Words change in meaning. "Robot" is an interesting case, since for much
of its life the word had referents only in fiction, and even then it
changed.

The first public use of the term was in Capek's (losing the diacritics
for the sake of newsreader-compatibility) 1920 play R.U.R. The term came
from a Czech word for compulsory labor, and I think it's related to the
German "Arbeit" (work). In the play, robots were artificial devices that
looked and talked like humans and had human-like intelligence. They were
what we'd call androids today.

The term soon expanded to include devices that looked more mechanical
than human. At first they had a generally human form, with a head, a
torso, two arms, and two legs. Before long "robots" that didn't look
like anything living. The term still implied general intelligence, the
ability to interact with the environment, and usually the ability to
communicate in human language. Alien robots were exempt from the last
requirement, of course.

Later on the term started applying to real-world devices, but the
definition changed sharply. A robot could have very limited
problem-solving and communication abilities. The main requirement was an
ability to move around on its own and handle unexpected irregularities
in its environment.

Today, even the ability to move around isn't required. One of
Merriam-Webster's definitions is "a device that automatically performs
complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly
line)." A Roomba bears hardly any resemblance to Capek's robots.

The shift has been driven by technology. Making a Capek or Asimov robot
is far beyond current capabilities, if it can be done at all. Making a
device that can communicate over a network of similar devices, handle
huge amounts of data, and react in microseconds has proven easier than
was once expected.

A robot today is defined by what we can make.
--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

In article <sechfe$t7$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Words change in meaning. "Robot" is an interesting case, since for much
>of its life the word had referents only in fiction, and even then it
>changed.
>
>The first public use of the term was in Capek's (losing the diacritics
>for the sake of newsreader-compatibility) 1920 play R.U.R. The term came
>from a Czech word for compulsory labor, and I think it's related to the
>German "Arbeit" (work).

No, it's derived from Czech _rab_, with meanings ranging from
"worker" to "slave."

In the play, robots were artificial devices that
>looked and talked like humans and had human-like intelligence. They were
>what we'd call androids today.

Yes, and IIRC at the end of the play humans are being phased out
and the robots are going to replace them and repopulate the
earth. So it's hard to tell, in that first instance of the word
in any language; but yes, they're what we would now call
"androids," artificial biological persons that can reproduce
biologically (use of womb-tanks optional).
>
>The term soon expanded to include devices that looked more mechanical
>than human. At first they had a generally human form, with a head, a
>torso, two arms, and two legs. Before long "robots" that didn't look
>like anything living. The term still implied general intelligence, the
>ability to interact with the environment, and usually the ability to
>communicate in human language. Alien robots were exempt from the last
>requirement, of course.

Consider Boucher's "Q.U.R.," Quimby's Usuform Robots, which
didn't enjoy looking like humans, with all sorts of body parts
for which they had no use, resulting in what in a human would be
called neurosis.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1682
>

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <sechfe$t7$1@dont-email.me>, garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com
(Gary McGath) wrote:

>
>
> A robot today is defined by what we can make.

There was a news item last month about a fire at a warehouse of Ocado,
the online grocers, caused by three robots colliding:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57883332

On 8/3/21 7:59 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> Yes, and IIRC at the end of the play humans are being phased out
> and the robots are going to replace them and repopulate the
> earth. So it's hard to tell, in that first instance of the word
> in any language; but yes, they're what we would now call
> "androids," artificial biological persons that can reproduce
> biologically (use of womb-tanks optional).

It's been a long time since I read or saw the play. I once saw a
performance based on Capek's uncut version, but it was a long time ago.

My recollection of the last act in the usual version is that nearly all
the humans are gone, and two robots demand that a human engineer make
more of them. He says that he can do that only if he can dissect a
robot, because the original design documents are lost. Neither robot
will allow the other to be dissected, because they love each other. The
engineer addresses them as Adam and Eve, but they have no means of
reproduction.

That's confusing, but it's my recollection.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:54:36 -0400
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:

> Words change in meaning. "Robot" is an interesting case, since for much
[]
>
> Later on the term started applying to real-world devices, but the
> definition changed sharply. A robot could have very limited
> problem-solving and communication abilities. The main requirement was an
> ability to move around on its own and handle unexpected irregularities
> in its environment.
>
I don't thinks so; vide the 80's Fiat? car advert & the Not the Nine O'Clock spoof:

"Made by robots; driven by Italians".

