It's kinda flipped from how most people think of it. Dictionaries don't define which words the language contains--they just write down the meaning of words that people are using. Any word that's used commonly enough will be added to the dictionary. Webster also has "rizz", for example. That just popped into common usage a couple years ago and definitely wasn't coined by a dictionary.

My favorite nonsense words lately have been from Australia. They have whipper-snippers, grow Warrigal greens, eat wombock, and chase off bin chickens. Giving language a purple-nurple is practically the national Aussie pastime.

Apparently it was coined in the late 19 century as mock Latin. Making up words like this was popular at the time in the USA.

I assume due to the rise in newspapers and literacy. People were getting all sesquipedalian. ie: Using enbiggened (first use in 1884) words to make themselves seem more educated and perspicacious.

It would be a poor dictionary that excluded such a widely used word as "discombobulated."

I've seen a few science videos from classrooms in the 1940's/1950's that legit use the word "recombobulate" in a scientific setting and I always thought it was funny as hell.

https://youtu.be/B62ACxuq8Pw?feature=shared

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/discombobulated

"1834 US, fanciful variant of discompose, discomfit, etc., originally discombobricate.[1]"

I am quite partial to using the terms "shitacular" and "paufuckcity" when describing many, many things at work. Eg. This project will end shitacularly due to the paufuckcity of requirements.