About the use of the expression “Indlandsis”: a reply

Sir,

In reply to the comments on my letter on the term Indlandsisen (Armstrong, Roberts and Swithinbank, Bauer, Fristrup and Lliboutry, this issue p. 949–51), it seems necessary first to clarify one evident misunderstanding; the letter was not written on behalf of Danes in general or any particular group of Danes, but only to express a private opinion and proposal. Furthermore, when the word “Danish” was used, it was an explanatory term covering only (a) the origin of the word Indlandsisen, (b) the special grammatical problem involved in the definite article -en in this language, and (c) the nationality of a person (Steenstrup). This fatal word was not used to evoke any chauvinistic sentiments as presumed in the French comments and I deeply regret not having expressed this clearly enough.

The comments on the subject proper—the term Indlandsisen—at least serve to demonstrate the confusion which has arisen in the meaning of the word. To sort out the matter it seems necessary to look at three aspects of the problem:

1. the word “Indlandsisen” (“the Inland Ice”, “l’Indlandsis”) as a place name.

2. the expression “inland ice” (or possibly better “inland ice sheet”) or indlandsis as a glaciological expression for a certain feature.

3. the use of the expression “inland ice” (indlandsis) for formerly existing ice sheets.

A fourth aspect is the use of synonymous words in foreign languages in general, but as I do not feel competent to extend the discussion so far (even to the problem of translating indlandsisen into Chinese which worries Bauer), it will be sufficient to restrict the discussion to the first three points and leave glaciologists elsewhere to find out an adequate terminology in their own language.

(1) There seems to be no trouble in translating the place name “Indlandsisen” into French as “l’Indlandsis” (Lliboutry) using a capital “I” in French. It was also thought to be easy enough to translate the word into English as “the Inland Ice”. However, from the comments of Armstrong and others (1967), it does not seem clear whether in this context “the Inland Ice” is preferable in English to “Indlandsisen” (without translation), “the Inland ice sheet”, “the Greenland inland ice sheet” or something else. When I used “the Inland Ice” in my letter it was because of former Anglo-American translations (e.g. Matthes, 1942, p. 159; Sharp, 1956, p. 86), capital “I”s emphasizing its being a place name. It is of course not for me to suggest English terms to the English, but I wonder if it is really necessary to use the translation “the Greenland inland ice sheet” for “Indlandsisen”.

The proposal of Bauer to use Sermerssua as a place name (or as a glaciological name) is dubious in the form presented and in the present context. The proper place name in “nominative” (objective) form is “Sermerssuaq” (cf. Charlesworth, 1957, Vol. 1, p. 73; Bugge and others, 1960, p. 249). However, this place name (meaning “(the) great ice cover”) can also be seen used for local ice caps and may therefore be ambiguous.

Otherwise, Sermerssua is a form meaning “—’s great ice cover”; a sort of inverted genitive which requires an extra word indicating to what the great ice cover belongs (Kleinschmidt, 1851, p. 14; Schultz-Lorentzen, 1945, p. 19, 97). It would be the same if the word nunataq (meaning “a piece of land in it” (i.e. in the Inland Ice), cf. Schultz-Lorentzen, 1927, p. 297) was written nunatâ (“—’s nunataq”). With regard to Sermerssua we could say Kalâtdlit nunâta sermerssua (meaning “Greenland’s great ice cover”) when “the Inland Ice” is meant, and from Kalâtdlit nunâta sermitâ (“the inland ice cover of Greenland”) derive sermitaq (“an inland ice cover”) as a glaciological expression. Sermitaq, proposed by R. Petersen, has an analogous construction to nunataq and is essentially the same as “inland ice sheet” in the sense of Armstrong and others (see below).

It must be admitted that the -a form occasionally can be seen alone, for example in the name of West Greenland (Greenlandic: “Kitâ”, i.e. “its west side”), and I do not eliminate the possible use of Sermerssua. However, the official translation of West Greenland is Kalâtdlit nunâta kitä (Bugge and others, 1960, p. 685).

This digression into the Greenlandic language is only for the benefit of Bauer and others who may wish to apply it. My thanks are due to Professor E. Holtved and mag. art. R. Petersen for checking my information.

(2) The conflict of opinions seems to be focused on the extent and use of the glaciological term “inland ice” (or better, according to Armstrong and others (1967), “inland ice sheet”), or in French, indlandsis. We can agree that the spelling without capital “I”s is a distinction from the place name and I think that the classification of Armstrong and others, in which “ice sheet” includes both “inland ice sheet” and “ice shelf”, is very consistent. With reference to French, my understanding is too poor to know if nappe de glace (Lliboutry) or glace continentale (Bauer) is an adequate term for “ice sheet”.

According to the classification of Armstrong and others there are several “inland ice sheets” and “ice shelves” in Antarctica. The whole mass of ice in Antarctica includes both phenomena and is characterized as an “ice sheet”. My main objection is to the use of “inland ice” or equivalent terms for “the Antarctic ice sheet” (with or without capital “I”s) or any other ice sheets, and has nothing to do with eventual later classifications as for example by morphology (Ahlmann, 1948, p. 61) or by physical models such as those mentioned by Lliboutry and to which I will return later. When working in these problems I admit that the term “inland ice” or indlandsis is useful when the context (and the use or avoidance of capitals, as discussed above) indicates exactly what is meant.

(3) A consequence of the use of the distinction of Armstrong and others must be that we ought to know the exact extent and form of former ice sheets before classifying them as ice shelves or inland ices (or inland ice sheets). After all, not very much is known of the extent and form of even Wisconsin–Würm ice sheets (or whatever they ought to be called) and further serious problems arise when treating older ice sheets. It must therefore be reasonable to keep to the most neutral and general term for old covers of ice and use “ice sheets”. Here also, I see no serious conflict of opinion between Armstrong and others and myself. It is not possible from the French comments to see whether the same argument may be applied in French.

As stated above, no real objection was raised to the use of indlandsis in for example physical classifications. However, an interesting problem arises in the comments of Lliboutry when he (if I have understood him correctly) links the term indlandsis strictly to an irreversible formation of ice sheets (Lliboutry, 1964–65, Tom. 2, p. 798–805). In the same work, he mentions “les indlandsis permocarbonifères” (e.g. p. 801) and “les indlandsis de l’Eocambrien” (e.g. p. 921–22). How does Lliboutry distinguish the formation of these old “inland ices” from other glaciers on the basis of the deposits laid down by the ice? I think we must be satisfied with the evidence for glaciation in general, and not accept a classification of glaciers from these times.

It must be concluded from the comments given that the word Indlandsisen (the Inland Ice, l’Indlandsis) has been restricted in meaning to such a degree that it makes most sense if confined to a place in Greenland, and it is still hoped that my first letter will just make things easier, not more complicated.

6 June 1967