1

The perplexity occurred as it has two meanings but if I read between the lines, they are contradictory to each other! (Let's not touch adjectives of this, they are even more confusing!)

valetudinarian (n; #1): a person who is or believes himself to be chronically sick; invalid

And the next meaning is...

valetudinarian (n; #2): a person excessively worried (anxious?) about the state of his health; [hypochondriac -omitting this as this is the medical term and being a healthcare provider, and though it's close, I feel it does not exactly represents our word in concern.].

Now, if Jack is too conscious, worried or anxious about his health, he's less likely to contract diseases. We often say, he's, though over, health conscious. On the other hand, the first meaning says that if you are a valetudinarian, you are chronically sick (one of the meanings).

If you worry too much for your health, it is actually to prevent valetudinarianism, isn't it?

How come a valetudinarian (#2) person can be a valetudinarian (#1).

Community
  • 1
Maulik V
  • 66,059
  • 109
  • 310
  • 456
  • 2
    It might be interesting to note that Wiktionary combines these two definitions. – Helix Quar Apr 18 '14 at 11:35
  • 3
    Now, if Jack is too conscious, worried or anxious about his health, he's less likely to contract diseases. I thought stress could weaken the immune system. If Jack is concerned enough about his health that he takes concrete steps to avoid being sick (good diet, exercise, and sleep regimens, e.g.), then I would agree with you. But if Jack is "too conscious, worried or anxious about his health," that sounds like fretting to me, which I think would make Jack more likely to come down with something, not less likely. – J.R. Apr 18 '14 at 11:53
  • 1
    I agree with JR. People who worry about their health generally have more health problems in my experience. There's a difference between taking care of your health and worrying about it; people who worry about their health are most often (not always, of course) people who don't take care of it. Looking at Americans: a lot of us are overweight, we eat because we worry, we worry about heart attacks, we eat because we worry...heart attack is the chief cause of death in America. We are perhaps a "valetudinarious" people. :) – BobRodes Apr 18 '14 at 13:56
  • 3
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about two extremely similar senses of one word. As OED puts it (in a *single* definition), A person in weak health, esp.* one who is constantly concerned with his own ailments; an invalid.* – FumbleFingers Apr 18 '14 at 14:09
  • 2
    I've never heard or seen this word. “Hypochondriac” is the common term for someone who constantly thinks they are sick, and “chronically ill” describes someone who is actually sick all the time. It seems like a valetudinarian is a chronically ill hypochondriac, or by some definitions just a chronically ill person who is (understandably, I should think) focused on their own health. This word doesn't have much use these days (as you can see), so I would just avoid it. – Tyler James Young Apr 18 '14 at 14:23
  • @Tyler: As your linked chart shows, use of this word has massively declined over the past couple of centuries. It would almost never occur as a "natural" usage today, in any context, with either of OP's supposedly "different" definitions. But at its peak over two centuries ago, the distinction between real and "imaginary" ailments would often be little more than a matter of opinion (on the part of the physician, not the sufferer). Without question though, the best advice for learners would be don't use this word (unless facetiously showing off your outmoded vocabulary! :) – FumbleFingers Apr 18 '14 at 14:40
  • @FumbleFingers being a healthcare provider, this word is practiced among us who know the language a bit better than others. You voted for closing this, I cannot help it but for me, this was important. We often call elderly, low-class people, valetudinarians, pregnant women and others for symposiums conducted in villages for health awareness. – Maulik V Apr 18 '14 at 14:45
  • @FumbleFingers "massively declined over the past couple of centuries; true, but it is exactly opposite to that in the past couple of years. Set it between 2000-2008 – Maulik V Apr 18 '14 at 14:55
  • @Maulik: Google Books/NGram usage figures for the past decade or so are almost completely worthless in terms of reflecting actual usage trends. And although things might feasibly be different in India, I can assure you that valetudinarian is *not* experiencing a "revival" among healthcare professionals in the UK (and I would be astonished if the situation were any different in the US). The category of people you seem to be referencing in your example would normally be called the *vulnerable* by UK officials and medical staff today. – FumbleFingers Apr 18 '14 at 15:09

2 Answers2

2

There's really no contradiction here.

Valetudinarian never means someone who is concerned to keep himself healthy; the word means someone who is concerned about his poor health.

And there are two sorts of people who are concerned about their poor health:

  • People who really are in poor health and have a rational concern about it, and

  • People who are not in poor health but think they are, and have an irrational concern about it—hypochondriacs.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
0

Note that I write this answer without ever having heard about the word valetudinarian before.

I see two aspects to this. On the one hand, a person constantly worried about his health will notice the first signs of less-than-optimal health and diagnose them as an illness. Since there is no clear line, doctors might support that view, particular if the person can describe a large number of problems. So the core of this would be some leeway about when you consider someone actually ill.

On the other hand, there are such things as psychosomatic illnesses. So things the mind obsesses about can manifest themselves in a physical illness. This might be helped by e.g. strange and radical diets or other “cures” the person applies to himself, which might in fact cause real trouble instead of helping with imagined trouble.

MvG
  • 492
  • 4
  • 13