On Webster. users, buqs and Aristotle.
Thinking is our most intimate activity, and a lot of it is revealed by the
way in which we use (and misuse) our language. So much, as a matter of fact, is
revealed by it that one cannot be a careful listener without the guilty feeling
of committing the indiscreet sin of voyeurism. It is exactly this sin that I
propose to commit with respect to the computing community: in this case committing
the sin is too illuminating to remain virtuous.
*
Linguistical analyses tend to start with dicitionaries. There are two types
of dictionaries. There is the writer's dictionary, giving hints as to how a language
should be used; the Concise Oxford Dictionary is a perfact example of a
writer's dictionary. At the other end of the spectrum we have the dictionaries
for the reader; they faithfully record how a language happens to be used. Webster's
New Collegiate Dictionary is a good example of a dictionary of the latter type.
You can hardly use Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as a guide when writing
- it contains terrible verbs like "to disfurnish" and "to disambiguateu-- , but
its authors are no fools: if an existing word is consistently used in a way that
really stretches its original meaning too much, the new meaning is faithfully recorded
in the next edition. A beautiful example is given in Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary inder the heading "intelligent", where in more recent editions a third
meaning has been added:
"able to perform some of the functions of a computer <a computer
terminal >" .
It is very amusing -and enlightening!-- to draw the attention of members
of the American computing community to this addition to Good New Webster. They
ere always startled by it, the Artificial Intelligentsia react to it with indignation,
the others chuckle with delight, but show not seldomly signs of disbelieve
or amazement at Webster's "courage": it is not unusual that they get hold of the
nearest Webster to check my statement. Having verified it, they give a sigh of
relief: the story is clearly too good not to be true. For many a computing scientist
this additional meaning of "intelligent" in Webster acts as an authorization of
his doubts about the Artificial Intelligentsia --doubts that are shared by almost
all computing scientists, but that give many in the USA (where A1 is officially
regarded a s more n r l e s s r e s pe c t a b l e ) g u i l t y f e e l i n g s-- . Two c h e e r s f o r Websterfs
r u t h l e s s accuracy! * * *
The meaning of t h e "user" - - in extreme c a s e s t h e " casual usern-- has a l s o
been extended. My Webster (1973) does not record it y e t --"one t h a t uses" is t h e
only d e f i n i t i o n given-- , but i n t h i s case I have o t h e r l i n g u i s t i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s .
I t is a l r e a d y a change of l o n g s t a n d i n g , f o r it was a t l e a s t a decade ago
when, c o n s u l t i n g a Dutch computer manufacturer, I was amazed by and annoyed a t t h e
f r e q u e n t a p p e a l t o t h e u n t r a n s l a t e d , j u s t copied "user" i n t h e middle of a Dutch
sentence defending some d e s i g n d e c i s i o n . The noun "user", is, of course, p e r f e c t l y
t r a n s l a t a b l e i n t o Dutch, b u t t h o s e guys did not do it! A t t h e time I did not pay
too much a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s l i n g u i s t i c anomaly, I t h i n k t h a t I c l a s s i f i e d it a s t h e
same s i l l y mannerism as displayed by t h e a l l- English t e x t s t h a t a r e p r i n t e d on
Dutch c i g a r e t t e packages.
But I got d e f i n i t e l y s u s p i c i o u s when I learned t h a t a l s o t h e French --in
s p i t e of a l l t h e i r Anglophobia-- embed t h e u n t r a n s l a t e d Englih word "user" i n t h e
middle of t h e i r French sentences! Since t h e n I was a l e r t , and I can not t e l l you
t h a t t h e word "user" is not only good Russian, but a l s o p e r f e c t Japanese!
Nowm t h i s is very t e l l i n g . One of t h e requirements of t h e f i n a l examination
a t t h e end of my t r a i n i n g a t secondary school was t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of t e x t s from
v a r i o u s f o r e i g n languages " into good Dutchb. T r a n s l a t i n g a f o r e i g n t e x t , we were
taught, is a two-stage process: f i r s t t h e e x a c t meaning has t o be e x t r a c t e d from
t h e f o r e i g n t e x t , and then t h a t meaning had t o be rendered e x a c t l y i n good Dutch.
The f a c t t h a t t h e "user" of t h e Anglo-Smxori computing community is copied i n s t e a d
of t r a n s l a t e d is, t h e r e f o r e , f o r me a proof t h a t t h a t "user" has l o s t its o r i g i n a l
meaning. Subconsciously t h e f o r e i g n t e r n is imported as a neologism, a s a new
word f o r a new concept.

