h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry ID: A950203 (Edited)

Dead link. Try http://www.gov.nu.ca/en/

Dead link. Try http://tinyurl.com/657suzs

Done

Erm... According to this gentleman, http://wn.com/Inukshuk (from minute 1:45), what is being described, both in the above sentence and in the picture, is an inunnguaq (an imitation of a person).

OK... I think that goes beyond the Curator's remit! Could you drop a note to anhaga (U215480), who is still around?

That will make me popular...

I see Anhaga's online now, and has this thread on his page. so, 'nuff said, I think.

First of all, the description is a quotation from a publication of the Nunavut Arctic College, so one might want to take the question up with them.

Secondly, yes, the picture seems to be an inunnguaq.


There is some debate about whether the inunnquaq is a type of inuksuk or something of a different category.

Etymologically, both words indicate that the monument is a substitute for a human being: Inukshuk is literally a 'person substitute' while inunnquaq means 'person imitation'.

To my mind, given the link to the Nunavut government page and the mention of the Nunavut flag, which features a one-legged Inukshuk, it strikes me that the only possible real issue is the picture. But I personally don't think it's a real issue.

If you'd like, a little later today (after breakfast) I'll put together a brief bit making the distinction and suggesting that it is best to consider the inunnquaq as a subset of inuksuit.

How about this?

A related monument, the inunnguaq, which is specifically made to look like a person, with a head, two arms and two legs, is often referred to as an inukshuk, although, strictly speaking, this use of inukshuk is inaccurate. The root words of inukshuk literally mean 'a substitute for a human', implying that the inukshuk is performing a human function -- giving direction, marking a good hunting area, etc. The roots of inunnguaq, however, mean 'an imitation of a human', suggesting that such monuments don't necessarily have the informational function of inuksuit. For the non-Inuktitut speaking world, however, inukshuk has become the word for both types of monument.





Perhaps it could be inserted just before: 'The inukshuk has become a familiar symbol of the north throughout Canada . . .'

"First of all, the description is a quotation from a publication of the Nunavut Arctic College, so one might want to take the question up with them. "

Yes, theirs seems to be a common perception. On the other hand, Peter Irniq http://tinyurl.com/5va6t27 does appear sufficiently qualified to express himself authoritatively.


"the mention of the Nunavut flag, which features a one-legged Inukshuk"

http://tinyurl.com/6dgb9nc You see that as a leg? To me, it's a fist holding an upraised sword (albeit a short one) - the whole symbol resembling a cross. I must concede, though, that it could be taken for a Mexican shading himself from the starlight.


The paragraph you've added is typically well written, and practically doubles the length of the entry... I'd have thought, though, that Peter Irniq would know his stuff, wouldn't you?

I agree that he knows his stuff. But others know their stuff as well. For many people, both types of monuments can be called by the name Inukshuk. And the monuments themselves have moved out into the world and been adopted by many people other than the Inuit (sort of like the way that big wooden cross no longer belongs solely to the Imperial Roman justice system).


But I'm not sure what you're suggesting the solution should be.

The definition from the Inuktitut dictionary is perhaps as authoritative as Mr. Irniq, and the very word inukshuk indicates that it is representative of a human, as the dictionary definition indicates. I don't see any reason to remove it from the entry

Yes, the bit I wrote increases the length, but the distinction of types and the wide adoption of the symbol are, I think, of interest.

And, yes, the illustration is, technically speaking, an inunnguaq. But if you show it to Canadians (including many Canadian Inuit I would wager) and ask what it is, the vast majority will answer 'an inukshuk'.


So, I don't know what to do.

I've offered (a typically long-winded) possible clarifying addition.

If a substitute illustration could be arranged (of a Mexican sheltering from the starlight, perhaps) I certainly have no objection, and it would certainly be more respectful of the distinction Mr. Irniq emphasizes -- although the present picture captures what is the most common (mis)conception of the monument.

Well, most of the evidence available, on the net, certainly supports your argument. [There is no need to convince me, anyway; I'd never heard of Inuksuit before reading your entry in the Anthology (and I'm not even a proper Canadian).]

I do think that the additional paragraph is of interest, and is well worth including in the entry.

There now seems no point in changing the illustration.

By the way, congratulations on the entry being chosen for the Anthology.

Thanks.

As there seems to be agreement, I've added the new paragraph to the article

I'm pleased we've sorted that out.

Looking at the updated entry, I see that 'inukshuk has become' appears twice in close proximity. Would you consider changing the sentence containing the second instance to, 'The inukshuk is now a familiar symbol of the north throughout Canada and modern examples are found scattered across the country.'?

Yes, definitely! the 'has becomes' must be reduced.

Gone

again.

<The inukshuk is now a familiar symbol of the north throughout Canada and modern examples are [now] found scattered across the country.

Erm... I was hoping you'd remove the second 'now' in the sentence...