International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: Dan_Lehman on January 06, 2010, 06:59:22 PM
-
The difficulties of talking about knots & knotting --even of naming
knots & knot parts-- continually frustrate efforts to understand the
topic. Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them,
and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with
them.
In this endeavor, (as I wrote elsewhere) let not Perfection be the bane
of Good. We need to take stock of how best to conceive/categorize things,
in developing a nomenclature, and not to fear fuzzy boundaries entirely.
We should put forward what definitions we can find, for critique and to be
a launching point (or point of information) to our effort to develop some
better nomenclature(s).
Ashley's Book of Knots (ABOK) will have explicit definitions and I think
some implicit ones (with particular uses within the text); other texts will
have such things similarly (much will be derivative echoing). I have the
Cordage Institute's technical manual, and another uncommon book or few,
with definitions. Other people likely have more extensive libraries
and then there is Net searching, for further fodder (much echoing here!).
None of which I take as "carved in stone" and immutable or necessary,
though likely some prior definitions will work well enough.
--dl*
====
-
The immediate impetus to starting this thread (so belatedly, yes) was the
debate about what constitutes a "splice". One can add to this issue the
similar one of how to distinguish "lashing" from "seizing" from "whipping"
-- there can be identical structures of the "<x>"ing material in different
circumstances (e.g., Common Whipping structure applied to a pair of
ropes to bind them); what should best make the distinction (if indeed
a distinction is worth making)?!
Then there is the problem of "turn" vs. "round turn": typically these
denote 180deg & 540 (=180+360)deg turns; so what should one
call something in-between, such as a simple wrap of a boundary line
on some stake? Here, we might see a way to constrain the use of
historical terms to well-bounded circumstances (where the in-between
doesn't arise), and establish some new term that incorporates the
exact degree for uses elsewhere (e.g., "a 720deg-turn").
"Bight" is used in odd ways. Nautically, it apparently connotes some
slight concavity in a shoreline -- hardly the sort of image that
leads to either of its cordage-wise uses: a sharp fold, or essentially
no fold at all but just some in-between-"SPart"/"end" position !
I'm going to venture that the former definition might be safely
lost to a new term that means "without an end", and the main
latter definition will be for a hard-folded, "doubled" structure (w/o
much attention to whether its ends ever cross (heretofore the mark
of a "loop"). Tying something "with a bight" can be easily seen
as making the <whatever> (e.g., Overhand knot) with a bight vs.
single strand, and thus ending up with two ends opposite an eye.
The Butterfly knot is not so well described, esp. by Alpineer's
nifty quick method of tying; that would go to the new term, of
"without ends".
"Loop" is so overloaded, I try to avoid it. Vice "loop knot" I've
used "eye knot" -- as I think that "eye" is pretty broadly understood
and without confounding additional connotations. One sense of
distinction connotatively between "loop"/"bight" I feel is that the
loop is more round & brief, the bight elongated with a "tip" or
"bight-end" (and, again, not a matter of (un)crossed ends).
Knot names are a well-established chaos, against which one should
not expend much effort. However, it seems worthwhile at least to
try to stem a furthering of the chaos at least in some cases: e.g.,
arborists sadly have come to see the "Fisherman's knot" as the
Scaffold knot" aka "Strangle Noose-hitch" or "Poacher's Knot"
-- with implied rationale that the "Double Fish." being this knot
with two such dbl.Overhand (Strangle) parts, and the latter has
just one, so ... . Given the well-established names here, it's worth
the effort to kill this particularly bone-headed addition, both for
the gratuitous new use of the name, and the rationale for it (which
rationale is not good -- not a good one to use, i.e.).
Where more precise naming can be established, IMO, is only in
some technical jargon, where likely long-winded, cumbersome,
and digits-employing identifiers might be established for use by
knots-focused study to be precise.
--dl*
====
-
Hi Dan,
What a good idea! Before we go chasing off to find some knot nomenclature, however, could we talk about the target audience? A child may see "potty" as a perfectly good descriptor of a place or an action, whereas a physician may envision "the act of moving the bowels to produce fecal matter" as entirely more appropriate and then again a parent may envision the expression of "going to the bathroom" as the appropriate language. So it could (and likely will) be for knotting. If we are envisioning an audience of mature adults are we also envisioning an audience of practised adults or those with no prior knowledge? For some adults who have long practised the art or skill of knotting, they may see the use of bight as a rather loose term, as indeed you have done. For others it is the notion of some curvature or perhaps even a vague region in the line and, as yet, they may not even see a need to classify it.
To start the ball rolling how about trying the following:
Standing end: The end of the rope that does not have the knot in it (Wikipedia)
Working end: The part of the line that is moved, to make the shape we need for the knot we want to make (PAB Knots 101)
Standing part: The inactive part of the line, as opposed to the end and bight (Ashley); that part of a rope around which the end is worked in tying knots and other ropework (Lenfesty)
Working part: No definition found
Loop: A shape produced by a curve that bends round and crosses itself (Concise OED); a line crossing itself once (PAB Knots 101)
Bight: A loop of rope (Concise OED); one part of a line that does not cross itself (PAB Knots 101); any slack part of a rope between the two ends, particularly when curved or looped (Ashley); a bend or loop in a line or cable (Lenfesty)
From this brief sojourn it appears to be somewhat like defining pornography - we know it when we see it? There are some very confusing definitions out there, so I can see there is a real need for such definitions.
SR
-
I am all for sensible nomenclature - it is a struggle to index Ashley when so many knots have only a description which, without the drawing, is pretty meaningless. And I think that therein lies at least part of the answer. Like the elephant in the garden picking cabbages with its tail a knot is a difficult thing to describe but we all know one when we see it. So any attempt to describe knots or parts of knots needs a diagram or other graphic depiction. A "potty" is immediately recognisable and found by any of its names (known in cockney rhyming slang as an Edgar Allen (Poe is an English term for one), aka a "gesunder" as it goes under the bed (you have to say it to make sense). So if I call a bowline by some obscure (and probably ridiculous) name it matters not as long as I can relate my name to a picture where I can then see everyone else's name (including in bold the most accepted one?). But like all such ideas puuting it into practice needs time and effort both of which seem to be perennially in short supply. Perhaps we could start a web page with some easy ones such as the list Lindsey drew up and invite contributions? We would need an editor and perhaps operate a bit like Wikipedia?
Barry
-
This solution has my vote at least.
I guess there are plenty more to solve, but it's a start. And to all this there is also all the different languages to apply this to. As you mention chemistry, many names are abbreviations of Latin or Greek names. I don't propose to make use of those languages. But I must admit, being an avid forum reader and internet user, quite a few of the knots I tye, I only know the English name for. Even though I am Swedish. English is an excellent language, and probably more widespread than Esperanto. But I doubt that everyone will adopt a foreign language.
To the best of my knowledge so far, no better scalable system has come forth. I am interested to see where this goes. By the way, are you a computer programmer? Your syntax seems very well defined.
-
Just another idea for pondering:
Perhaps using the only truly "universal language" that I know of, numbers.
If there comes a grid of acceptance that uses three dimensions, such as x,y and z (or their numerical equivalents), all knots could be plotted and archived. Then the various names could be reference by their names in whatever language is chosen (all) and at least there would be a "master list" that anyone could refer to.
imho there are just too many names for each knot and in one just language at that.
If we are truly trying to move towards that universal nomenclature then it seems that numerical descriptions will be the way of the future.
It does also seem that the use of plotting software will come into play if this idea is of any use.
If the knot was drawn in a CAD program (freehand?) what would the information/data look like?
