International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: DerekSmith on January 15, 2010, 10:40:17 AM

Title: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 15, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
When I first came here (to the IGKT), I knew and used a fair number of knots.  Knowing each by its name, they were all knots for tying things with.

Then I was introduced to the 'Secret Handshake' of the Guild - its language.

'Novices' were outed the moment they 'tied' two pieces of string together - Ohhh No...  Those from within the Guild 'bent' their cordage and knew how to spell 'bight' and strew about their 'SParts', keeping those novices firmly in thrall of the 'experts'.

I met a number of people both on this forum and within the Guild who I admired for their expertise, and as time has passed my respect for these and other individuals has grown.  However, with the same passage of time, my initial awe of the language has turned into contempt.

If there is one thing above all others holding back the development of our field from becoming anything more than a 'hobby shop' it is our ridiculous language and a covetous insistence on retaining it.  Our language was developed in a different age, within various crafts and from different countries, which is great because it has had the opportunity to develop great richness, but today we are petrifying that richness by preventing the language from evolving to serve its new needs.

The language of cordage is evolving nicely, driven by the commerce of the development of a myriad new materials and usages. But our language of knots is being held in stasis by us - its 'keepers' - 'proper knotters' who do Turks heads and 'Bends' and hitches and who know the secret right (or is it left) handed way to tie a Bowline.

The time to review our language is long overdue, especially with regard to being able to communicate with each other about the functional characteristics of the knots that we study.  The name has already been taken by people who tie knots in strips of paper - Knotology - but I propose taking it back.  From now on, I propose to use the term Knotology to mean the science and study of knots - all knots.

As several have pointed out before, each language has its audience - its users, so before developing one it is necessary to define that target audience.  For the sake of starting somewhere, I am going to propose that the audience is those who frequent the Knot Theory and Computing (KT&C) board of the IGKT Forum - i.e. English speaking with an interest focussed on knot form and function.

If any rationalisations are developed here which make it easier or clearer to discuss Knotology, then it is possible that this lexicon may find use and favour in the wider field of knot usage, if that is the case, then wonderful, but that is not the prime directive for developing the lexicon - that directive is to enable the discussion of Knotology on this forum board, and if the terminology we choose is not understood outside of this board, then that is not relevant to our selection and definition of terms.

Is it arrogance to hijack, redefine and create new terms?  I don't believe so, any more than it was arrogance to define the new file formats and language used to unambiguously describe a knot diagram in FCB or its enhancement KnotMaker.  The simple sentence 'ebi fbj dci ech fcg gca ddk edg fdl eeo' in the lexicon of FCB is sufficient to exactly describe a diagram of the overhand knot.  It is meaningless to anyone but Frank Brown, Dave Root or myself, but using the FCB utility, it can be translated into a diagram that just about anybody can understand - but most importantly the language is used without ANY ambiguity.  If you are trying to communicate some aspect or concept of Knotology, then ambiguity is going to be a killer from the word go, so an unambiguous lexicon is the bedrock of Knotology.

There you have it.  I have driven the standard into the ground, thrown down the gauntlet and nailed my colours to the mast.

Let the lexicon of Knotology begin  -  January 2010


Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 20, 2010, 07:56:53 PM
I looked through a number of websites on the mathematics of knots, but didn't see anything useful about naming the parts of knots.

However, here are a couple of websites on knot notations, which perhaps will address the need for "an unambiguous language for trying to communicate some aspect or concept of Knotology":

"Knot theory" at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory)


Peter Suber's Knot Tying Notation:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate.htm (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate.htm)

Some quotes from Peter Suber's website:

"The purpose of this notation is not to instruct beginners. Learning the basic knots is easier than learning this notation. The purpose is to help advanced knotters (1) communicate without illustrations, (2) communicate details difficult to discern from illustrations, (3) record their experiments and discoveries, and (4) analyze different tying methods."

"The purpose is to have a precise record of a tying method that can be translated into action by anyone giving it the time."

"Mathematical knot theory has several systems of notation for describing the structure of knots already tied. By contrast, the present notation describes methods of tying knots. Identifying a tying method is an indirect way of identifying the knot tied by that method, of course, and its structure. But there's still an important difference between a notation for knots and a notation for tying methods."

"On the one hand, I want this notation to be adequate for most of the knots you will ever want to tie or notate. On the other hand, I want it to be easy to learn and use. Unfortunately, these virtues are in tension. We can have one or the other, probably not both."


Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 21, 2010, 02:52:36 PM
Hello Dave,

I am so glad that you have joined in.  This is not a task for a single viewpoint.  Although an individual can pose solutions, a working lexicon is going to need multiple perspectives to knock down proposals with -'but what about...' and build them back up stronger with -'we could consider...'

I hope that others will be moved to contribute, especially if proposals jar their sensibilities, the purpose of a Lexicon after all is to improve communication and understanding.

Diving in then.

I am mindful of the fact that in order to achieve the goal, we will inevitably find ourselves re-defining certain terms rather than making up new words.  Where we do this we create the opportunity for even more confusion - i.e. which of the available definitions are we referring to?  To eliminate this confusion, I would propose that the Lexicon makes use of the popular modern dot notation method to clarify derivation.

Examples - if we create a definition for say 'Cord' or 'Turn' in our lexicon and we want to use the term within our definition then we would write knotology.cord or knotology.turn - they stand for the specific meanings of those terms as defined in our Knotology lexicon.  Writing it out like that is clear, but long winded, so the abbreviation k.cord or k.turn would be equivalent where we wanted to make it clear that we meant our definition of cord or turn.

The dot notation also has another use for terms that have different meanings dependent upon context.  Let us say that in the context of cord, the term bight had one meaning, but in the context of turn, bight has been defined as having another meaning.  Dot notation can be used to remove ambiguity - cord.bight would refer to the meaning relative to 'cord', while turn.bight would be explicitly referring to our definition of bight in relation to its usage within turns - confused - you will be...    Seriously though, although I cannot see us regularly needing to use the dot notation to ensure meaning, if you see it being used, at least we should know what it means.  Perhaps the 'k.' prefix will be the most we ever need to use.

------------------------------------------

Mathematical Knots:  This is a huge field in its own right, but I see it as a sub field of Knotology - a bit of a claim, so how do I justify it ?

While it is claimed that "Knot Theory" has identified over six billion structures, this is only a subset of Knotology because "Knot Theory" (KT) only describes the base structure.  It totally fails for example to differentiate the OH from the Slipped OH.  Further, 'KT' fails to include force, friction, kinetics, time, formation (tying), failure etc. - the whole host of aspects which turn a simple mathematical representation of a knot into the functioning reality of the knots we are dealing with.

