Trask is the only source to mention size Trask stands alone in describing this in terms of size P H Matthews Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics 2007 Oxford uses macrofamily solely for a proposed unit that combines widely accepted language families with no reference to size Lyle Campbell Mauricio J Mixco A Glossary of Historical Linguistics 2007 Utah uses macrofamily solely for proposed and controversial units with no reference to size David Crystal A Dictionary of Linguistics Phonetics 2003 Blackwell does not use macrofamily but uses phylum and macrophylum in the same senseproposed units with deep time depth above the level of established families with no reference to size Terry Crowley An Introduction to Historical Linguistics 1997 Oxford does not use macrofamily but uses stock and phylum in the same senseproposed units with deep time depth above the level of established families with no reference to size Indeed he follows Stephen A Wurm in using stock for grouping language isolates as well as for grouping families So if you look at actual linguistic dictionaries you find Trask is the only source that uses macrofamily for size and all the others use it only for proposed controversial grouping above the level of family