Just knowing or communicating the difference between a turn and a round turn delves into confusion for some. Why has this been the accepted wording for a half wrap or full wrap of the cordage or core?
I personally have always loved the nautical "flavor" to the names we've grown accustomed to, but I see the future, if we are to keep this knowledge afloat, evolving to incorporate more universal and perhaps attractive names, parts and all.
If it can be done.
Two cents.
SS
-
I agree with numbers holding the most common denominator of all. It even solves the linguistic challenge. The man in the street, might have something to say about it though. I foresee one healthy setup of cross referencing tables. But viable.
-
Derek,
Just to clarify something here - are we talking now of parts of knots or of knots as a complete object (function)? Naming a knot seems to be an area fraught with language difficulties as mentioned already, not only because of differing languages around the world, but also because of history. If we are speaking of parts of knots, does this mean how to build a knot or what it looks like in its dressed or partially formed appearance? If we are speaking of how to make a knot, then there really needs to be a set of basic terms that describe the movement of a working end or of a bight - hence really only two parts to be dealt with at any one time. Direction would be natural to assume as a direction from the tyer's viewpoint, including rotating the knot, or the viewpoint, when needed to gain access to a different area of the knot, or of the object to which it is tied. This seems to be a simpler way of addressing the parts which, I think, came out of a question as to what a hole in a knot was called. The differences of which you and Dan have spoken are significant when differentiating between two versions of tying the same thing - i.e. is it a turn or is it a round turn. Chemical notation seems to me to be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.....
SR
-
The difficulties of talking about knots & knotting --even of naming
knots & knot parts-- continually frustrate efforts to understand the
topic. Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them,
and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with
them.
...
--dl*
====
@SR
I take it from Dan's opening post (and I hope) that he means for us to ...
... "review the extant definitions, such as we find them, and see how
we might step beyond the problems encountered with them." Rather than,
and quite in contrast to, jumping blindly into some fabrication from the
ground up or ether down, absent the groundwork analysis. (So, I'll
spare critiquing the contradictions of the unwanted-at-this-stage proposals.)
Perhaps I should be explicit: "to present here the extant definitions ...".
There are several people in some group called "the IGKT" --and elsewhere--
with reach into literature that contains definitions of things pertinent to
knotting; let's present these and see what's what, analyze the conceptions.
(I stand on tap for delivering The Cordage Institute's collected definitions;
I can also reach CLDay's from The Art of Knotting & Splicing
--dl*
====
-
I agree with numbers holding the most common denominator of all. It even solves the linguistic challenge. The man in the street, might have something to say about it though. I foresee one healthy setup of cross referencing tables. But viable.
I think that this short statement says it all. We can think up all sorts of definitions and systems from the incredibly complex to the very basic but at the end of the day and to cover at least the majority of users be they expert or novice we need to have a means of accessing all nomenclatures via cross referencing. All we need is somebody to lead and a lot of people to put in some effort. And that nice Mr Ashley gave us a set of numbers to start with but I think I've said that before..............
Barry
-
Apologies Dan, I misunderstood you intentions with this thread.
I have removed the "contradictions of the unwanted-at-this-stage proposals" to clear the thread for the analysis as you intend it.
@SR -- it seems you were correct and hammers of any size are not the order of this thread, more a case of careful (almost archaeological like) sifting of the extant information.
Derek
-
To continue with definitions:
Why not start with standing part. There are at least three somewhat opposing definitions:
The inactive part of the line, as opposed to the end and bight (Ashley);
That part of a rope around which the end is worked in tying knots and other ropework (Lenfesty)
The part of the line that generally stays still, while we do something with the other end (PAB Knots 101)
Ashley's description seems to me to be taking the negative route (it is the opposite of whatever it is not), which hardly seems too defining - he could be referring to a coil of line, after all. Lenfesty seems to me to be getting closer to an ideal. Can anyone offer a way in which Lenfesty's description could be mis-read or otherwise interpreted? As for PAB's Knots 101, it seems a bit folksy and not like a definition at all but a description. Let's hear from you and let's try to settle on one way in which we could all feel happy about the defining moment....
SR
-
From the Samson Rope Glossary http://www.ropeinc.com/rope-glossary-terms.html (http://www.ropeinc.com/rope-glossary-terms.html)
Standing Part - The main part of the rope not in the knot itself, the rope not being tied is the standing part.
Standing Rigging ? Rigging holding up the masts that is usually not adjusted while sailing.
---------------------------------
From The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea | 2006
standing part, that part of the rope used in a purchase, the end of which is secured to the eye of the standing block. The part of the rope between the standing and the moving blocks is the running part, and the remainder, as it comes out of the purchase, is the hauling part. The whole of the rope is known as the fall.
------------------------------------------
From the free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Standing+part (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Standing+part)
(Naut.) That part of a tackle which is made fast to a block, point, or other object
That part of a rope around which turns are taken with the running part in making a knot or the like.
From wikipedia
Standing end
The end of the rope not involved in making the knot, often shown as unfinished.
Standing part
Section of line between knot and the standing end (seen above).
---------------------------------------
From Mimi http://en.mimi.hu/boating/standing_part.html (http://en.mimi.hu/boating/standing_part.html)
STANDING PART - That part of a rope which is tied.
Standing PartThat part of a line which is made fast. The main part of a line as distinguished from the bight and the end.
Standing Part - The part permanently made fast to something, and not hauled upon. In cordage or lines it's the standing end is the opposite of the running end. The main part of a line as distinguished from the bight and the end.
standing part The portion of a line not used in making a knot.
standing rigging The permanent shrouds and stays; rigging used mainly to hold up the mast and take the strain of the sails.
-----------------------------------------------------
They all seem to imply yet fail to state, that it is the part of the cordage doing work - i.e. under load.
Derek
-
Interesting version - suggesting that the SP is the part that stays still while at work
2. Not flowing; stagnant; as, standing water.
[1913 Webster]
3. Not transitory; not liable to fade or vanish; lasting; as,
a standing color.
[1913 Webster]
From online dictionary http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/standing+part (http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/standing+part)
-
So if you have a cord that has stopper knots at each end and the purpose is to limit the movement of to items (both move), which then is the standing end?
Working end seems to be a fairly good enough term for it is used in the tying if the knot. To me that is the work of that end during the tying and I consider the knot to be the main part of what is doing some work involving the cordage.
It seems to me that a term such as "main or primary line" or "bulk line" or "parent line" paints a better visual picture, at least for me.
2 cents again
SS
-
So How about this - that the standing part is the part of a line that transfers the load when under tension but is otherwise not included in the knot structure - would that combine all and yet still be acceptable?
SR
-
Take one piece of cordage.
Make a fixing in one end, say an eye splice, and fix it to the item to be 'controlled' (i.e. to be retained by tension)
Next feed the cordage to the loading / tensioning point and fix it - cleat, hitch, belay plate etc, etc.
Take up the slack to apply load to item under control and lay the slack and unused cordage to one side.
This system has four parts (five if the first part was a knot rather than a splice - it would have had its own end)
The first part is eye splice
The second part is the cordage under tension
The third part is the hitch
The forth part is the slack
When this construction is part of say rigging, that is going to be in place for some time, it is quite probable that meaningful names can be given to these four parts. The term Standing Part for the second part might even have some meaning or value.
But if the eye splice is replaced with a rethreaded fig 8 forming a loop through say a climbers harness, then as the climber and their second progress up the climb, the ends and the slack will repeatedly 'change ends' - then the names of the parts once meaningful in rigging parlance become meaningless in a climbing reference.