On this basis, I would propose that we define "Knot Theory" as a sub field of Knotology - and leave it at that.

-----------------------------------------

Peter Suber's Knot Tying Notation:  Peter's groundbreaking work serves to highlight the fact that our field has a number of aspects or 'Fields', and that 'Tying' is a fundamental one of those fields.

Perhaps we should start 'at the top' and work down the structural tree of terminology.  So we might have --

  Knotology :- All aspects of Knot theory, practice and use.
       |
     ------------------------------------------------------
     |                                                                 |
   Real Knots                                                 Mathematical Knots (KT) ...
         |
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      |                        |                     |                               |                      |
    Cordage           Tying           Functionality              Weaknesses            Usage ...
      |                        |
    --------             --------------
    |       |            |            |
   Rope ....        PSKTN      Methods  ...

What do you think ?

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on January 21, 2010, 03:23:00 PM
How about a different concept of knotology...the knots that people will actually tie, and why they tie them...keeping in mind that without the people to tie the knots, there would be no knots... :o
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 21, 2010, 06:19:01 PM
Hi Derek,

That looks like a good start to a structure of Knotology.  As we've seen before, we don't always know how useful something is until we start down the path and make adjustments and see how well the idea is working out.

The branch labeled "Weaknesses" caused me to expect a branch called "Strengths."  Perhaps a "Weaknesses" and "Strengths" pair of branches should be listed under the "Usage" branch.  

Where should the terminology for naming the parts of a knot fit into the structure?

How about a branch for the potential users of a knot, e.g. climbers, sailors, weavers, fishing persons, etc.?

Since each individual knot will have its own set of best/worst cordage and tying methods and functionality and usage and strengths/weaknesses and so on, would each individual knot be placed directly under the "Real Knots" level, so that your Cordage/Tying/Functionality/Weaknesses/Usage level is replicated under each individual knot?

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 21, 2010, 11:15:10 PM
How about a different concept of knotology...the knots that people will actually tie, and why they tie them...keeping in mind that without the people to tie the knots, there would be no knots... :o

Hi Capn' Billy,

Remember there will be several aspects of knotology - one may well be the popular knots that people actually tie, and even the 'psychology' of knot usage, but for now, all we are trying to do is establish a lexicon that can be used without ambiguity.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 21, 2010, 11:20:44 PM
@Dave,

In answer to your questions - I honestly don't know...  just putting up Aunt Sallies at this point and hoping that they will trigger other points of view that will help us see a sensible way forward.  I totally agree with your view that we should start down a path and see how well the ideas work out.

time for wild ideas and 'what if's '

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on January 22, 2010, 05:45:05 AM
Hi Derek and Dave,

As usual, you two are way out in front of all and thank you for that!  I have a minor suggestion - if we use the term "-logy" to end the word describing knotting (root of -logy is Greek as in -logo or Latin as in -logia) then perhaps using the same root to describe "knot" is appropriate?  The word for studying knots then comes out as Nodology - what do you think of that?

More thoughts to come....

SR
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 22, 2010, 08:57:03 AM
Well spotted Lindsey,

Make corrections as we go, and this gets us straight right at the very root of our lexicon.

I am well happy to accept NODOLOGY - the Science and Study of knots.

That would make someone who studies knots a Nodologist, and someone who knows a lot about knots a 'Node it all' (sorry, I couldn't resist that, I found it on a Google search for Nodology) along with ---


Re: latin word for knot....

Nodus is the singular, nodi is plural, nodo is the verb and nodology
would be the legitimate form...

  Does anyone know how to edit the topic title ?

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: SS369 on January 22, 2010, 01:49:46 PM
So, we're a bunch of Node Heads now?

International Guild of Node Tyers?

Has a certain ring to it. LOL

Just wait until you tell someone that, the look in their eyes should be priceless.
;-)

Have a nice day.

SS
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 22, 2010, 06:43:56 PM
Looks like we have been in Nodology land before on the Forensic Expert post http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=316.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=316.0)

One question then is would anyone who studies the science of knots be a Nodologist ? and would it be the place for the Guild to define what would make an Expert Nodologist ?

And if not the Guild, then who ?

Perhaps along with the lexicon, will come definition of 'Fields of Nodology'

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on January 22, 2010, 07:17:33 PM
Derek,

Twas not I who came up with nodology but Lasse - thanks Lasse!  I like the idea you have, Derek, of Fields of Nodology - as for who should define it, I really think that there is only one source, the IGKT, who could even be concerned with this.  The post you noted (from 2006!!) discusses the use of "Forensic Nodology" and it would seem appropriate to use Bob Chisnall's book on forensic knotting to define terms.  Alas, Geoffrey Budworth's book can no longer be found so that may be a dead duck as source material (what good is something that is not available for reference?) but Bob Chisnall has some excellent terms definitions.  I'll dig out my copy and we could start with some of those.

As for Fields of Nodology - that presents some discussion in and of itself, doesn't it?  Some ideas here might include flat knots, binding knots, joining knots, stopper knots and loop knots, and then subdividing those into subsets of other more complex areas.  Probably needs more thought....

SR
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 22, 2010, 08:20:01 PM
Some 'Aunt Sallies' to kick off with.

Nodology  --  The field and study of bindings made using linear flexible material (cordage)

Binding (or specifically n.binding) --  Any means of associating cordage components so that forces may be translated from one to the other.

Cordage  (or specifically n.cordage)  --  Any flexible linear material capable of being manipulated into shapes that are capable of translating forces from one part to another, or constrained with sufficient lateral pressure so that friction can transfer linear forces form one part to another.
               
Cordage --  may be formed from numerous rigid components (atomic, molecular or particulate) so long as the overall performance of the cordage is flexible.
                 
Flexibility -- is a term relative to the forces intended to be associated with its use.  Steel or carbon fibre cable is rigid in comparison with silk thread, yet is still considered to be flexible under its intended operational forces.

N.Cordage  --  typically includes rope, chain, cable, cord, string, thread, braid, plait, wool, leather thong, ribbon...

N.Binding  --  Splice, knot, whipping... ?


For building on or knocking down, but preferably only if you have something to replace it with.


Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 22, 2010, 08:49:01 PM
Alternatively, fields of Nodology could be arranged around types of Nodology or areas of usage --

Historical  --  maritime, warfare, agriculture...

Geographical / Cultural  -- national expertise...

Trade / Usage  --  Rescue, climbing, magic, nautical, gardening, DIY, forensic, decorative, ceremonial / religious, sexual deviancy...

...

Derek

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 22, 2010, 09:31:33 PM
Simplifying the 'Aunt Sallies' a bit:

Nodology -- The field and study of bindings made in cordage.

     N.Binding -- The result of manipulating cordage components into shapes that are capable of translating forces from one part to another.  Includes knots, splices, whippings, and so on.

