Revision history for comment 875

Edited by Toby Cubitt May 23 2017 07:50 UTC

I'm sorry if my comment came across to you as "authoritative" or aggressive. It was intended in the spirit of scholarly debate, and is of course as subjective and completely non-authoritative as anything else written here: your comment, the original article, and this reply! Karoline and I were friends and colleagues many years ago in Bristol, I thoroughly respect her views (which doesn't mean I have to agree with her on this particular point), and the discussion this article has provoked is evidence it was worth posting.

Now I have access to my hard copy of the OED, rather than just the online version, I stand partially corrected on "ancilla": the full OED *does* have an entry for "ancilla", defining it as "maidservant, handmaid", which matches the usage in your quotation from the Nabuchov translation (though the OED lists this usage as "rare"). I couldn't find any evidence it was ever commonly used in English to mean "female slave", or any more pejoratively than "maid". I'd argue there's an important distinction between "maid" (historically viewed as a respectable profession, just as "steward" or "manservant"), and "female slave". You might see this differently.

The larger point is that, while "quantum supremacy" was coined within the field, and people have been debating for a while now whether or not it was the best choice in hindsight (especially post-Trump), the use of "ancilla" in the standard, neutral, Merriam-Webster sense of "an aid to achieving something" predates quantum information and has never been controversial. As user Er says, it seems very unlikely many people knew the etymology of "ancilla" until now (I didn't, as a first data point), or thought that it could have any other connotation beyond "helper". (If you run the twitter poll and find large numbers of people *were* offended by the word "ancilla" before reading Karoline's article, I'll happily admit I'm wrong!) Whereas, as Steve points out below, most people presumably know "supremacy" can have strong negative connotations when preceded by a noun denoting a specific group of people. (Though not when preceded by "naval" or "air" or "technological" - all in fairly common usage - which is why I'm personally on the fence on this particular one.)

I feel the more tenuous "ancilla" example risks undermining the broader point Karoline was presumably trying to make. Which I interpret to be about taking care when coining new scientific terminology not to inadvertently make certain groups feel excluded. (Which is a valid point, whether or not "quantum supremacy" or even "ancilla" are good examples.) Not about self-censoring to the point of absurdity by avoiding all English words with the slightest etymological blemish (which is very many of them).

As for the gender aspect, there are genuine gender inequality issues in academia (see what I've written [elsewhere online](http://dr-qubit.org/Paternity_leave_reactions.html) if you're under the impression I don't agree with you on this). I feel the tenuous "ancilla" example dangerously trivialises these serious issues. You might feel differently.

As a field, we've successfully replaced/updated establiahed terminology in the past. E.g. "one-way quantum computation" -- a German false-friend -- has been replaced by the clearer "measurement-based quantum computation". Perhaps "quantum supremacy" will go the same way. This seems worthwhile debating.

Edited by Toby Cubitt May 22 2017 21:27 UTC

I'm sorry if my comment came across to you as "authoritative" or aggressive. It was intended in the spirit of scholarly debate, and is of course as subjective and completely non-authoritative as anything else written here: your comment, the original article, and this reply! Karoline and I were friends and colleagues many years ago in Bristol, I thoroughly respect her views (which doesn't mean I have to agree with her on this particular point), and the discussion this article has provoked is evidence it was worth posting.

Now I have access to my hard copy of the OED, rather than just the online version, I stand partially corrected on "ancilla": the full OED *does* have an entry for "ancilla", defining it as "maidservant, handmaid", which matches the usage in your quotation from the Nabuchov translation (though the OED lists this usage as "rare"). I couldn't find any evidence it was ever commonly used in English to mean "female slave", or any more pejoratively than "maid". I'd argue there's an important distinction between "maid" (historically viewed as a respectable profession, just as "steward" or "manservant"), and "female slave". You might see this differently.