Are we heading for 'Trade specific' terminology ? or is this why we are in the mess we find ourselves in now ?
Derek
-
SR, that seems to be a good enough definition, to me at least and it handles most of the use examples I see in my head, but what about the name itself. I am thinking that perhaps "standing part" is keyed to nautical and is maybe archaic, especially to those who are uninformed.
Then there is the cord use in decorative knotting that the end(s) may never see a load.
Ask someone on the street "What is a standing part?" and I fear the answers you may get. ;-)
I believe there is some generic term that can apply here that could keep us from getting too "trade specific" as Derek has asked.
Though I do think that the trades will continue to call them as they have grown accustomed to.
Old habits die very hard.
Maybe "starting lead or line" for the cord as it goes into the knot. The general populous would get that I am thinking.
SS
-
snip...
To start the ball rolling how about trying the following:
Standing end: The end of the rope that does not have the knot in it (Wikipedia)
Working end: The part of the line that is moved, to make the shape we need for the knot we want to make (PAB Knots 101)
Standing part: The inactive part of the line, as opposed to the end and bight (Ashley); that part of a rope around which the end is worked in tying knots and other ropework (Lenfesty)
Working part: No definition found
Loop: A shape produced by a curve that bends round and crosses itself (Concise OED); a line crossing itself once (PAB Knots 101)
Bight: A loop of rope (Concise OED); one part of a line that does not cross itself (PAB Knots 101); any slack part of a rope between the two ends, particularly when curved or looped (Ashley); a bend or loop in a line or cable (Lenfesty)
From this brief sojourn it appears to be somewhat like defining pornography - we know it when we see it? There are some very confusing definitions out there, so I can see there is a real need for such definitions.
SR
I used to think I knew what the SPart was - at least I knew what part I meant. Now it seems, others could have taken my use of the term to mean something which is incomprehensible to me.
Derek
-
We are short on analysis, though Derek has upped the ante on presented
definitions.
(I was sort of waiting to reply with maybe a set of dummy posts each
intended to hold definitions sets, which posts could be occasionally updated
by editing -- and so holding a common in-thread reference point. Not sure
now what per-msg. character limit is (maybe none?). Idea would make it
easy, e.g., to say "see p.3 for definitions", constantly referenced, sometimes
updated; rather than a scatter throughout several pp of thread.)
Analysis, I said. What's intended by (i.e., How is it used? ) "standing end"
and "standing part", for starters, since those have popped out? Re the former,
I find little use for it -- any examples? On the latter, its knotting-wise use
has been supposedly rather temporally constrained to be during tying
and pretty much not after. And yet, looking at some definitions, you must
wonder --thinking Chicken Or Egg?-- how the SPart can be fixed at
a time when the knot is inchoate!? And distinguishing this somehow
from "the bight" ... ? I don't see even fuzzy boundaries, just muddle!
And clearing away muddle is the point of this exercise, not stirring it up,
or making new.
I'm who coined "SPart" --at first really 'SPart' (i.e., typography not sense)--,
for typing convenience; but I use it much as I think Derek thinks he understood
it, to denote the part of a knot (of some knots) that delivers 100%
tension to it (and by this one should immediately e.g. question What of a
mesh knot, then?). But my sense from knots books is that the only USE
of the term is at the time of tying a knot, though there seems some
tendency of one so-denoted part to become the 100%-tensioned part.
One could conceive of a "standing part" in some tyings (varying per method)
of a binder, where ultimately the knot in use had no tension on that part.
--dl*
====
-
Dan, I take your concern about using a forum to produce meaningful results (i.e. conclusions). A forum is ideal to stimulate far ranging discussion, but it is a lousy medium to then collate any form of distillation or consensus. That is why I have asked if we could have the 'Tabs' mod added to the forum. this would allow up to tab a post with its subject, then at any time you can just pull out all those posts that only cover that one subject, making review and conclusions so much easier - I don't know if we will be allowed the function though...
Apart from decoratives and knitting / weaving / crotchet etc., all knots are functional in that their purpose is to take or deliver load, and the application of that loading to the knot structure is often critical. Not many knots can be loaded indiscriminately. Identifying (naming) these parts is I believe fundamental in being able to have a functional lexicon. I take your point that making a knot probably needs some aspects of terminology, but I believe the essential terminology should relate to describing a knot in its final dressed, set and working mode. Not that a language should be job specific, but at least should be able to be load specific.
Derek
-
In my experience, people can easily understand that while a knot is being tied, one end of the rope (sometimes called the Working End) goes around/through/over/under/etc. the "Main Part" of the rope.
In other words, a knot generally takes up a small part of a rope, and the rest of the rope is the main part of the rope (whether under tension or not). To me, that's easier to understand and picture than "Standing Part."
Derek, when we use terminology to discuss knotting, isn't it fair to say that our terminology is frequently used to describe the making of a knot? I agree with you that we need terminology which relates to a knot in its final form, but that terminology should also relate well to the making of a knot. We wouldn't want to end up with one set of terminology for the making of a knot, and another set of terminology for the finished product!
Dave
-
Derek, when we use terminology to discuss knotting, isn't it fair to say that our terminology is frequently used to describe
the making of a knot? I agree with you that we need terminology which relates to a knot in its final form,
but that terminology should also relate well to the making of a knot.
Why, and how(!) ??
How can you speak of something that is yet unformed, not there (whatever
in-the-completed-knot part you might care to refer to) ?
It is for us in this review & analysis to see how the commonly defined terms
are actually used -- I've gotten the sense that in some cases there isn't much
use, just parroted definitions for the sake of keeping to community standards
and nothing more (like the Sheepshank: often presented, hardly employed).
--dl*
====
-
A knot (e.g. a Bowline) which is in the process of being tied shares some common features with the finished product. They both have a "Standing Part," and they both have a "Working End" (which is not being used for "working" in the finished product, but which is there in the finished product nevertheless, sometimes referred to as a "tail"), and so on. So my suggestion is that any features which are common to the unfinished and the finished knot should have the same terminology, unless perhaps there is a useful and meaningful reason to have a different term in some situations.
Dave
-
A knot (e.g. a Bowline) which is in the process of being tied shares some common features with the finished product.
- They both have a "Standing Part," and
- they both have a "Working End" (which is not being used for "working" in the finished product,
but which is there in the finished product nevertheless, sometimes referred to as a "tail"), and so on.
The trouble with "standing part" is its vague definition. Also, have you ever tied
a bowline with an eye splice (i.e., so that the eye is the bowline's collar -- a sort
of cannot-come-undone bowline, which might be made even though the eye splice
is present in order to make a much larger eye for use)? One does this by sort of
tying the bowline in reverse, going around the eye and tucking out through it,
which btw is like the tying of the so-called "Ring bowline". In that case, what
one is "working" with is what supposedly you'd see as the "SPart" upon completion,
and there is no "end", rope-wise.
"Working end" has an intuitive, plain interpretation that has effect only during
tying; typically, it is what one has left as the knot's "end" or "tail" (amusing to
find Peter Owen saying to "leave a tail on the working end" in one spot), but
the sense still is of an in-process distinction rather than an of-the-knot one.
I think that an examination of the literature will show a not-so-well ordered
way of talking about tying --often frustrating to do--, and little to no way
to refer to knots parts. Doing a quick scan for examples just now, I found
many knots presented w/o use of these terms, just relying on graphics.
"bight" and "loop", as I believe I've said, have conflicting definitions.