     N.Cordage -- Any material capable of being manipulated into n.bindings.  Includes rope, chain, cable, cord, string, thread, braid, plait, wool, leather thong, ribbon, and so on.


Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on January 23, 2010, 12:50:35 AM
Nodomania: obsessive compulsive knotting :D
Nodoze: sleep deprivation from knotting at night
Nodope: drug free knotting
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 01:30:43 PM
And just to keep the humour going :-

Nodologists do it with cordage...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Sweeney on January 23, 2010, 01:47:47 PM
...and a Noddy - a slang term for a Nodologist (esp one who rides round in a small yellow drophead coupe!)

Barry
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 02:05:16 PM
Nice rationalisation Dave.

---------------------------------------------

Building on from N.Binding:-

B.Knot  --  Creating a force transferring connection by creating 3 dimensional contact structures on the surface of the cord only.

B.Splice --  Creating a force transferring connection by knotting the cordage and/or sub parts of the cordage on and through itself.

B.Whipping --  Effecting the transfer of force by wrapping a smaller diameter cord tightly around the outside of the cordage being bound.

B.Stitching --  B.Whipping but involving both the inside and the outside of the cordage being bound.

B.Weaving  --  Creating sheets of flexible fabric by interweaving or plaiting numerous strands of cordage.

B.Netting  --  Creating sheets of widely spaced cords by knotting strands of cordage.

...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 02:09:05 PM
...and a Noddy - a slang term for a Nodologist (esp one who rides round in a small yellow drophead coupe!)

Barry

or a Plonka if it is a yellow Reliant Robin.
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 03:59:21 PM
Bights, loops, eyes and Turns  -  another family of 'Aunt Sallies'


TURN()  is a  base generic term.  It is a partial term, requiring the additional definition of 'by how much' so the term should always be used in combination with the amount (which should include its units (NB when the units are not included then the units are taken to be hR)).  The amount could be stated in degrees, radians or 'half revolutions' (hR), so TURN(1 hR) is a turn back on itself, while a TURN(3 hR) would have been called a 'Round Turn'.  Turns may be made around another object (or self) or not, and may be made incorporating an end, or not.

TURN() incorporates the sub terms BIGHT, LOOP and WRAP, and LOOP includes the sub term EYE

     T.BIGHT is a TURN(1 hR) without ends and without a contained object.  It also used to refer to a mid portion of cord (i.e. without ends), but is now taken to mean a mid section plus a TURN(1 hR).  In doing so, it creates a new doubled cord END which is generally used to create a KNOT mid-line. (Utilising Dan's definition a hard-folded, "doubled" structure (w/o much any attention to whether its ends ever cross)

     T.WRAP is a TURN(2 hR) with or without an end and around an object (often self).  WRAP is often compounded to create a series of turns adjacently around the object or self.

     T.LOOP is a TURN(1 hR) with or without an end, with or without an object and does not form a new double stranded cord.  A loop is open and is generally formed to contain an object or to fix an object (or self) to.

           LOOP.EYE is a LOOP made tightly around an object ? ?

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 04:01:22 PM

Using this schema, both LOOP and BIGHT are TURN(1).  By adding another distinction to TURN(1) we should be able to dispense with these two specific terms.  The LOOP is Object(indeterminate) Double End(NO), while the BIGHT is Object(NO) Double End(YES).  If we use the convention of 0 for NO, 1 for YES and blank for indeterminate, we can add these distinctions to the TURN() description.

TURN( Amount of Turn , Object included , Double End formed )[/size][/color]

BIGHT then is  TURN( 1 , 0 , 1)  -  i.e. 1hR, no object, double end formed.
While LOOP is  TURN( 1 ,   , 0)  - i.e.  1hR, object not specified, no double end.

Alternatively, we could make more use of the Object term by using it to denote anything, nothing, self or fixture.
          Anything (, ,) - as the term suggests , the loop can contain something if you want, as in the bowline, you can make it around an object or clip into it or not - your choice.
          Nothing (,0,) -- the loop must be clear - apart from decorative, I can't think why you would use this.
          Self  (,s,)--  the loop goes around some other part of the cord.
          Fixture(,f,)  --  as in a hitch or a loop around an anchor or other solid object etc.

This only leaves the question of with or sans 'an end' - from this follows the question of 'how far from an end?'.  Obviosuly, the end cannot be incorporated, otherwise it is not a loop, and  'how far from an end?' is surely no more relevant than 'how long is a piece of string?' - so lets try working without the 'with / without end' criterion.

We can compile all the present terms and attempt to rationalise them or we can essentially dispose of them and attempt to create a rational terminology to see if we can work with it.  Personally I do not care what the OED defines a loop or a bight as and do not believe that we should limit ourselves by these existing definitions - after all we are only on this thread because we know the mess these present definitions are in.

Can this sort of logic take us forward or is this too far too fast?

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 23, 2010, 05:22:04 PM
I'll try to look at these ideas more closely later today.  Out of curiosity, are you making use of any of Peter Suber's work?  I haven't studied his notation in detail yet, but it might help prevent "reinventing the wheel" if his ideas are useful.  Might make our work go faster, especially if he has already dealt with any notational "snags" and issues which we haven't yet encountered.

Here's his "cheat sheet" for his notation: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate-dict.htm (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate-dict.htm).

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on January 23, 2010, 06:18:02 PM
Nodist Colony - Exclusive community of knotters...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 06:23:55 PM
Hi Dave,

No I have not used any of Peters terms for three reasons.

First, his work sits nicely alone as a markup language or shorthand to describe the moves taken in making a knot.

Second, Peters goal was to create a tying language and not to rationalise our lexicon.  Consequently he uses numerous terms such as 'fore' and 'aft' and 'clockwise'  in his descriptions.  Peter did not seem to be concerned about a logical structure for the language he drew his terms from.  Some of his notation may match where this lexicon ends up, but I believe we should go for clarity and unambiguity rather than be driven by what has gone before.

And third, although his work is seminal, it has not caught on, probably because his terminology is so cryptic.  Modern XML's are rigid in their structure and their terminology, but far more descriptive in the terms used.  Understanding GP(SP, LH), GP(RP, RH), *2 ML(RP)=LP.1, CO(RP, SP), PN(LP.1:HP), *3 RV(E.RP, LP.1.D-U), *4 MV(SP^:L, RP^:R)  as the method to tie the OH is more arduous even than trying to read a KM file.  I think he is right when he says "Unfortunately, these virtues are in tension. We can have one or the other, probably not both."  His work is foundational and doubtless will become the starting point for the next generation markup language that can be machine read.

