It appears to have a home on the final round of a spelling bee. However, floccinaucinihilipilification has taken over not just the news and is trending on Google but has come up in conversations completely unrelated to linguistics but rather in relation to laws and politics. SIR WHAT? 

So how did something previously only known to scholars become a viral sensation? And more importantly, what does it mean?

To start off, what does it mean?

If we take off the awkward long length of the word, we can actually see that floccinaucinihilipilification has a pretty simple definition.

It just basically means that you think something (item or idea) as absolutely not important or not worth anything.

So no, it’s not crazy and has no hidden meanings. Sounds kinda anticlimactic no? Wait, picture (ya political context) abhi baaki hai mere dost! 

The interesting thing about the word is that it refers to simply being not only against something but to totally dismiss it to the extent that it is not worthy of further thought or consideration. It is the total frustration of anything intellectually.

Therefore when you dismiss an idea with absolutely no value as “not of substance,” you are “floccinaucinihilipilificating” the idea, but the truth is that there is no one that would ever use this word in an average way. 

What is the reason for this floccinaucinihilipilification phenomenon?

Because it was used in a courtroom.

A Delhi court recently used the word when dismissing a lawsuit for defamation against the remarks made by Nirmala Sitharaman. 

A centuries-old word that hasn’t been used very much until now, has suddenly found itself at the middle of a `modern-day media storm’.

BAHAHAHAH. We are truly living in the most unserious era of the internet. 

This was because the case itself was based upon a complaint by Lipika Mitra, the spouse of Somnath Bharti, a member of the AAP. The complaint claimed defamation and damage from a statement made during a press conference for a political party.

When it came before the judge, however, instead of describing the case in plain legal terms, he gave an opinion of the case that immediately caught people’s attention.

He said that it was an example of `floccinaucinihilipilification’, in effect indicating that the case had no merit and made no sense whatsoever.

Thus, he let the plaintiff know that it had no standing in the court of law.

Court’s Message Explained

Traditionally, courts do use very explicit language, but they do not generally use playful language. This was one of those rare instances of a random judge using playful vocabulary while also giving an opinion on a case.

In using this word, the judge was not just telling Lipika Mitra to `get lost’. The use of the word meant that the case was inherently and patently worthless and therefore frivolously brought, but without any justification for the action.

In addition to using the word, he also mentioned: `there is no prima facie case established’; `there is no evidence to support the legal claim’; and, `this matter is in the realm of political discourse and not in the realm of defamation’.

In layman’s terms, the judge was saying that this case should never have ever come before the court, it should have been dismissed before it ever came this far.

The word chosen by the Court conveys a lot more than simply the excessive nature of how the complaint was stated, and is one of the most substantive points made by the Court in its decision.

The Political Context Surrounding The Case

To understand why this became an issue of such importance, it’s helpful to look at the context of when it occurred.

The context of the complaint arose out of an assortment of statements made in relation to a political news conference prior to the coming election. The comments made by the candidate in the context of his campaign were part of the overall political conversation wherein political candidates routinely make statements attacking each other (often using very rough language).

The comment made by the candidate toward another candidate was therefore deemed, by the Court, to be an area of discussion between competing candidates regarding politics and not an intentional verbal attack that could be classified as criminal defamation.

A Word With Surprisingly Humble Origins

Now for the interesting part.

Although it seems to be a product of the 21st century in terms of its origin as a word, the word “floccinaucinihilipilification” can actually be traced back to affirmations of Latin words (“flocci”, “nauci”, “nihili” and “pili”), each meaning a degree of no value. The four words were related to and ultimately combined (almost playfully) into one (long!) word. The irony can be found in this word, as the length and complexity of it represents an ironic example of describing something that is, in fact, insignificant. 

The internet loves three things: unusual words, political drama and anything that seems unintentionally funny. This occurrence had all three!

The example of a courtroom using a 29 letter-long word to describe a case with no value is definitely an uncommon mixture of unexpected behaviour. 

This is exactly why everyone involved began:

– Looking up its meaning.

– Attempting to pronounce it.

– Using it as a joke in conversations.

– Sharing it as the “word of the day”.

In an age where attention spans are short, an occurrence this bizarre cuts through the clutter of day-to-day events.

If you would like to use it yourself..

Use floccinaucinihilipilification to:

– Say that a proposal was “met with floccinaucinihilipilification” by being immediately dismissed (i.e., no one even looked at it).

– Indicate that an argument was “treated with floccinaucinihilipilification” when it was not taken seriously (i.e., no one listened).

Expect to repeat yourself, because most people will want to know the meaning of the term. And, honestly, that adds to the fun of using it.