It might be that "eye" can take over from "loop" some of its duties,
and "bight", well, that remains a problem with the "u-shape" sense
vs. the "middle-of-rope" sense (and nautical history of "slight concavity"
sense). argh
--dl*
====
-
OK Dan,
Now we have your analysis of what it is not - so what is it (bight, standing part, standing end, loop, etc., etc.). Start with any one and we'll follow suit......
SR
-
For reference, here are a couple of websites which contain illustrations of the parts of a knot:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot) (scroll down to "Components")
Boy Scouts: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf (http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf) (see p.2)
In addition, Agent Smith's Bowlines.pdf file was online temporarily, and it contained a picture of various other components of a knot (collar, nub, tail, etc.) which are not shown in the above websites. I have a copy of the PDF, but I don't want to post the picture without permission. Agent Smith, can you post a JPG or GIF of the picture on Page 1 of Bowlines.pdf (which shows a Bowline with the various parts labeled)?
These illustrations can provide a common reference as we propose new names. For example, if I refer to the part labeled "Loop" in the Wikipedia picture and propose a better name for that part, then there's no ambiguity about what I mean by "Loop."
Dave
-
s: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf (http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf)
Something wrong either with the turn or the round turn descriptions there ?
-
As Dan said in the original post, "The difficulties of talking about knots & knotting --even of naming knots & knot parts-- continually frustrate efforts to understand the topic. Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them, and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with them."
To help step beyond the problems encountered with the existing definitions, The "Lexicon of Knotology" topic contains a list of potential new terms for creating an unambiguous vocabulary (see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0)).
Dan's original post generated much agreement that a sensible nomenclature is needed. Therefore, I wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to evaluate the potential new terms listed in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic, and to help build a useful vocabulary that we can all use in the IGKT forum. It would be far better to contribute to the development of the new lexicon than to be unhappy with it after-the-fact!
Dave
-
s: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf (http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf)
Something wrong either with the turn or the round turn descriptions there ?
I'd remove your "?" and turn that utterance into a declaration: yes,
egads, those definitions are poorly crafted (they define "standing <blank!>"
and use something else. (sorry, don't care to chase down the pdf again)
But to your particular question re "(round)turn", well, yes,
I don't see those as winning acceptance broadly or as solving
the problem; they stand apart in being particular/clear about
"turn", but let's see how that definition fits into discussion,
how it can be (well, or not so well) used. (I think we'll find some
basis for concluding that a "round turn" = 2 turns,
and yet 2 round turns will = 3, not 4 turns -- that sort of problem,
as well as direction-of-ends, degree of wrap (180 vs 360 ...).
As Dan said in the original post, "... Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them, and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with them."
To help step beyond the problems encountered with the existing definitions, The "Lexicon of Knotology" topic contains a list of potential new terms for creating an unambiguous vocabulary (see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0).
There is eagerness to go on with the postulating but seemingly no
stamina to do the work of seeing how terms are used in the literature.
Above in this thread SS369 asks
So if you have a cord that has stopper knots at each end and the purpose is to limit the movement of to items (both move), which then is the standing end?
And to that one must reply Why are you talking about "standing end",
where do you get that term? And let's see from what usage it comes (if any!).
Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it.
A wheel that can be turned, though nothing else moves with it, is not a part of the mechanism.
--dl*
====
ps: "standing 2. At rest; specif., of water, not flowing, stagnant."
from
Webster's New International Dictionary (1909 rev. 1913, G&C Merriam)
!? Hmmm, 1888 ("Webster's Unabridged") has as #2 the "Not transitory..."
definition, and nearly the on-line cited-for-1913 def. for #3. (I can do 1934
New Int. 2nd Ed. as well. :) )
-
Ahhh a terrific example of how confusing the accepted nomenclature is. I used "standing end" as opposed to "standing part" in my question. And is that correct even?
Citing the definition of the word "standing" in your post just seems to be a distraction as I think that most English speaking members have a fair idea of the definition of this word.
But back to the maybe poor example of mine. If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term "Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.
Somehow, someway the application of the KISS principle needs to be employed here.
Even using something as simple as main part is a better descriptor.
Wrap is better than round turn in my opinion also. Very little confusion I believe.
Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it
Explain please.
SS
-
But back to the maybe poor example of mine. If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term "Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.
Somehow, someway the application of the KISS principle needs to be employed here.
Even using something as simple as main part is a better descriptor.
We're thinking along the same lines, because I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15)). Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.
Dave
-
Citing the definition of the word "standing" in your post just seems to be a distraction ...
It was a slight correction to the on-line source, as a matter of interest; I happen
to have that dictionary (1913) --and have nearly completed mending its fragile
pages' tears-- as well as an 1888 predecessor (there is one major edition between),
and the two successors (of which the now-current-standard "3rd New Int." is way
long in the tooth by historical durations -- presumably a consequence of use of
the Net & on-line access. (It was pub'd 1963, so stands approaches a half century
vs. rough quarter-century durations of some prior editions.)
If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot
on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term
"Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.
...
Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it
Explain please.
The explanation is simple: please find USES --you know, occurrences in literature--
of this term you question! Get out your favorite knots books and present how the
term is used ("Meaning is use", a paraphrase of Wittgenstein, whom I quoted
w/o citation (Phil.Investigations #271) )
Consider --and this is my point to objecting to the scouts text-- this from the
Tenderfoots document cited by Derek:
Standing end: The rest of the rope excluding the running end
Bight: A bend or U-shape in a rope
Loop: Formed by crossing the RUNNING END over the STANDING
part, forming a ring or circle in the rope
Turn: The placing of a loop around a object with the RUNNING END
continuing in a direction opposite to the STANDING part
Round turn: A modified TURN, but with the RUNNING END leaving the
circle in the same direction as the STANDING part
Now, even in these definitions they cannot use their own defined term!
And they botch[**] the indication of what the defined term is (i.e., "standing" alone
is the capitalized term ('STANDING' presumably indicating it being a defined term),
"part" misses this fanfare, and "end" was completely forgotten.
But this isn't fully the use I'm looking for: that will come in the text discussing
knots (or will be absent, leaving the term(s) a wheel moved w/o effect).
** [Perhaps 'part' vice expected/defined 'END' indicates some later editing,
to bring the terms into agreement with some other texts?]
I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15).
Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.
And, Dave, this begs the same question/response: please find the uses of SPart in
the literature and try substituting this (novel) term -- I think the point will be
obvious.
E.g., from Knight's Modern Seamanship, 16th ed.
Overhand Knot: ... is formed by passing the end of the line over the standing part.
Running Bowline: ... It is made by tying a bowline around the standing part.
Two Half Hitches: ... When tying, pass the end around the standing part twice ...
Blackwall Hitch: ... To tie, make a loop with the end under the standing part.
versus
Clove Hitch: ... To make the hitch more secure, after tying it, add a half hitch around the standing part.
Fisherman's Bend: ... The end should be seized to the standing part.
To my thinking, the first few definitions belie your "entry point" connotations
--there isn't at the logical time any thing to refer to as having that--,
and the latter couple show what you have in mind, there being a completed
knot to which one might see such a part. I suppose I should post my reaction
to those listed terms of the other thread IN that other thread, but have resisted
as I'd really like to see the (drudgery) work done on dredging up actual uses
of knotting terms (as well as text that might be longwindedly showing the
lack of a good term or few!), so we have a better feel for problems & need.
Right now, people are shooting without looking.
--dl*
====
-
A couple of thoughts. First "bight" - also used to describe a geograghical feature (eg in UK shipping weather forecasts one sea area is "German Bight") ie a bay which is open to the sea. In knotting it means much the same whereas to me a loop is by definition closed. I think there is an important point here - it's not just about precise definition but precise usage. If you refer to a closed loop as a bight then (assuming bight is defined as here) then that is incorrect; why? Because the Lexicon says it is! Trying to find some sort of alternative only shifts the problem it doesn't get rid of it.
