“Esquivaliencew” represents the concept of “the wilful avoidance of ones official responsibilities”. That esquivalience is disturbingly common in the work force, in particular among civil servants, is something most people know from their own experience.
Does it then matter that this word was originally a fictitious entryw in a dictionary? In my opinion: No. Anyone can make up new words, e.g. claim that “slfhuy” refers to a zebra that walks backwards on an ice-rink. Such words are, in and by themselves, perfectly valid; although they may still have to prove themselves to the rest of the world: Do they describe something worth describing? Are they suitable in other regards? Will they have a sufficient enduring popularity? In this particular case, there is no logical reason why “esquivalience” should be considered less valuable than e.g. “anopisthographic” (”having writing upon only one side”, cf. e.g. http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/a.htme)—in fact, Google-searches on 2009-06-15 give roughly 830 hits for the latter and about six times as many for the former. (“Slfhuy” assembles a grand total of 6 hits, and, barring an extraordinary co-incidence, these hits will have nothing to do with the ad hoc meaning given above. This might, of course, change after the publication of this page...)
It can be discussed whether “esquivalience” is an optimal word, but I see no reason to not consider it a valid word.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.