From The Online Etymology Dictionary:
“apocalypse (n.)
“late 14c., “revelation, disclosure,” from Church Latin apocalypsis “revelation,” from Greek apokalyptein “uncover, disclose, reveal,” from apo “off, away from” (see apo-) + kalyptein “to cover, conceal,” from PIE root *kel- (1) “to cover, conceal, save.” The Christian end-of-the-world story is part of the revelation in John of Patmos’ book “Apokalypsis” (a title rendered into English as pocalipsis c. 1050, “Apocalypse” c. 1230, and “Revelations” by Wyclif c. 1380).
“Its general sense in Middle English was “insight, vision; hallucination.” The meaning “a cataclysmic event” is modern (not in OED 2nd ed., 1989); apocalypticism “belief in an imminent end of the present world” is from 1858. As agent nouns, “author or interpreter of the ‘Apocalypse,'” apocalypst (1829), apocalypt (1834), and apocalyptist (1824) have been tried.”
Sadly things like this continue to happen to our language. When words lose their meanings or gain altogether new meanings from one generation to the next it’s not surprising that we have such a difficult time understanding the lessons of the past.
Exactly, Perri. The biggest problem nowadays is that the Internet and Hivemind media have accelerated the pejoration of communication to the point that even the degraded communications of a year or two ago are easily misunderstood by subliterates and a-literates who have not watched the changes occur but have simply (lazily) let the changes absorb them, not merely be absorbed by them.
The “Borg” continues its advance. Is resistance really futile, though?
______________________________________________________________________
[Sidebar: discussion about Scientology with Son&Heir. He was having difficulty understanding how people could be stupid enough to be fooled by the cult. I mentioned that, IMO, at least 90% of stupidity is simple laziness almost to the point of mental “accedie.” *sigh*]