Second thought re standing part etc. If I am drawing a knot (I rarely do as I'm hopeless at it) I label the parts - something I first saw in "Knots, Splices and Fancy Work" - rather than use a term which is imprecise as the audience may think I am talking about something else. I can understand the need to standardise definitions but that does not mean inventing new words - merely defining precisely the meaning of the ones we have and the problem seems to be that different people understand different meanings of the same word - very common between UK English and US English for example. At the end of the day it matters not at all what you call something as long as you have a diagram or whatever to make the meaning clear - standardisation in other words. The bit of rope which is called the standing part is .....? If we cannot actually agree what it is then no amount of terminology will make any difference. I suggest the lexicon tries to engender a common understanding of the language and the discipline to use it not start a new one unless there simply is not a word or phrase available. How old a term is is neither here nor there.
Barry
PS Latest post from Dan appeared whilst I was typing this - I don't think we disagree
-
I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15).
Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.
And, Dave, this begs the same question/response: please find the uses of SPart in the literature and try substituting this (novel) term -- I think the point will be obvious. E.g., from Knight's Modern Seamanship, 16th ed.
Overhand Knot: ... is formed by passing the end of the line over the standing part.
Running Bowline: ... It is made by tying a bowline around the standing part.
Two Half Hitches: ... When tying, pass the end around the standing part twice ...
Blackwall Hitch: ... To tie, make a loop with the end under the standing part.
versus
Clove Hitch: ... To make the hitch more secure, after tying it, add a half hitch around the standing part.
Fisherman's Bend: ... The end should be seized to the standing part.
To my thinking, the first few definitions belie your "entry point" connotations --there isn't at the logical time any thing to refer to as having that--, and the latter couple show what you have in mind, there being a completed knot to which one might see such a part.
Granted that Entry_Part might not be the best term, but notice that all of your examples were written from the perspective of traditional terminology. If a new lexicon is created which includes Entry_Part, then the examples above would simply be written in a way which uses Entry_Part appropriately. For example, Entry_Part could be defined something like this: "The part of the cordage which enters into the finished knot from one side ["side" being defined somewhere], OR which enters into the area where a new knot will be tied." I've scoured my brain (and the Internet) for a term which will address your examples and also address the case in which we've already tied several consecutive Overhand Knots before beginning a new knot (similar to SS's example above), and nothing seems to be a 100% fit. Suggestions are welcome and desired!
I suppose I should post my reaction to those listed terms of the other thread IN that other thread, but have resisted as I'd really like to see the (drudgery) work done on dredging up actual uses of knotting terms (as well as text that might be longwindedly showing the lack of a good term or few!), so we have a better feel for problems & need. Right now, people are shooting without looking.
I don't have ready access to much printed material that might be helpful, but in this topic and in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic I've made at least 4 posts concerning the online research that I've been doing to find good terms and descriptions which are already in use. As you have pointed out, the terms and definitions out there are quite muddled! This confusion of terms and definitions led to the idea of creating a useful lexicon, which might contain some traditional terms and might contain some new terms. Consider the end of the cord which is manipulated while tying a knot...what term should we incorporate into the new lexicon? Should we keep "Working End"? Should we keep "Running End"? Should we keep "Bitter End"? If any terms are unclear or ambiguous or unsatisfactory for some reason, then this is our opportunity to clean up the vocabulary by choosing a better and more descriptive term.
Dave
-
A couple of thoughts. First "bight" - also used to describe a geograghical feature (eg in UK shipping weather forecasts one sea area is "German Bight") ie a bay which is open to the sea. In knotting it means much the same whereas to me a loop is by definition closed ...
I cannot find "bight" used much in geographical senses,
but I'm not equipped for such a precise search -- quick Google
doesn't show much, except in some extant names of places.
(I have a sense that perhaps it once mattered in terms of then
capable sailing vessels ("can sail out of in one tack" or some such
constraint), and with modern ships is not relevant?)
In any case, I find the given condition of whether it's "closed"
to really be beside the point: that a "loop" is essentially round
and a "bight" elongated. ("loop" is overloaded/general such
that it covers all sorts of meanings.) And, after all, the crossing
of legs is something dependent upon a perspective -- change that
by 90 degrees and the legs are merely adjacent. The 1913 & '34
Webster's include the bends of elbow & horse's knees, and that
of a river, which goes much towards bending and without
regard for openness. And neither of these other cases
much resembles the main need & object in knotting, which is
a quite elongated fold of cordage.
The sense in knotting of merely "without ends", got somewhat
indirectly by some "middle of the rope" or "slack part of the
standing part" (!?), I am happy to lose to some other term.
As for a bight being "open", I have some terms in mind where
a bight is a general term (lacking better) to then constrained
cases of "open" & "closed", where the latter equals an "eye"
and where both legs are tensioned, and the former indicates
the case such as in a Sheet Bend (new sense) where only one
leg is tensioned. "Bight Hitches" I see as a sub-class of knots
(to which I donate the Sheet Bend & Becket Hitch, resp. open
& closed bights), quite useful.
- - - - - -
As for "standing part", we need to look at how the term has
been used (and WHEN it has been -- or is it just often defined
but largely ignored), and see what works. We do NOT need
to find a replacement that fits everywhere "S.P." once occurred,
and that somehow makes those different uses sensible. But we
need to understand what was trying to be conveyed. (My sense
is that it really makes no sense to try to point to a supposed
part of plain rope and identify a "standing part" -- but might
make sense in the course of a tying method to so identify
some part of the cordage thus engaged. )
Identifying parts of a knot can be completely distinct from tying.
--dl*
====
-
..."bight" and "loop", as I believe I've said, have conflicting definitions.
It might be that "eye" can take over from "loop" some of its duties,
and "bight", well, that remains a problem with the "u-shape" sense
vs. the "middle-of-rope" sense (and nautical history of "slight concavity"
sense). argh dl
Coming from an outsider's perspective (a useful perspective, I would argue, when there are so many experts here) I'd agree there is a difference, and a useful one, between "eye" and "loop": An eye is smaller than a loop.
That last statement is arguably worthless; what do I (or anyone else) mean by small?
It's a question of context. An eye on a steel cable used in a ship-yard would typically be just the right size to fit snugly on a hook used for lifting a container. A loop in that same context might fit around the container. A fisherman's eye will fit snugly around a tiny fishing hook; a loop might fit around the fish. It's not difficult to come up with similar examples.
In the above paragraph I happen to have twice mentioned "hook". Perhaps a better, more general suggestion might be that an eye tied in a particular piece of cord would be big enough for one strand of that cord to pass through it - maybe two strands at a pinch. A loop, in contrast, is designed/destined for something other than, much bigger than, a hole for a strand or two of cord.
-
... a difference, and a useful one, between "eye" and "loop": An eye is smaller than a loop.
That last statement is arguably worthless ...
Worthless? It might show some connotation we should be aware
of, but having relative size be a discriminating factor I think is
unwanted, problematic. Perhaps the origin of "eye" used in such
contexts implies a smallness relative to some whole, but there is
enough separation of the term from a sense of size to purely the
nature of enclosure in our domain of interest to let us define it
without regard to the size issue. There are e.g. "hard" & "soft"
eyes -- the former being splices around thimbles. "Eye" splices
are of lengths suitable for use and need to be in a certain
at-least-this-big relation to their intended enclosed objects;
e.g., the Cordage Institute gives the recommendation of a
minimum of 3- and preferably 5-to-1 ratio of eye size to object
diameter (to ameliorate tearing forces in the eye).
