The Editor,
The Journal of Glaciology
Sir,
I am glad to respond to your recent request for my comment on the usefulness of the term “glacierization.”
I think we all realize that technical terms become established through use rather than by fiat, and that they survive ultimately through successful competition based on their inherent merits. The word “glacierization” is going through the pragmatic test: those who find it useful will employ it; those who do not need it will avoid it in the interest of simplification.
I believe that geologic science is best served by a technical vocabulary that is lean and spare, and yet explicit. This belief is, I think, reflected in my book Glacial Geology, which embodies a conscious effort to use plain English to the maximum possible extent. A footnote on page 64 of that book states why the term “glacierization” seems unnecessary. That statement represents, I believe, the opinion of most American glacial geologists, who have found little difficulty in expressing their meaning through the use of the verbs “glaciate” and “deglaciate,” and the adjectival form “glacier-covered.”
Word evolution, like organic evolution, is a slow process. I suggest that we allow this word to continue in competition (unlike its organic counterparts) through use and disuse, toward survival or extinction. I assure its proponents that if the need for it becomes widely established, I shall be among those who will adopt it.
