Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-25T21:18:27.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The terms “Névé” and “Firn”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

Brian Roberts*
Affiliation:
Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Correspondence
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1952

The Editor,

The Journal of Glaciology

Sir,

In the course of bibliographic studies connected with the preparation of the lists of “Recent Polar Literature” published in each issue of the Polar Record, I have an opportunity to examine annually a very large mass of printed material dealing with snow and ice. The terms névé (French) and firn (German), which are synonymous, appear to be used with roughly equal frequency in English literature. For many years I have held no preference for either as the English term, but have hoped that one or other would eventually prevail, especially in glossaries, because many authors writing in English feel that it is necessary to use both terms every time they mention the subject.

During the past few years I have been impressed by the frequency with which the word firn snow has been printed in English as firm snow. We may think that authors and printers should notice these misprints, but the fact is that in a surprising number of cases they do not. It might therefore be most practical if glaciologists writing in English could adopt the term névé. There would seem to be only two objections to this: the accents in névé (which can hardly be dropped), and the fairly well-established use of the word firn in the concepts “firn line” and “firnification.” I can trace very few examples in English of the use of “névé line" or “névé line,”but an increasing number of examples of “firm line” make me wonder. “Firnification” is a useful term which can certainly be retained even if firn is dropped. In my opinion it would be useful if the British Glaciological Society could give a lead in this matter.

16 September 1951

[It would be interesting and useful to receive comments on Dr. Roberts’s letter. —Ed.]