--dl*
====
-
I didn't know that about a standard for eye size in an eye splice. I'd never thought about it, but it does make sense to make an eye splice several times bigger than the cord diameter. I dimly remember studying tension in catenary curves etc, and whilst I'm not sure I could mathematically prove it these days, I accept that too small an eye would create unnecessarily high tension.
I was thinking though about creating eyes, temporary or otherwise, when tying knots rather than when creating eye splices. In a different thread I think I used the words "small loop" when describing how to tie a Versa-Vice Loop; I could perhaps have more concisely and precisely used just one word, "eye". I would concede there is probably no dictionary definition insisting that an eye is smaller than a loop. But I disagree that we should turn our backs on size as a discriminating factor. I think size could well be a useful thing in which to draw a distinction. Unless there is some other, more useful (while still plausible) shade of difference that we could exploit?
Sticking for the moment with "eye" denoting a small loop, perhaps the small twisted loop in the Gleipnir/~ binding could be described as an eye. By the way Dan, I like your "TurNip" suggestion for that knot. I didn't see anyone suggest "Twist" - which seems appropriate to me. How about "TurNip Twist"!? But we'd need to ask Gleipnir.
-
Here are some thoughts from the Nodeology wiki:
-- A .Ring is the oval-shaped section of .Cord which remains after certain .Knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines). .Rings are useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with a carabiner, and so on. Traditionally referred to as a Loop. "Loop" has conflicting meanings in traditional terminology, so it's not a clear and unambiguous term to use. "Eye" is another possibility, but "eye" suggests or implies smallness. For example, go to any hardware store and look at their eye bolts...virtually all of them are relatively small (usually under 3"). Ostrich eyes are generally 2" in diameter and are the largest eyes among land animals, and so on. "Eye" suggests smallness, which to me makes it less suitable than "ring" because rings can be found in all sizes from very small to very large (e.g. wedding rings to gymnastics rings to circus rings to Saturn's rings). In addition, "ring" is an ideal fit with "ring-loading," which is a traditional term that seems sensible and unambiguous enough to keep in the new lexicon.
-- An .Eye is a permanent .Ring at the end of a .Cord which is usually made by .Splicing the end of the .Cord back to the .Cord itself (similar to an eye bolt).
For more proposed definitions and naming conventions, see http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms)
Dave
-
I didn't know that about a standard for eye size in an eye splice. ... it does make sense to make
an eye splice several times bigger than the cord diameter.
No, bigger than the OBJECT diameter -- you know, the pile over which
the dockline eye will be placed. A foot-diameter pile wants a 4-foot-long eye.
... perhaps the small twisted loop in the Gleipnir/~ binding could be described as an eye.
By the way Dan, I like your "TurNip" suggestion for that knot. I didn't see anyone suggest "Twist"
- which seems appropriate to me. How about "TurNip Twist"!? But we'd need to ask Gleipnir.
An eye is an opening of the (finished) structure. We are
looking to avoid overloading "loop" with "loop knot" and want
to match "eye splice" with "eye knot". The Gleipnir structure
is a turn, or that-plus --insofar as the resolution of dealing with
that problematic term goes (180-360deg?)--, that nips, ergo,
"turNip". ;) A twist will have twisted parts adjacent,
touching, as in the Bimini Twist; in the turNip, they might not
even be touching (upon loading), opening a bit into a spiral.
but "eye suggests...smallness. For example, go to any hardware store and look at their
eye bolts...virtually all of them are relatively small (usually under 3").
I could go look in a store at Fruit Loops, too, if I was lacking for
entertainment. Really, pick your hardware store appropriately and
you can find the eyes I see regularly in ground anchors for utility
pole guy lines of galvanized cable. But let's stick to "eye splice"
in this thinking and not get carried away.
And as for "Ring", consider that we have "ring hitches" and don't
need to muck about with "ring" beyond generalizing it for the
purpose of (sub)classifying hitches. (I see "ring", "spar", and "pile"
as relative-sized hitches -- and one thin rope's spar will be some
thicker rope's ring.) A Timber hitch e.g. is not a ring hitch
-- for there isn't room on a ring for the necessary dogging of the
tail in a Timber hitch ; similarly, an Ossel h. isn't a spar or pile
hitch, for it requires the proximity of the hitched object for friction
against the tail for security. (Hmmm, discriminating spar/pile
might be more than I'm up for at this <yawn> hour; hmmm, I am now
wondering about changing the criterion from the presumed size
to availability of object end -- "pile hitch" being one requiring the
ability to cast a bight over the object's end. -- but it would be best to
have a separate adjective to qualify each of the size-determined types
("open pile", "closed ring", "closed pile"...) )
--dl*
====
-
Here are some thoughts from the Nodeology wiki:
-- A .Ring is the oval-shaped section of .Cord which remains after certain .Knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines). .Rings are useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with a carabiner, and so on. Traditionally referred to as a Loop.
...
-- An .Eye is a permanent .Ring at the end of a .Cord which is usually made by .Splicing the end of the .Cord back to the .Cord itself (similar to an eye bolt).
I really don't like this: IMO, a "ring" connotes surrounding/enclosure and
a full circle of equal essence; whereas an "eye" differs in providing mainly
two equal legs of resistance for pulling on ONE thing. E.g., a ring might
enclose and so bind two things trying to move in contrary directions, and
the material of the ring is independent; whereas the eye is itself an
active member in resistance to the ONE thing enclosed.
Thus, ring-loading of an eye is an exceptional not defining condition!
These concepts should be reinforced in developed terminology,
not compromised. (And this might guide us to "ring sling" vs. "eye sling"
--or "eye-2-eye", which sense is more perspicuous-- as terms, which seem
useful (and help resolve that issue re "sling").)
- - - - - - - - - -
Another realm of knotting nomenclature can arise from speaking of
certain actions performed on knots in terms of loading. E.g.,
an eyeknot can be (some mused terms following...)
a) ring-loaded if pulled so that knot functions qua bend ;
b) through-loaded if pulled on the SPart & its eyeleg only;
c) bend-loaded if pulled on the SPart & opposite leg only;
d) reversed if ... what: load end vs. SPart, or load end-side
eyeleg qua SPart and now fuse former SPart to former end?
... and so on.
Eye knots would have various such operations not available
with other types of knot, and vice versa. (I'd say that the "reverse"
of a bend is loading ends vice SParts.) Now, this gets potentially
confusing as one named knots Reverse might BE some other named
knot, and so on.
--dl*
====
-
In this topic and in the 'Lexicon of Knotology' topic there seems to be unanimous agreement that our knotting vocabulary can stand being improved.
In the 'Lexicon of Knotology' topic I tried to get some momentum going by presenting a list of terms for discussion and voting, but that didn't generate much response. Derek felt that this type of discussion would work better in a different format, so he created the Nodeology wiki. That generated even less response.
The good news is that we've had one success in all of these discussions because there's a clear consensus in favor of the term "eye." So let's start with this one success and see if it generates any momentum.
Here's a first pass at a definition for "eye":
"An eye is the elliptical section of cord which is created when certain knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines). Traditionally referred to as a loop."
If we can nail down a decent definition of "eye," then we can move on to another term, then another, etc., and gradually build up a vocabulary which we can all be comfortable using. For now let's build on our one success and work on one thing at a time to avoid confusion.
How can we improve the above definition of "eye"?
Dave
-
I'll bight.