Derek

PS - at that nodist colony - would string vests be compulsory ?
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on January 23, 2010, 06:31:23 PM
It would be a no strings attached nodist colony... ;)
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 23, 2010, 06:50:52 PM
Hrmm  --  without attachment or binding, it wouldn't be Nodism, so it couldn't be a Nodist colony ! !

Come on - keep up there Cap'n Billy
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on January 24, 2010, 11:24:23 AM
On the  contrary my friend...you don't want to go in there all knotted up...with no strings attached there is nothing to do but get bent, hitched, looped, bound or knotted...me thinks I am way ahead of you... :D
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 24, 2010, 04:48:57 PM
One thing that comes to mind is that a notation such as TURN( 1 , 0 , 1) might lead to confusion because it's easy to forget what each parameter means.

Then I started thinking about the word "Turn."  We're familiar with it from such things as "Round Turns," but it strikes me that "Turn" doesn't really describe the action that we're trying to describe.  You defined a "Turn" in terms of half revolutions, which I believe hits the nail on the head.  Instead of thinking of ways to distinguish between Loops and Wraps and so on, what if we refer to such things in terms of Revolutions, such as "0.5 Revolutions," "1 Revolution," "1.5 Revs," and so on.  This will simplify the terminology because we have a single term (Revolutions or Revs) which is modified by the number of Revs to make.  For example, in traditional terminology we would say, "Make a Round Turn around the post," but in Nodology we might say, "Make 1.5 Revolutions around the post."

"Bight" is another traditional term that we're familiar with, but which isn't very descriptive in itself.  You pointed out that when making a Bight, "it creates a new doubled cord END," which is a good description.  I would suggest that a better and more descriptive term for "Bight" would be something like "Doubled_End."  For a simplistic example, in traditional terminology we would say, "Make a Loop, then push a Bight through it," but in Nodology we might say, "Make a Revolution and push a Doubled_End through it."  Or "Make a 1 Rev and push a Doubled_End through it."

Thoughts?

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 25, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas below are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).


Playing around with some more ideas:

N.TAIL_END = The end of the N.CORDAGE which is used in tying an N.KNOT.  Traditionally referred to as the Working End, Bitter End, or Running End.

    Reasoning: TAIL_END seems more descriptive and familiar than Working End, Bitter End, or Running End.  This term is easily grasped and remembered because people understand such things as "the tail end of the line" or "the tail end of the lecture," etc.


N.EXIT_PART = The part of the N.CORDAGE which exits the N.KNOT and ends at the N.TAIL_END.

    Reasoning: This terminology creates a matching pair with N.ENTRY_PART.


N.ENTRY_PART = The part of the N.CORDAGE which enters the N.KNOT at the opposite end from the N.EXIT_PART ("opposite" in the sense that one part of a rope enters into a knot, and another part of the rope exits from the knot).  Traditionally referred to as the Standing Part.

    Reasoning: "Standing Part" is not very intuitive.  ENTRY_PART and EXIT_PART create a matching pair of terms which should help make their meanings more descriptive and intuitive.  I also like MAIN_PART as a replacement for Standing Part, but imagine if we tie a series of knots along a rope (working towards the end of the rope).  On each successive knot, where's "the Standing Part" or "the Main Part of the rope"?  Is it the part of the rope which is beyond our first knot in the series?  ENTRY_PART is perhaps more intuitive because it describes the section of rope which comes immediately before ("entering into") the knot which we're currently tying.


N.LOOP = The oval-shaped length of N.CORDAGE which remains after certain N.KNOTS are tied (e.g. Bowline).  Useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with an attachment such as a carabiner, and so on.  Traditionally referred to as a Loop or an Eye.

    Reasoning: "Eye" is sometimes used for the oval-shaped length of cordage, but "Eye" gives the impression of smallness (for example, no land creature has an eye which is as big as the loop that we usually form with a Bowline).  "Loop" has at least two meanings in traditional terminology, but in Nodology we're replacing one of those meanings with something like N.TURN(2 hR) or N.REVOLUTION(1).  Therefore, N.LOOP is intuitive and descriptive and unique.



I'm starting to think that my terminology of "1 REVOLUTION" should probably be "N.REVOLUTION(1)" instead.  In addition, perhaps N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_OVER) and N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_UNDER) can replace the traditional "Overhand Loop" and "Underhand Loop," respectively.  "CROSS_OVER" means that the N.TAIL_END crosses over the N.ENTRY_PART (from the perspective of the knot-tyer).  "CROSS_UNDER" means that the N.TAIL_END crosses under the N.ENTRY_PART (from the perspective of the knot-tyer).

This new terminology seems to work fairly well, even though we still have a number of gaps to be filled.  For example:

"To tie a Bowline, form an N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_OVER) in the air and push the N.TAIL_END through the hole in the N.REVOLUTION to create an N.LOOP, then bring the N.TAIL_END around the N.ENTRY_PART and back through the hole in the N.REVOLUTION.  For safety, leave a fairly long N.EXIT_PART."

One obvious gap to be filled is how to specify the direction in which the N.TAIL_END is pushed through the N.REV in the above example.

Thoughts?

Dave

edit:  Added a clarification of "opposite" in the definition of N.ENTRY_PART.


edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas above are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 25, 2010, 06:53:44 PM
When describing how to tie a knot, another useful term might be:

N.STARTING_ORIENTATION(orientation, location of the N.TAIL_END) = Describes the orientation of the N.CORDAGE (from the perspective of the knot-tyer) before the N.KNOT is tied.  For the parameters, the valid combinations are:


        Orientation   Location of the N.TAIL_END
        -----------   --------------------------
        VERTICAL      END_DOWN (i.e. the N.TAIL_END is at the bottom) or END_UP
        HORIZONTAL    END_LEFT or END_RIGHT
        DIAGONAL      END_NW or END_NE or END_SW or END_SE



So N.STARTING_ORIENTATION(VERTICAL, END_DOWN) means that before you begin tying the knot, you would hold the rope so that it's vertical with the TAIL_END at the bottom.  This helps ensure that your actions are properly in sync with the knot-tying instructions.

Perhaps this is jumping too far ahead, but I wanted to get some thoughts down before I forget them.

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 25, 2010, 09:13:44 PM
More ideas for consideration:

N.JOIN_KNOT = The category of N.KNOTS which are used for tying two or more N.TAIL_ENDS of N.CORDAGE together (whether from the same N.CORDAGE or from different N.CORDAGES).  Traditionally referred to as a Bend.

N.LOOP_KNOT = The category of N.KNOTS which result in one or more N.LOOPS.  If two N.LOOPS are formed (e.g. the Spanish Bowline) then the N.KNOT is an N.LOOP_KNOT(2), and so on.

