With "supremacy" I can at least see where the argument is coming from, even if I don't find it particularly convincing. It *is* hard to hear the word "supremacy" without also thinking of "supremacist", a word which admittedly has troubling connotations. (Or "suprematist", which has troubling connotations if you're not a fan of blank white canvases in art galleries.)
But the "ancilla" example is nonsensical. Firstly, "ancilla" was not "invented recently for the field of quantum information". More importantly, it has *never* had the meaning, or even connotation, of "female slave" in English:
OED ["ancillary"; "ancilla" is not in the dictionary...yet]: 1. A person whose work provides necessary support to the primary activities of an organization, system, etc. 2. Something which functions in a supplementary or supporting role. [No further meanings or historical usage listed.]
Merriam-Webster ["ancilla"]: An aid to achieving or mastering something difficult. [No further meanings listed.]
Merriam-Webster dates the first known use of "ancilla" to 1905. "Ancillary" was in use before then, but the OED still only dates its first use to the mid-17 Century. By which time Latin had long been a dead language, and "ancillary" was being used in the modern sense. Here are a couple of examples of (slightly more recent) historical uses, which clearly don't carry any connotation of "slave", and which you can easily verify for yourself on Project Gutenberg:
"The negative (they think) can only be tolerated in small doses, and even then merely as ancillary to the affirmative." -- Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, Volume, George Grote, 1885.
"The functions of the archdeacon are in the present day ancillary in a general way to those of the bishop of the diocese." -- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, 1910.
Many English words have odd Latin origins. E.g. "testify" comes from "testiculo", which means exactly what you think it does. Meanings can shift a lot in 2000 years! If the author is serious about this, they ought for consistency to strenuously avoid all English words with any dubious association in their etymology over the last 2000 years. I suggest they start with the second word of the abstract: "imperative" - "imperator" - leader, master. Definitely dubious. The word "common", again from the first sentence of the abstract, is also problematic. The original Latin meaning might be OK, but the word has been "used disparagingly of women and criminals since c. 1300" (Online Etymological Dictionary). Sanitising the language in the remainder of the paper is left as an exercise for the author.
For everyone else, unless you're still writing papers in Latin, you can safely continue to use "ancilla" without offending anyone. If you are writing papers about quantum information in Latin, I suspect you can still safely use "ancilla" -- or indeed any other words whatsoever! -- without offending anyone.
With "supremacy" I can at least see where the argument is coming from, even if I don't find it particularly convincing. It *is* hard to hear the word "supremacy" without also thinking of "supremacist", a word which admittedly has troubling connotations. (Or "suprematist", which has troubling connotations if you're not a fan of blank white canvases in art galleries ;-)
But the "ancilla" example is nonsensical. Firstly, "ancilla" was not "invented recently for the field of quantum information". More importantly, it has *never* had the meaning, or even connotation, of "female slave" in English:
OED ["ancillary"; "ancilla" is not in the dictionary...yet]: 1. A person whose work provides necessary support to the primary activities of an organization, system, etc. 2. Something which functions in a supplementary or supporting role. [No further meanings or historical usage listed.]
Merriam-Webster ["ancilla"]: An aid to achieving or mastering something difficult. [No further meanings listed.]
Merriam-Webster dates the first known use of "ancilla" to 1905. "Ancillary" was in use before then, but the OED still only dates its first use to the mid-17 Century. By which time Latin had long been a dead language, and "ancillary" was being used in the modern sense. Here are a couple of examples of (slightly more recent) historical uses, which clearly don't carry any connotation of "slave", and which you can easily verify for yourself on Project Gutenberg:
"The negative (they think) can only be tolerated in small doses, and even then merely as ancillary to the affirmative." -- Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, Volume, George Grote, 1885.
"The functions of the archdeacon are in the present day ancillary in a general way to those of the bishop of the diocese." -- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, 1910.
Many English words have odd Latin origins. E.g. "testify" comes from "testiculo", which means exactly what you think it does. Meanings can shift a lot in 2000 years! If the author is serious about this, they ought for consistency to strenuously avoid all English words with any dubious association in their etymology over the last 2000 years. I suggest they start with the second word of the abstract: "imperative" - "imperator" - leader, master. Definitely dubious. The word "common", again from the first sentence of the abstract, is also problematic. The original Latin meaning might be OK, but the word has been "used disparagingly of women and criminals since c. 1300" (Online Etymological Dictionary). Sanitising the language in the remainder of the paper is left as an exercise for the author.
For everyone else, unless you're still writing papers in Latin, you can safely continue to use "ancilla" without offending anyone. If you are writing papers about quantum information in Latin, I suspect you can still safely use "ancilla" -- or indeed any other words whatsoever! -- without offending anyone.
Braneshop, and
the US National Science Foundation.
SciRate