I tend to think of an "eye" as the space created by a splice. I think of a "loop" as a space created by a bend or knot.
-
To me the eye is the space and the loop is the cord which surrounds it. Right or wrong it's a useful distinction aqnd doesn't matter how the loop/eye was formed as long as it was closed (differentiating loop from from bight but eye applies to both in that it is a space).
Barry
-
Here's a first pass at a definition for "eye":
"An eye is the elliptical section of cord which is created when certain knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines). Traditionally referred to as a loop."
..
How can we improve the above definition of "eye"?
Perhaps in this way:
An eye is a structure in cordage that encloses a space in which an object
can resist tension of the material in which the eye is formed."
What I'm aiming for is the notion of pulling the (away-from-closure-point (splice|knot))
end of the enclosure in opposition to the (single-strand) material leading to the structure.
-- which is a notably different sense of enclosure than that of a "ring sling", where
the opposition occurs between objects both within the enclosure.
I don't follow/like Barry's space-vs-material angle: "eye splice" is an old and
well-understood term; we can build upon that pretty easily, and thus have
"eye knot". "Loop" remains also problematically (*overly*) extant, and there's
scant hope of escaping some use of it, I guess, and inevitably confronting
unwanted uses of it in common parlance. My thought is that "loop" is defined
appropriate to e.g. describing the Gleipnir and TurNip and difference
between Single & Double Bowlines. Yet there will always be those speaking of
"multi-loop" knots and so on.
"Bight" I see as being a nice categorical term to cover the general case
that includes both "closed" and "open" bights -- the former being "eyes",
or perhaps just the away-from-closure-point part of the eye. For I
see valuable use in "bight hitches", to include the Sheet Bend,
Becket Hitch (whatever names might denote respectively end-2-end vs.
end-2-eye structures), among others -- in the sense of hitching to the
bight (i.e., essentially tying just that non-bight cordage to the bight qua
object-structure (such as tying to a hook -- something shaped, but in
a categorically identifiable way).
--dl*
====
-
I think that this is becoming overcomplex. If what we want is a definition then it really doesn't matter too much what it is - it is what we say it is. I used "eye" to describe a space as the first building block. An eye splice is one which encloses an eye but the rope part is not in itself an eye. A bight is a geographical term. It simply is not a "closed loop" or else what is the point of the term - it would simply duplicate the term loop? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that this thread was an attempt to introduce a semblance of order to the very loose language that has built up vis a vis knots and ropework - by introducing an element of precision at the most basic level and then building definitions of compound terms from the simpler basics.
So I disgaree with Dan - just because we have an understood term (in this case eye splice) does not mean that it lends itself to being a fundamental building block. Rather it is derived from "eye" and "splice" - which are defined terms used to make a compound term (ie eye splice). I agree we all know what an eye splice is but in order to produce order we need to start further back up the chain - then the logical progression makes sense. That said I don't care what one calls the space enclosed by a closed loop (irrespective of how it is closed - even a simple crossing) but that space exists and has a separate identity from the material which created it hence my differentiation between loop and eye.
Finally bight hitches makes no sense to me because the word bight is being misused and because to my simple mind a hitch is tied to make an attachment to something not in a piece of self contained cordage. The progression from loop to loop knot (ie the fastening which holds the loop) to type of loop knot (fixed, slip, slipped etc) is more logical. A bight exists within a bowline but only if the ends of the bight fall short of the closure (if the bowline were circular then a bight would always be an arc within that circle. Confuse bight with the circle itself and we're back to where we started).
Perhaps my conclusion ought to be leave it alone because only worse confusion can ever come of this!
Barry
-
I used "eye" to describe a space as the first building block. An eye splice is one which encloses an eye but the rope part is not in itself an eye.
While one can speak in this way, it's not how I see it; nor to I see
this as in any way helpful for knotting. Rather, the eye is the
structure, the material, and I don't feel a need for naming the space
one might see enclosed (whose existence is dependent upon the
named object, and not vice versa). I want to talk of "the legs of
the eye".
A bight is a geographical term.
Of limited acquaintance, and ambiguous meaning: that of some elbow
in a linear waterbody, or some mild concavity of a shoreline. And how
are either of these senses applicable to knotting? I think that if you check
the uses of "bight" in the knotting literature, you'll see something different
-- either of a sharply folded material (yes, much like an eye), or just the
general "between /without ends" sense ("in the bight"), which carries not
the slightest need for any curvature essential in the geographical uses.
It simply is not a "closed loop" or else what is the point of the term - it would simply duplicate the term loop?
Nor did I describe it as such; rather, I did speak of "closed"/"open" bights
-- meaning only that both/only-one-of-the legs had tension. And this distinction
is quite useful in knotting, and is in some naming the distinction e.g. between
a "Becket hitch" and a "Sheet bend" (both of which I now prefer to see
as hitches of one end to a U-shaped structure; I might later care to see
"becket" as rigid and "bight" not).
... just because we have an understood term (in this case eye splice) does not mean that it lends itself to being a fundamental building block. Rather it is derived from "eye" and "splice" - which are defined terms used to make a compound term (ie eye splice).
Which is just my point: as we have common understanding of "eye splice",
let's carry that into "eye knots" for like sense.
Finally bight hitches makes no sense to me because the word bight is being misused ...
Again, let's see how "bight" is actually used in knotting and how the
geographical senses play in this, if at all; my assertion is that they have little
to do with it, at this point.
... and because to my simple mind a hitch is tied to make an attachment to something not in a piece of self contained cordage
Why exclude cordage? At least in the case of the U-shaped parts, I find
it reasonable to speak of hitching to them --that common shape--,
which is often how the joint is formed (although, yes, the Weaver's Knot
can speak to a different path to the result, in which both ends dance to the
music). And similarly I see the Mishipman's "hitch" (well, it is that, there)
adjustable eye structure as a noose based on the passivity of the
structure's SPart in it -- just passing through the knotted end;
ditto for the Two Half-hitches => "Clove noose(-hitch)". This is
all from a structural analysis (in contrast to a behavioral one, too
-- as behavior is fickle with material & forces).
A bight exists within a bowline but only if the ends of the bight fall short of the closure (if the bowline were circular then a bight would always be an arc within that circle. Confuse bight with the circle itself and we're back to where we started).
Well, to my mind, the classic definitions of "bight" & "loop" supported the
assertion that a Bowline is a marriage of one with the other (the SPart
forms the loop, the tail the bight).
--dl*
====
-
If we stick fairly closely to existing nomenclature and understood terms there is little or no point in trying to actually define terms precisely as that would inevitably lead to some terms having a restricted meaning otherwise the "definition" would be no more than "this is what we usually mean". I don't have a problem with that - in fact I can see more of a problem trying to convert the usage of years into a structure. So I think that Dan has put this very well perhaps without intending to - if we all have a good idea what we are talking about and we use this "language" in talking to inexperienced knotters explaining terms as we go then this thread is, as I have thought from the start, swimming against the tide. A picture says it all so rather than keep on with an exercise in (futile) textual explanation why not have a simple diagram illustrating what a knot part is? And what its alternative names are if any. One last point, whereas a hitch may be misnamed it is still a term used for an attachment and to use it to describe the likes of a bowline would be a radical departure from generally accepted practice. A becket hitch attaches a rope to a loop - but not narmally in the same rope (I've never seen it used to make a sling). It might be more sensible to call it a becket bend but like a fisherman's bend changing the name of something that has been misnamed for so long (and is in so much literature) is another futile academic exercise.
Barry
-
If we stick fairly closely to existing nomenclature ...