N.TETHER_KNOT = The category of N.KNOTS which are used for tying around an object and which conform to the shape of the object.  "Tether" means "To fasten to a fixed object."  Traditionally referred to as a Hitch.  An animal can be tethered to a post using a Bowline, for example, but the Bowline would still be referred to as an N.LOOP_KNOT because it is not conforming to the shape of the post.


Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 29, 2010, 01:15:07 AM
edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas below are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).


Attempting to compile all of the ideas so far...

Nodology -- The field and study of bindings made in cordage.

  N.Cordage -- Any material capable of being manipulated into N.Bindings.  Includes rope, chain, cable, cord, string, thread, braid, plait, wool, leather thong, ribbon, and so on.

  N.Binding -- The result of manipulating cordage components into shapes that are capable of translating forces from one part to another.  Includes knots, splices, whippings, and so on.
    
    N.B.Splice -- Creating a force transferring connection by knotting the cordage and/or sub parts of the cordage on and through itself.

    N.B.Whipping -- Effecting the transfer of force by wrapping a smaller diameter cord tightly around the outside of the cordage being bound.

    N.B.Stitching -- N.B.Whipping but involving both the inside and the outside of the cordage being bound.

    N.B.Weaving -- Creating sheets of flexible fabric by interweaving or plaiting numerous strands of cordage.

    N.B.Netting -- Creating sheets of widely spaced cords by knotting strands of cordage.

    N.B.Knot -- Creating a force transferring connection by creating 3 dimensional contact structures on the surface of the cord only.


      Parts of an N.B.Knot (see the reasoning for these terms in an earlier post):

        N.B.K.Tail_End -- The end of the N.Cordage which is used in tying an N.B.Knot.  Traditionally referred to as the Working End, Bitter End, or Running End.

        N.B.K.Exit_Part -- The part of the N.Cordage which exits the N.B.Knot and ends at the N.B.K.Tail_End.

        N.B.K.Entry_Part -- The part of the N.Cordage which enters the N.B.Knot at the opposite end from the N.B.K.Exit_Part ("opposite" in the sense that one part of a rope enters into a knot, and another part of the rope exits from the knot).  Traditionally referred to as the Standing Part.

        N.B.K.Loop -- The oval-shaped length of N.Cordage which remains after certain N.B.Knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines).  Useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with an attachment such as a carabiner, and so on.  Traditionally referred to as a Loop or an Eye.

        N.B.K.Doubled_End -- When a length of N.Cordage is folded over ("doubled") so that a new "end" is created, this is an N.B.K.Doubled_End.  Traditionally referred to as a Bight.

        N.B.K.Turn(amount of turn, object included, double end formed) -- Taking a length of N.Cordage around an object (or simply around the air).  "Amount of turn" specifies how many times around, in half-revolutions (e.g. 1hR).  "Object included" specifies whether or not the N.Cordage goes around an object.  Valid values are: " " (anything), "0" (nothing), "s" (self), or "f" (fixture, i.e. an anchor or other solid object).  "Double end formed" specifies whether or not an N.B.K.Doubled_End is formed.  N.B.K.Turn(1, 0, 1) is traditionally referred to as a Bight.  N.B.K.Turn(1,  , 0) is traditionally referred to as a Loop.

        N.B.K.Revolution(number, crossing) -- Alternative idea for N.B.K.Turn.  Taking a length of N.Cordage around an object (or simply around the air).  "Number" specifies how many times around.  "Crossing" specifies whether the N.Cordage crosses over or under itself.  Valid values are:  "Cross_Over" or "Cross_Under" or "None."  When tied in the air, N.B.K.Revolution(0.5, None) is traditionally referred to as a Bight.  When tied in the air, N.B.K.Revolution(1, Cross_Under) is traditionally referred to as an Underhand Loop.  When tied around an object, N.B.K.Revolution(1.5, None) is traditionally referred to as a Round Turn.


      Types of N.B.Knots:

        N.B.K.Join_Knot -- An N.B.Knot which is used for tying two or more N.B.K.Tail_Ends together (whether from the same N.Cordage or from different N.Cordages).  Traditionally referred to as a Bend.

        N.B.K.Loop_Knot(optional number of loops) -- An N.B.Knot which results in one or more N.B.K.Loops.  If two N.B.K.Loops are formed (e.g. the Spanish Bowline) then the N.B.Knot is an N.B.K.Loop_Knot(2), and so on.

        N.B.K.Tether_Knot -- An N.B.Knot which is used for tying a length of N.Cordage around an object and which conforms to the shape of the object.  "Tether" means "To fasten to a fixed object."  Traditionally referred to as a Hitch.  An animal can be tethered to a post using a Bowline, for example, but the Bowline would still be referred to as an N.B.K.Loop_Knot because it doesn't conform to the shape of the post.

        N.B.K.Hitch_Knot -- An alternative idea for N.B.K.Tether_Knot.



Looking over this list, "N.B.K." seems a bit cumbersome.  Perhaps all of the above terms should simply be prefixed with "N." to indicate that they are Nodology terms?

As Derek pointed out, this is a start for a new and clearer and unambiguous set of knotting terms.  So how do these terms (and their definitions) sound so far?  What improvements can be made?


Some more terms which have been used in this forum, to perhaps incorporate into Nodology somehow:

sling
collar
nub
nip
lead
capsize
jam
slipped
noose (i.e. an Overhand slip knot but loaded the opposite way)
half hitch
lashing
"front view" and "back view" of a knot (I don't know if it's possible to come up with a useful definition of these two terms)


Dave


edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas above are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on January 29, 2010, 02:54:46 AM
Dave,

I really like the ideas you have been expressing and I must say that you have been delightfully prolific so far.  I would like to suggest, however, that we should go back a pace or two and ask ourselves - what is nodology?  What are the component parts of nodology?  How could we rationally divide and then sub-divide if necessary to have a reasonable shot at getting to grip with some defining terms?  I suggest the following:

Nodology:  The field and study of structures made in N.cordage
N.Cordage:  Any material capable of being manipulated by hand or machine into N.tyings, N.weavings or N.bindings
N.tyings:  the resulting transfer of force(s) from one place to another using N.cordage when joining it to something else, whether N.cordage or a solid object,
N.weavings:  the resulting fabric formed when passing N.cordage over or under one or more N.cordages, whether those N.cordages are the same or a different piece,
N.bindings:  the resulting covering of another N.cordage(s) or object(s) using friction

Then, we could go on to subdivide thus:
N.T.Knot:
N.T.Hitch:
N.T.Bend:
N.T.Loop:
N.W.Flatmat:
N.W.Splice:
N.W.Ball:
N.W.Cylinder:
N.B.Finishing (Whipping):
N.B.Covering (Serving):
N.B.Lashing (Seizing):

I feel sure that there are more but what do you think of those potential sub-divisions?

