. It’s positively Allthingsconsideredly; downright Sundaytimesian.
It’s more interesting than “ginormous.”