I think there was a miscommunication. My issue with naming them Goliath is two fold.
One, it ignores that giant-kin have already been explored, and there were already a number of ripe examples to pick from (Firbolg, Verbeeg, Fomorian, etc.).
Two, using the name Goliath, while certainly evocative of strength, is like labeling a race of half-giants as Stronglings or Strongy-Strongertons. I once heard Goliath used to describe some especially big cocktail shrimp.
Nah, not a miscommunication, but rather a conversation!
Choosing to use a term new to D&D, like "goliath", rather than an existing half-giant racial name, like "firbolg" is simply a choice, neither right nor wrong. If you prefer "firbolg", of course go with it in your campaign. However, goliaths aren't identical to older edition firbolgs, and had WotC used "firbolg" they might have upset folks in the same way that merging elves and eladrin did, or changing what a deva was in 4E.
In fact, goliaths, despite filling the "half-giant" archetype, are something entirely new to D&D! The name is new, the look of the race is new, the culture is new. They don't really resemble firbolg, verbeeg, fomorians, Athasian half-giants, or any other previous "half-giant" race. So, why go with one of those older names that already "belong" to something else?
In regular world parlance, "goliath" definitely means "something big". And it is kinda close to naming your campaign's villian, "Evael Grimdark of Shadowland", although not quite to that extreme. But, as D&D is a game (mostly) of epic fantasy, I'm okay with that. In fact, I think that "goliath" strikes a nice balance between being descriptive and being campy. In my campaign, "goliaths" are what humans call them, they have a different word in their own language (one I haven't made up yet, cause I suck at that).