SR
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 29, 2010, 05:50:12 PM
Hi SR,

I agree with you about the importance of finding good subdivisions for classifying the terms in Nodology.

In Derek's model, everything that can be made by manipulating cordage would fall under the Binding subdivision.  Your model has Tyings, Weavings, and Bindings as separate subdivisions (at the same level).  As we work with these ideas then we'll be able to determine which model is a better fit, or perhaps a different model will emerge as the best fit.

Some questions for you:

1. Under the Tyings subdivision you have Knot, Hitch, Bend, and Loop.  Is there a reason for saying that Hitches, Bends, and Loops are not Knots?

2. "Hitch" is a traditional term which might be descriptive enough to be a good fit in the new Nodology lexicon, but "Bend" is a traditional term which isn't very descriptive.  Also, if "Loop" is the name for the category of knots which include Bowlines, Alpine Butterflys, etc., then what would be the term for the part of those knots which forms a "loop"?  Are there better and more descriptive terms for the categories of "Bend" and "Loop"?

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Sweeney on January 29, 2010, 06:53:58 PM
I find this discussion fascinating - it must be what the developers of esperanto went through and I have a feeling that this will go the same way. Great idea but ignores the simple fact that language, no matter how imprecise or even bizaarre, develops at its own speed through common usage. I will always use salt on food never sodium chloride so as long as Nodologists see themselves in a similar way to other specialist groups eg scientists this stands a chance but only amongst the cognoscenti of  consenting adults. I reckon 6 weeks to 3 months and the next novelty will surface but we can all enjoy watching while it lasts.

Barry
 :D
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Knot Head on January 30, 2010, 12:08:23 AM
I have been looking over The Braider & some of the other publications by AG Schakkee and John Turner. Yes, a bit on the complicated side for the average person. But I do like how the authors proceed in the publications in the actual design and mathematical processes, and the terms they use pretty much consistently throughout all of their publications. I am not quite sure if this would be a way to go, or not. But I think that using the terms they have used would be a great start. For example, to describe the term Turns, instead they use Half Cycle. I realize that they use that term in the building of a grid for the final outcome of a knot. Of course these terms would most likely be more associated with the scientific and mathematical nomenclature. But I feel that this would be a grounded start for all of us to be on the same page so that it would become much easier to share amongst colleagues. Well just a thought and it may not be of any use, but just another idea to play with. I figure if we don't have to reinvent the wheel, the more time we can save.

Brian... 
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 30, 2010, 01:29:31 AM
I will always use salt on food never sodium chloride

True, most of us say "salt" instead of "sodium chloride."  Yet "sodium chloride" is a useful term among certain groups of people (e.g. chemists).  In the same way, most knotters will probably continue to use traditional terms, but the Nodology terminology will allow us to use more precise and unambiguous language when needed.


so as long as Nodologists see themselves in a similar way to other specialist groups eg scientists this stands a chance but only amongst the cognoscenti of  consenting adults.

Quite true, although there's always the possibility that a wider audience might begin using the new terminology if it's useful.  But as Derek stated in the original post, "For the sake of starting somewhere, I am going to propose that the audience is those who frequent the Knot Theory and Computing (KT&C) board of the IGKT Forum - i.e. English speaking with an interest focussed on knot form and function."


I reckon 6 weeks to 3 months and the next novelty will surface but we can all enjoy watching while it lasts.

Maybe so, but we'll never know if we don't make the effort!  In the topic called "Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!" (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1616.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1616.0)), a number of people have acknowledged the deficiencies in the traditional knotting terminology.  Everyone is free to contribute to a new lexicon which they can be comfortable using.


I have been looking over The Braider & some of the other publications by AG Schakkee and John Turner. Yes, a bit on the complicated side for the average person. But I do like how the authors proceed in the publications in the actual design and mathematical processes, and the terms they use pretty much consistently throughout all of their publications. I am not quite sure if this would be a way to go, or not. But I think that using the terms they have used would be a great start. For example, to describe the term Turns, instead they use Half Cycle. I realize that they use that term in the building of a grid for the final outcome of a knot. Of course these terms would most likely be more associated with the scientific and mathematical nomenclature. But I feel that this would be a grounded start for all of us to be on the same page so that it would become much easier to share amongst colleagues. Well just a thought and it may not be of any use, but just another idea to play with. I figure if we don't have to reinvent the wheel, the more time we can save.

Great!  Where can we find their nomenclature in order to evaluate it?


Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Wed on January 30, 2010, 01:59:22 AM
Quote
Great!  Where can we find their nomenclature in order to evaluate it?

Mail the chap at this site.
http://jcturner.fortunecity.com/The Braide.htm (http://jcturner.fortunecity.com/The Braide.htm)

I recieved my copy yesterday.
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Knot Head on January 30, 2010, 02:02:38 AM
I could probably post a PDF file that would be a little on the large size for download. High banders wont have to much of a problem downloading them, but dialup it would take a few days. Let me see what I can come up with for you all over the weekend here. I'll get back to you all on Monday.

Brian...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on January 30, 2010, 03:26:20 PM
I find this discussion fascinating - it must be what the developers of esperanto went through and I have a feeling that this will go the same way. Great idea but ignores the simple fact that language, no matter how imprecise or even bizaarre, develops at its own speed through common usage. I will always use salt on food never sodium chloride so as long as Nodologists see themselves in a similar way to other specialist groups eg scientists this stands a chance but only amongst the cognoscenti of  consenting adults. I reckon 6 weeks to 3 months and the next novelty will surface but we can all enjoy watching while it lasts.

Barry
 :D

Thanks for the vote of limited confidence; or was it a piece of well aimed psychology goading further action when the impetus naturally starts to tail off ?

Actually, if our past track record is anything to go by, your prediction will be correct.  But even if the project does hit a brick wall after all the 'low hanging fruit' have been picked, we will still have made a start and every action has its consequences.  It might be that it just sets people thinking and triggers a totally fresh approach in the future, it might be that the value and richness of the existing lexicon becomes to be appreciated more and is used with greater precision, or it might simply become a foundation that we go on to build into the language of our field (however, for that to be the case we probably need to entice a few 'academicals' (thank you Terry Pratchet for the word) into the process so the lexicon can find its way into our teaching establishments).

As for finding its way into 'dinner table parlance', I am sure that you appreciate that is not the intended usage, any more than we would expect chemical nomenclature to invade established usage terms such as 'table salt' or 'Acetone'.  However, the rigour of a scientific nomenclature in any field has been fundamental in allowing those fields to develop beyond layperson usage and thereby allowing the development of fundamental advances in those fields.

