Aeipathy
We do not use this word any longer, its been weighed down with dust and can't hoist itself up and out from its slump. As is generally the case, we have a smattering of similar words that can merely approach the definition via some round-about routing, or all we are left with is a ghost of the word as defined by the shadow of its opposite. Consider the fate of Ruth and meditate for a moment about what it might mean to us, as a "people", to look at which words we have a use for and which become obsolete: we have "ruthless" yet no "ruth" -- we kept the word describing a callous lack of sympathy or consideration, yet the word to describe the wonderful and rare feeling of pity colliding in midair with compassion/remorse is of no use to us today. Sadly, we are only capable of feeling ruthless now and none of us are even aware of Ruth or her story (if you are at all curious how the word Ruth came to mean what it does, and, in turn, how Ruthless came to mean what it does, all you need to do is pick up the Bible and find the Book of Ruth. You might know it without reading it: Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go...)
We do have Apathy, which is close to Aeipathy in both lettering as well as meaning. Apathy means a sort of weird impassive state on indifference, a perfunctoriness combined with a complete lack of concern, motivation or any sort of interest at all. Yes, each year seems to get more apathetic than the next - it is no wonder we have kept this word but have lost Aeipathy. An erosion must have taken place between the 1800s and the newness of this Now - the same erosion occurred on the face of the word itself: it lost several of its vowels! We can cram them back in, an E and an I, and see if we can't figure out its meaning. We know it is a cousin to Apathy so it must somehow relate to the way people work, and the fact that it is extinct must point to the fact that it is not a very modern thing. Yes!
We do not use this word any longer, its been weighed down with dust and can't hoist itself up and out from its slump. As is generally the case, we have a smattering of similar words that can merely approach the definition via some round-about routing, or all we are left with is a ghost of the word as defined by the shadow of its opposite. Consider the fate of Ruth and meditate for a moment about what it might mean to us, as a "people", to look at which words we have a use for and which become obsolete: we have "ruthless" yet no "ruth" -- we kept the word describing a callous lack of sympathy or consideration, yet the word to describe the wonderful and rare feeling of pity colliding in midair with compassion/remorse is of no use to us today. Sadly, we are only capable of feeling ruthless now and none of us are even aware of Ruth or her story (if you are at all curious how the word Ruth came to mean what it does, and, in turn, how Ruthless came to mean what it does, all you need to do is pick up the Bible and find the Book of Ruth. You might know it without reading it: Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go...)
We do have Apathy, which is close to Aeipathy in both lettering as well as meaning. Apathy means a sort of weird impassive state on indifference, a perfunctoriness combined with a complete lack of concern, motivation or any sort of interest at all. Yes, each year seems to get more apathetic than the next - it is no wonder we have kept this word but have lost Aeipathy. An erosion must have taken place between the 1800s and the newness of this Now - the same erosion occurred on the face of the word itself: it lost several of its vowels! We can cram them back in, an E and an I, and see if we can't figure out its meaning. We know it is a cousin to Apathy so it must somehow relate to the way people work, and the fact that it is extinct must point to the fact that it is not a very modern thing. Yes!
Yes! Aeipathy is defined as: "continued passion; an unyielding disease."