The computer "user" i s n ' t a r e a l person of f l e s h and blood, with passions
and b r a i n s , no, he is a mythical f i g u r e , and n o t a very p l e a s a n t one e i t h e r . A
kind of mongrel with money but without t a s t e , an ugly c a r i c a t u r e t h a t is very uni
n s p i r i n g t o work f o r . He is, a s a matter of f a c t , such a n u n i n s p i r i n g i d i o t t h a t
h i s s t u p i d i t y alone is a s u f f i c i e n t explanation f o r t h e u g l i n e s s of most computer

systems. And oh: I s he uneducated! That i s perhaps h i s most depressing c h a r a c t e ri
s t i c . He is e q u a l l y e d u c a t i o n- r e s i s t a n t a s a n o t h e r equally mythical bore, c a l l e d
"the average programmer", whose s o l i d s t u p i d i t y is t h e g r e a t e s t b a r r i e r t o progress
i n programming. I t is a sad thought t h a t l a r g e s e c t i o n s of computing science a r e
e f f e c t i v e l y paralyzed by t h e narrow-mindedness and o t h e r grotesque l i m i t a t i o n s with
which a poor l i t e r a t u r e has endowed t h e s e i n f l u e n t i a l mythical f i g u r e s . (computing
science i s not unique i n i n v e n t i n g such p a r a l y z i n g c a r i c a t u r e s : u n i v e r s i t i e s a l l
over t h e world a r e threatened by t h e i n v e n t i o n of " the average student", s c i e n t i f i c
publishing is s e v e r e l y hampered by t h e i n v e n t i o n of " the innocent r e a d e r" and
even "t h e poor reader"!) * *
I n p a s s i n g I draw a t t e n t i o n t o another E n g l i s h e x p r e s s i o n which o f t e n o c c u r s
i n Dutch t e x t s : " the r e a l world". I n Dutch --and I am a f r a i d not i n Dutch alone--
its usage is almost always a symptom of a v i o l e n t a n t i- i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m .
With t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e Communications of t h e ACM, i n t h e l a t e f i f t i e s ,
began my r e g u l a r exposure t o American computing l i t e r a t u r e . I still v i v i d l y remember
how shocked I was a t f i r s t by t h e heavy u s e o f anthropomorphic terminology.
( ~ a t e rI learned t h a t we owe t h i s h a b i t t o John von ~eumann.) I n t h e meantime
we know t h a t t h e implied metaphor i s more misleading than i l l u m i n a t i n g . ( i n 1964
Fraser G.Duncan, f o r i n s t a n c e , has e l o q u e n t l y drawn t h e a t t e n t i o n t o a l l t h e confusion
generated by c a l l i n g programming languages "languagesn.) Because t h e anthropomorphic
terminology i n v i t e s u s t o i d e n t i f y w i t h p r o c e s s o r s and programs i n
execution, and because " e x i s t i n g" is our most e s s e n t i a l " a c t i v i t y" , t h e prevalence
of t h e s e metaphors p r e s e n t s a severe psychological b a r r i e r t o f r e e i n g our minds
form t h e g r i p t h a t o p e r a t i o n a l semantics still have on them. I, t h e r e f o r e , regard
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of anthropomorphic terminology i n t o computing a s one of t h e worst
s e r v i c e s rendered t o manking by John von Neumann. ( ~ e c t u r i nI ~r e c e n t l y learned
t h a t among t h e A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n t s i a only t h e suggestion t h a t t h e anthropomorphic
terminology might be unwholsesome is a l r e a d y s h e e r heresy: t h e mere suggestion
is enough t o make them raving mad a t you: I t was very amusing and very r e v e a l i ng.)
I t is, however, probably more than j u s t an unhappy consequence of one of
John von Neumannls personal t a s t e s . Recently I r e a d A r t h u r Koest:er's account ( i n
"The 51eepwalkersn) of how by t h e work of Copernicus, Keppler, S a l i l e o end Newton
t h e s e p a r a t i o n between astronomy and a s t r o l o g y began t o take place. Slowly mankind
was p a r t i n g from t h e A r i s t o t e l e a n animism t h a t had r u l e d thought f o r so many
c e n t u r i e s . In t h i s l i g h t t h e prevalence of anthropomorphic terminology i n computing
can a l s o be viewed a s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of its p r e- s c i e n t i f i c s t a g e , and
a consequence would be t h a t computing s c i e n t i s t s d o n t t deserve t h a t name before
they have t h e courage t o c a l l a "bug" and "e r r o r".
Post Scriptum. The day a f t e r t h e above was typed I had t o d e l i v e r t h e l a s t l e c t u r e
a t t h e ACM/ECI I n t e r n a t i o n a l Computing Symposium 1977 i n Liege, Belgium. When I
a r r i v e d I heard t h a t t h e day before B.Meltzer --one of t h e Edinburgh A r t i f i c i a l
I n t e l l i g e n t s i a-- had e x t e n s i v e l y challenged my statement:
"The s u p e r s t i t i o n t h a t u n d e r l i e s so much of A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e a c t i v i t y
i s t h a t everything d i f f i c u l t i s so boring t h a t it had b e t t e r be done mechanically.
He had done so SO emphatically t h a t c l e a r l y some s o r t of r e b u t t a l from my s i d e was
expected. Meltzer, however, had already l e f t , and I have r e s t r i c t e d myself t o
w r i t i n g t h e q u o t a t i o n from Webster t h a t I have given above on t h e blackboard. I
gave t h e f u l l name of t h e d i c t i o n a r y and even mentioned t h e 1975 Edition.
After t h e c l o s i n g ceremony and before s t a r t i n g on t h e jounrney back home I
had a cup of coffee with t h e ICS)) Symposium Chairman, David Hirschberg from IBM,
who asked me "Is it r e a l l y t r u e t h a t Webster g i v e s t h a t t h i r d d e f i n i t i o n of " i n t e l l igent"
o r did you j u s t make it up?"
People won't b e l i e v e it! By now I am wondering what percentage of t h e
r e a d e r s of t h i s note have already consulted t h e i r Webster.... .. ( ~ n do f p o s t
scriptun.)
Please note my new P o s t a l Code!
P l a t a a n s t r a a t 5
5671 AL NUENEN
The Netherlands
prof.dr.Edsger W.Dijkstra
Burroughs Research Fellow