I have no idea where a structured lexicon will allow us to explore, but I am fairly confident that it will be into aspects of Nodology that would be beyond the scope of bends and bights and bitters.  After all, if it were not for a developing lexicon of atomic structure allowing us to conceive electron shells and band gap energies, then 'sand' would still be the stuff of the Sahara and you would not now be reading this post.

And if we fail, then at least along the way we will have brought a little entertainment to readers of the forum, and exercised our little grey cells along the way.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on January 30, 2010, 05:49:01 PM
Brian and Wed,

If you can post the terminology that The Braider folks use for the parts of a knot and the types of knots (bends, hitches, loops, etc.), then I'll compile a simple list which shows the traditional terms plus the proposed new terms so that we can all cast our votes (or propose different terms).  As we get a good consensus on new terms, we'll be advancing the new lexicon to find out how useful it will be.

Thanks!

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Wed on January 31, 2010, 01:11:17 AM
Brian and Wed,

If you can post the terminology that The Braider folks use for the parts of a knot and the types of knots (bends, hitches, loops, etc.),

You ought not rely too much on my input, as I direly need to apply myself for elsethings at this time. But there is actually no reason not to acquire "The Braider". That goes for one and all, it's $3 and Dr Turner is a joy to deal with. It contains quite a bit for the fancy knotter regarding casa and gaucho coding. Mind you, I have merely glanced through half of the first volume so far.

Being a mathematician, Dr Turners input would probably be very interesting.

Only drawback is the shipping time. In my case it was sent dec 27 and arrived jan 27 ... (yes i said yesterday, yesterday, it was obviously not correct)
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Knot Head on January 31, 2010, 08:42:28 AM
Brian and Wed,

If you can post the terminology that The Braider folks use for the parts of a knot and the types of knots (bends, hitches, loops, etc.), then I'll compile a simple list which shows the traditional terms plus the proposed new terms so that we can all cast our votes (or propose different terms).  As we get a good consensus on new terms, we'll be advancing the new lexicon to find out how useful it will be.

Thanks!

Dave


It would be very difficult to go through all that process like they have. But here's a sample of a little bit of material that I have been reading and getting to know.
Here's a sample of The Braider http://khww.net/thebraider/TheBraider1No1.zip (http://khww.net/thebraider/TheBraider1No1.zip) 1.4 megs... Inside the zip file is a pdf file called No1.pdf

Let me know what you think.
Brian...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 01, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
A friend of mine, Gillian, has been fighting for her life in hospital for the last 9 months.  Three days ago she sobbed that she did not want to die, then she slipped into a coma and we fear that she is close to loosing that fight as my DH and I spend most of our time by her bedside talking to her, in the hope that she can still hear us, so she will know her friends are by her.

Gillians plight reminds me yet again how short our tenure on life is, and that if we want to leave a mark to be remembered by, we had better get out there and start carving initials into the worlds 'tree trunk' pretty quickly.

So please excuse my lack of contribution  as I have a greater commitment at the moment.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 01, 2010, 02:39:41 PM
Hi Derek,

I'm sorry to hear about Gillian, and I'll be praying for her.

Later today I'll post the ideas that we've gathered to this point, so that people can begin voting and keep up the momentum.  No matter what the ultimate structure of Nodology looks like, it will need to include definitions of the parts of knots and types of knots and so on.  Therefore, it doesn't strike me as being premature to begin the selection process for these things.

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 01, 2010, 02:41:10 PM
Thanks Brian, I see what you mean.  The Braider uses terms which are specific to braiding, and in the PDF file I didn't see any definitions of the terms which we're attempting to define.

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 01, 2010, 06:33:38 PM
edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas below are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).


The lists below contain the ideas which have been put forth to this point, so that we can vote on them (or suggest alternatives).  By voting on what we've gathered so far, this helps maintain momentum, and we can make adjustments along the way as we come across any deficiencies in the growing terminology.  No matter what the ultimate structure of Nodology looks like, it will need to include definitions of the parts of knots and types of knots (below).

In case the Nodology terms are used in computing someday (e.g. XML as Derek suggested), I have removed the blank spaces in the suggested terms because blank spaces are treated as special characters in XML and other areas of computing.


These are the suggested subdivisions which have been put forth so far (the terms are defined in earlier posts).  I haven't cast a vote for either of these because I'm waiting for some discussion about the benefits of having separate subdivisions for Weavings and Bindings and so on:

1.  Nodology
        Cordage
        Binding
            Splice
            Whipping
            Stitching
            Weaving
            Netting
            Lashing
            Knot

2.  Nodology
        Cordage
        Tyings
            Knot
            Hitch
            Bend
            Loop
        Weavings
            Flatmat
            Splice
            Ball
            Cylinder
        Bindings
            Finishing
            Covering
            Lashing



The following list contains some suggested terms (in blue) for the parts of a knot or actions on a knot (see the reasoning for some of these terms in an earlier post).  To start the voting I'll mark my votes in bold, although I haven't decided on all of them yet:

To replace Standing Part: Entry_Part, Standing_Part, Main_Part

To replace Tail (as in "When you tie a Bowline, leave a long Tail for safety"): Exit_Part, Tail

To replace Working End and Running End and Bitter End: Tying_End, Exit_End, Tail_End, Working_End, Running_End, Bitter_End {Note: if we choose "Exit_Part" above, then perhaps "Exit_End" is a better choice here.  This way we can have an "Entry_End" to go with "Entry_Part", and an "Exit_End" to go with "Exit_Part."}

To replace Loop and Eye (as in "The Spanish Bowline has two loops"): Loop, Eye

To replace Bight: Doubled_End, Bight

To replace Loop (as in "Make an Underhand Loop") and Turn and Wrap and Underhand Loop and Overhand Loop: Revolution(number, crossing), Turn(amount of turn, object included, double end formed), Loop

To replace Sling: Closed_Loop, Annular_Cord, Sling

To replace Collar: Collar

To replace Nub: {Is this term useful?}

To replace Nip: Nip

To replace Lead (as in "Ashley says that knot 494 has a good Lead"): Lead, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

To replace Capsize: Deform, Capsize

To replace Jam: Jam, Hard_Lock

To replace Slipped: Slipped, Unlocked, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

To replace Noose (i.e. an Overhand slip knot but loaded the opposite way): Noose, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

To replace Half Hitch: Half_Hitch, {Is there a more descriptive term?}



The following list contains some suggested terms (in blue) for certain types of knots (see the reasoning for these terms in an earlier post).  To start the voting, I'll mark my votes in bold:

To replace Bend: Join_Knot, Union_Knot, Bend

To replace Single-Loop Knot (as in "The Bowline is a single-loop knot"): Loop_Knot(1), Single_Loop_Knot