... then IMO we are forever frustrated in clarity of discussion,
engulfed in confusion.
"this is what we usually mean".
What this thread has yet lacked although it has been asked for are citations,
quotations, of how various knotting terms are actually used -- in which
one would see that "bight", e.g., never has much sense that is its essence
in geography; and that "loop", e.g., is used in a couple of ways -- as is
"bight" (= "mid-rope" & "(highly) elliptical loop").
One last point, whereas a hitch may be misnamed it is still a term used for an attachment and to use it to describe the likes of a bowline would be a radical departure from generally accepted practice.
There have been cases of exactly "bowline hitch", where apparently the
motivation was that the eye knot then was tied around something versus
just being formed for potential use.
A becket hitch attaches a rope to a loop - but not normally in the same rope (I've never seen it used to make a sling).
But how odd to have a BH tying to an eye-splice of a dockline tossed
to you, but when making exactly the same joint with a that docline
and its own end you have to look for another name!? But here, again,
my point was to see the U-part qua object, as it is a fairly common
and in a practical sense one can see that the knotting is done then
by the other part to this objectified U-form. (There can be fuzzy boundaries
where the U deforms or where one might care to extend the involvement
of the U's material with some further tying, and that of course begs the
question of its being just a tied-to form; same sort of blurring of the
boundary exists if the case of the Crabber's Eye where one starts by
tying to an otherwise uninvolved part but on setting the knot the once
straight ("uninvolved") part is deformed into more of a U shape.) But
we must accept fuzzy boundaries, I think; those that get crossed a lot
might best be dealt with definitionally, otherwise, just shrug.
It might be more sensible to call it a becket bend but like a fisherman's bend changing the name of something that has been misnamed for so long (and is in so much literature) is another futile academic exercise.
Here, the irony is that a Sheet bend if anything was a knot hitching
("bending") a line to an object (to a clew) -- and not the rope-2-rope joint
now seen as its essence (though I note that ca. 1870 Tyrrell Biddle only
gave the latter sense!?). But as per Cyrus Day, I think that the Ashley-ian
push to have "bend" mean "end-2-end joint" is just that: one man's wish,
contrary extant use. So, to call things "misnamed" is to take a dubious side.
I'm all for names matching classification, though not so gung-ho to insist on
such names being used in normal parlance --i.e., in the structure name (as
opposed to being used when discussing classification: to be comfortable
with saying "the Fisherman's Bend is a hitch"). This will be easier to do
in this particular case if we can figure out a good term to replace the Ashley
use of "bend" -- "end-2-end joint" is cumbersome (& cutesy, with '-2-', which
has English presumption ("two" for "to"), though also correct count (two ends)).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I wrote previously without consulting Ashley. And I do still want to pull out
quotations from the usual textual discussions uses of the terms about which
we're struggling to put into better form. -- not just to quote books'
definitions , as I think we'll see that their definitions often are just
echoes of others', and that their uses show a different sense. But
I now see that Ashley's Glossary pretty well matches the senses I've given
above re "bight" & "eye" -- to wit:
EYE: a spliced, seized, or knotted loop.
LOOP KNOT: a closed and knotted bight. An eye splice is a multi-strand loop knot.
[Interestingly, "loop" itself isn't in ABOK's Glossary.
He early (p.13) gives the usual & somewhat impractical end-bight-SPart definition,
and also for "bight" the curved definition; then defines "loop"s as "open", "closed",
and --what other books define for "loop"-- also "turn" where ends cross. terrific, eh?]
Consider Ashley's use of "bight" in #1017 (Angler's Loop : Take a long end ...
and form a bight, ..." : by the between-end-&-SPart definition, there is nothing
to form --it's thus, at the start--; by the slightly-curved-like-a-maritime-bight definition,
there is little to form (and such a formation is dubious both in value & stability)!
This, I think, is what one will find in all cases, arguably, aside from those speaking
about using the rope without ends. Ashley's discussion for knots #1040, 1043/4
uses or can be seen to use (is well consistent with...) the like-a-loop/eye bight sense;
that of #1038 stands in some contrast, as "middle a cord" would by my meaning
become "form a bight", and "turn down a bight" has some feel of the mild curve;
#1060 is consistent with definitions contrary to what I advocate. Note that there
is an ambiguity in this case of speaking of drawing a bight through ... : this
can be understood as first getting a bight (which is just some maybe slightly curved
part of cordage available) and then ... , or as getting some rope part and
then drawing that into a bight; I favor the latter sense, which then leaves "bight"
attached to the result.
Consider this description for the Cat's Paw (#1891): grasp two bights and hold
them well apart. Twist three full turns ... and then clap the bights together.
To me, this speaks of U-shaped things, not mere parts (maybe slightly curved)
of a line (for which the twisting would make no good sense).
And this U-part sense is evident/necessary for #1894, a sling shortener.
.:. So, while we could attempt to take a vote in quantifying usage from
some selected sources, rather, I'm trying to show distinct (and inconsistent)
senses from extant usage, and pushing to draw --from that-- better-defined old
terms and maybe some new ones as well. The conflicts exist already, so there
is no escaping that. In some cases, it might be that we can establish a new
term with a clear meaning and thereby step well clear of such conflict; but
even when adopting a narrower meaning for an old term I think we can
work to establish the new sense fairly successfully.
(And, until we share definitions, we cannot see "eye to eye" ! :D
-- it might be "eye to loop" or "bight to loop" ... )
--dl*
====
-
Please excuse this Bump of the topic and my ranting, but truly, truly these things are at the root of my passions and understandings of these things that i constantly think of; but then have had so pent up inside without such release in such a long time....
i also think like ye, that it helps to communicate to others better to name something; and be more consistent, and so thereby more quicker in the evolving of their evaluations.
But, then too; to speak more affirmatively to self and situation when invoking these things. To do so seems to conjure them more affirmatively, confidently and purposefully forward. To me it is alike the old religious idea of exorcising/releasing an ill force etc. By correctly calling out the proper thing to totally face it off and command it out, thereby curing the patient. Looking at psychologists as doing similair, whether formally in the office, or similarly as hairdresser, bartender etc.; calling out something to full focus. As one names a dog, then commands it, more intently.
So too, i would more purposefully think the names of each stage/ building block, set more intently separately and in total. Know what is needed and select specific knot mechanic to be invoked and used.
Also, the namings should be more consistent, in base parts especially; like elements of chemistry, principals of math, or any other building blocks. This, can then make L-earning faster, as you seek to align basic, understood blocks.
Another reason to take this on and name scientifically with this intensity, is that knotting is not embraced by enough people, perhaps partially because of the un-scientific contradictions and mis-understandings.
Constant thanx to one i first knew as knudeNoggin/ knot head in sorting many things to their present evolvemeant within me; but it is also great to see sum of the same usual suspect's passions persist in this direction on these elusive, yet important things.
-
This thread might have been dead (for a while...), but the issues that have been discussed here are alive and well. If knot tyers can not make up their minds regarding a minimum set of knotting terms ( that will help them talk to each other), how on earth will they decide which knots are "good" and which are "bad", "beautiful" / "ugly", "useful" / "useless" , etc ? Is the KnotLand condemned or cursed to remain in the state of the Tower of Babel ?
The narrative of the city of Babel is recorded in Genesis 11:1-9. Everyone on earth spoke the same language... People ... sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each other, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city. Thus the city was called Babel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel
Time and again there has been attempts to establish a common ground ( See (1)(2), foe example ), but they die too soon, without leaving any traces...Why is this so ?
1. http://nodeology.pbworks.com/w/page/23011471/Knots-Terms
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0