(the "robots" were mechanical arms fixed base on an assembly line that were programmable)

> Today, even the ability to move around isn't required. One of
> Merriam-Webster's definitions is "a device that automatically performs
> complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly
> line)." A Roomba bears hardly any resemblance to Capek's robots.
>
[]
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

In article <20210804115030.fc4b4155c74be4e64209b1e4@127.0.0.1>,
admin@127.0.0.1 (Kerr-Mudd, John) wrote:

>
> I don't thinks so; vide the 80's Fiat? car advert & the Not the Nine
> O'Clock spoof:
>
> "Made by robots; driven by Italians".

I remember that spoof. Also there was one where everyone in the factory
was called "Bob". Made by Roberts.

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <sechfe$t7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>Words change in meaning. "Robot" is an interesting case, since for much
>>of its life the word had referents only in fiction, and even then it
>>changed.
>>
>>The first public use of the term was in Capek's (losing the diacritics
>>for the sake of newsreader-compatibility) 1920 play R.U.R. The term came
>>from a Czech word for compulsory labor, and I think it's related to the
>>German "Arbeit" (work).
>
> No, it's derived from Czech _rab_, with meanings ranging from
> "worker" to "slave."

Not necessarily, and somewhat less plausibly.

"Robota" is an [oO]ld Czech for (not necessarily hard, nor compulsory)
labo(u)r. It is also very contemporary colloquial Slovak for any work
(such as employment), and somewhat archaic term for medieval forced
labour (I believe the English term is corvée) - at the time R.U.R. it
was likely not archaic at all. The corresponding verb is robiť (the root
morpheme rob-; this is one of those cases where Czech and Slovak
diverged lexically) which is perfectly neutral ("to work") and the -ota
suffix is somewhat productive for abstract deverbatives. The Čapek
brothers were quite educated and certainly somewhat aware with the old
Czech word; very likely they were familiar with the Slovak verb as well
(I think they were even vacationing in Slovakia at the time of writing
R.U.R.). And the story goes (sources differ), in the first iteration the
beings were to be called (in singular) "dělňas" (very ugly, cognate with
the Czech equivalent of "ďelat" (to work) or looking like a derogatory
variant of "dělník" (worker)) or "laboř" (probably from Latin).

> Yes, and IIRC at the end of the play humans are being phased out
> and the robots are going to replace them and repopulate the
> earth. So it's hard to tell, in that first instance of the word
> in any language; but yes, they're what we would now call
> "androids," artificial biological persons that can reproduce
> biologically (use of womb-tanks optional).

And of course, Android means something other by now.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

In article <seep6k$1i1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
<garabik-news-2005-05@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <sechfe$t7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>Words change in meaning. "Robot" is an interesting case, since for much
>>>of its life the word had referents only in fiction, and even then it
>>>changed.
>>>
>>>The first public use of the term was in Capek's (losing the diacritics
>>>for the sake of newsreader-compatibility) 1920 play R.U.R. The term came
>>>from a Czech word for compulsory labor, and I think it's related to the
>>>German "Arbeit" (work).
>>
>> No, it's derived from Czech _rab_, with meanings ranging from
>> "worker" to "slave."
>
>Not necessarily, and somewhat less plausibly.
>
>"Robota" is an [oO]ld Czech for (not necessarily hard, nor compulsory)
>labo(u)r. It is also very contemporary colloquial Slovak for any work
>(such as employment), and somewhat archaic term for medieval forced
>labour (I believe the English term is corvée) - at the time R.U.R. it
>was likely not archaic at all. The corresponding verb is robiť (the root
>morpheme rob-; this is one of those cases where Czech and Slovak
>diverged lexically) which is perfectly neutral ("to work") and the -ota
>suffix is somewhat productive for abstract deverbatives. The Čapek
>brothers were quite educated and certainly somewhat aware with the old
>Czech word; very likely they were familiar with the Slovak verb as well
>(I think they were even vacationing in Slovakia at the time of writing
>R.U.R.). And the story goes (sources differ), in the first iteration the
>beings were to be called (in singular) "dělňas" (very ugly, cognate with
>the Czech equivalent of "ďelat" (to work) or looking like a derogatory
>variant of "dělník" (worker)) or "laboř" (probably from Latin).
>
Thank you for the information!

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/