The larger point is that, while "quantum supremacy" was coined within the field, and people have been debating for a while now whether or not it was the best choice in hindsight (especially post-Trump), the use of "ancilla" in the standard, neutral, Merriam-Webster sense of "an aid to achieving something" predates quantum information and has never been controversial. As user Er says, it seems very unlikely many people knew the etymology of "ancilla" until now (I didn't, as a first data point), or thought that it could have any other connotation beyond "helper". (If you run the twitter poll and find large numbers of people *were* offended by the word "ancilla" before reading Karoline's article, I'll happily admit I'm wrong!) Whereas, as Steve points out below, most people presumably know "supremacy" can have strong negative connotations when preceded by a noun denoting a specific group of people. (Though not when preceded by "naval" or "air" or "technological" - all in fairly common usage - which is why I'm personally on the fence on this particular one.)

I feel the more tenuous "ancilla" example risks undermining the broader point Karoline was presumably trying to make. Which I interpret to be about taking care when coining new scientific terminology not to inadvertently make certain groups feel excluded. (Which is a valid point, whether or not "quantum supremacy" or even "ancilla" are good examples.) Not about self-censoring to the point of absurdity by avoiding all English words with the slightest etymological blemish (which is very many of them).

As for the gender aspect, there are genuine gender inequality issues in academia (see what I've written elsewhere online if you're under the impression I don't agree with you on this). I feel the tenuous "ancilla" example dangerously trivialises these serious issues. You might feel differently.

As a field, we've successfully replaced/updated establiahed terminology in the past. E.g. "one-way quantum computation" -- a German false-friend -- has been replaced by the clearer "measurement-based quantum computation". Perhaps "quantum supremacy" will go the same way. This seems worthwhile debating.

Toby Cubitt commented on The careless use of language in quantum information May 22 2017 21:25 UTC

I'm sorry if my comment came across to you as "authoritative" or aggressive. It was intended in the spirit of scholarly debate, and is of course as subjective and completely non-authoritative as anything else written here: your comment, the original article, and this reply! Karoline and I were friends and colleagues many years ago in Bristol, I thoroughly respect her views (which doesn't mean I have to agree with her on this particular point), and the discussion this article has provoked is evidence it was worth posting.

Now I have access to my hard copy of the OED, rather than just the online version, I stand partially corrected on "ancilla": the full OED *does* have an entry for "ancilla", defining it as "maidservant, handmaid", which matches the usage in your quotation from the Nabuchov translation (though the OED lists this usage as "rare"). I couldn't find any evidence it was ever commonly used in English to mean "female slave", or any more pejoratively than "maid". I'd argue there's an important distinction between "maid" (historically viewed as a respectable profession, just as "steward" or "manservant"), and "female slave". You might see this differently.

The larger point is that, while "quantum supremacy" was coined within the field, and people have been debating for a while now whether or not it was the best choice in hindsight (especially post-Trump), the use of "ancilla" in the standard, neutral, Merriam-Webster sense of "an aid to achieving something" predates quantum information and has never been controversial. As user Er says below, it seems very unlikely many people knew the etymology of "ancilla" until now (I didn't, as a first data point), or thought that it could have any other connotation beyond "helper". (If you run the twitter poll and find large numbers of people *were* offended by the word "ancilla" before reading Karoline's article, I'll happily admit I'm wrong!) Whereas, as Steve points out below, most people presumably know "supremacy" can have strong negative connotations when preceded by a noun denoting a specific group of people. (Though not when preceded by "naval" or "air" or "technological" - all in fairly common usage - which is why I'm personally on the fence on this particular one.)

I feel the more tenuous "ancilla" example risks undermining the broader point Karoline was presumably trying to make. Which I interpret to be about taking care when coining new scientific terminology not to inadvertently make certain groups feel excluded. (Which is a valid point, whether or not "quantum supremacy" or even "ancilla" are good examples.) Not about self-censoring to the point of absurdity by avoiding all English words with the slightest etymological blemish (which is very many of them).

As for the gender aspect, there are genuine gender inequality issues in academia (see what I've written elsewhere online if you're under the impression I don't agree with you on this). I feel the tenuous "ancilla" example dangerously trivialises these serious issues. You might feel differently.

As a field, we've successfully replaced/updated establiahed terminology in the past. E.g. "one-way quantum computation" -- a German false-friend -- has been replaced by the clearer "measurement-based quantum computation". Perhaps "quantum supremacy" will go the same way. This seems worthwhile debating.