To replace Double-Loop Knot (as in "The Spanish Bowline is a double-loop knot"): Loop_Knot(2), Double_Loop_Knot

To replace Hitch: Tether_Knot, Attachment_Knot, Hitch






Please post your votes or alternate suggestions.  To make it easy, you can copy/paste this template into your post:

To replace Standing Part:

To replace Tail (as in "When you tie a Bowline, leave a long Tail for safety"):

To replace Working End and Running End and Bitter End:

To replace Loop and Eye (as in "The Spanish Bowline has two loops"):

To replace Bight:

To replace Loop (as in "Make an Underhand Loop") and Turn and Wrap and Underhand Loop and Overhand Loop:

To replace Sling:

To replace Collar:

To replace Nub:

To replace Nip:

To replace Lead (as in "Ashley says that knot 494 has a good Lead"):

To replace Capsize:

To replace Jam:

To replace Slipped:

To replace Noose (i.e. an Overhand slip knot but loaded the opposite way):

To replace Half Hitch:

To replace Bend:

To replace Single-Loop Knot (as in "The Bowline is a single-loop knot"):

To replace Double-Loop Knot (as in "The Spanish Bowline is a double-loop knot"):

To replace Hitch:


Thanks!

Dave


edit: Made the suggested terms blue for clarity, and added Barry's suggested terms.


edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas above are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms).

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Knot Head on February 02, 2010, 08:46:01 PM
Thanks Brian, I see what you mean.  The Braider uses terms which are specific to braiding, and in the PDF file I didn't see any definitions of the terms which we're attempting to define.

Dave


I thought that maybe that would help give you some sort of idea on continuity with the naming and verb usage within this project. If it does help out, awsome. If it don't, I guess we keep at it till something works out with it.

Brian...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Sweeney on February 02, 2010, 09:23:33 PM
A few thoughts:

Bend - Union_knot  (join_knot could be describing a hitch?)

Sling - Annular_cord

Hitch - Attachment_knot

Slipped - Unlocked

Jam(med) - Hard_Lock(ed) which means that eg a bowline is only "Locked" usually.

Barry





Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 03, 2010, 02:44:21 PM
Thanks Barry, I added your suggestions to the list.

I also made the suggested terms blue so that they stand out better.

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 03, 2010, 10:04:58 PM
In the world of string figures, they refer to a "sling" as a "string loop."  In the mathematics of knots, they sometimes refer to a "sling" as a "closed loop" or an "unknot."

Therefore, I have added "Closed_Loop" to the list of suggested terms for "sling," which hopefully is clear enough that it doesn't cause confusion with "Loop."

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 05, 2010, 08:48:10 PM
Quote
The following list contains some suggested terms (in blue) for the parts of a knot or actions on a knot (see the reasoning for some of these terms in an earlier post).  To start the voting I'll mark my votes in bold, although I haven't decided on all of them yet:

Quote
To replace Standing Part: Entry_Part, Standing_Part, Main_Part
As I 've said elsewhere, one needs to see where the replaced term is used
and whether the replacement makes sense.  My sense is that S.P. is used
mostly in tying instructions and implicitly connotes some part of the material
existing independent of the (yet-to-be-tied) knot -- so "entry point" is hard
to fit into that slot.

As for knots, "entry part" suggests something singular:  does a mesh knot
have four such parts, and eye knot one (but what of the other two loaded
parts?) ?!  (Oddly, it might seem, in all cases, one will see --in loading--
material exiting not "entering" at this part.

Quote
To replace Tail (as in "When you tie a Bowline, leave a long Tail for safety"): Exit_Part, Tail
Don't pull on sleeping dogs' tails, I say.

Quote
To replace Working End and Running End and Bitter End:
Tying_End, Exit_End, Tail_End, Working_End, Running_End, Bitter_End
{Note: if we choose "Exit_Part" above, then perhaps "Exit_End" is a better choice here.
This way we can have an "Entry_End" to go with "Entry_Part", and an "Exit_End" to go with "Exit_Part."}

Firstly, let's give "bitter end" its original and proper meaning/use:
it is that part of a line at the bitts (no bitts, no bitter end --end discussion).
One can see the inconsistency between senses implied for "s.part" if adopting
"running end", for post-tying, there is no traditional sense of running
in the end (compare with "Running Bowline" & "running rigging"); "working"
is also but more obviously/directly a term for the tying process.

Quote
To replace Loop and Eye (as in "The Spanish Bowline has two loops"): Loop, Eye

I have begun using "eye", on the basis that its meaning will be clear
and esp. without the overloadings of meaning that "loop" has.
(I suppose one can contrast Dave's qualifying "Spanish Bowline has two loops"
with "Dbl.Bowline has two loops" for another sense of "loop"l, which use occurs
in tying instructions.)

Quote
To replace Bight: Doubled_End, Bight

I believe the "bight" should be retained to mean a U-shaped part,
with the emphasis on the shape --somewhat elongated vs. round--
and de-emphasis on whether the legs "cross,"
and that the "in the bight/on the bight" sense be forgotten
("with a bight" connoting the first sense).  That takes the knotting
use well distant from the obscure nautical-geographical sense (of
a shallow concavity in a shore), but that obscurity has never fit
the knotting uses in either sense.

Quote
To replace Loop (as in "Make an Underhand Loop") and Turn and Wrap and Underhand Loop and Overhand Loop: Revolution(number, crossing), Turn(amount of turn, object included, double end formed), Loop

No replacement needed here, as I ceded this sense to "loop", having
used "eye" and "bight" adequately elsewhere.  But I'm not terribly keen
about instructions that employ these terms.  "Overhand loop" will come
up against "overhand" (knot) with a bit of rub.  The need for keeping
a frame of reference for implied direction can be tricky, too
(a given "loop" is "overhand" one direction, "underhand" the reverse).

Quote
To replace Sling: Closed_Loop, Annular_Cord, Sling

"Sling" is tough, for its common use is for any of various shaped short
(relatively) attachment structures -- basket, choker, continuous!?  Rock
climbers I think will understand it as a circle; but not industrial lifters.

Might non-English languages have a good term for just the closed
circle of material?

To replace Collar:
Quote
Collar

Yep, that works well enough as is.

Quote
To replace Nub: {Is this term useful?}

Well, citing uses has been my battle cry all along!
Dick Chisholm introduced this term.  Initially, I thought "the nub of
a knot is the knot -- what's left?"  But one can see the eye of eye knots
and the in-between of a Sheepshank as parts of those knots and yet
obviously unknotted parts of them!?  When a climber ties in with some
eye knot, she does so with this unknotted part, more directly
than with the "nub", eh?

It raises the question of how one wants to define "knot" -- which I've
touched on in some old threads.  My challenging example is of a "bowline"
in a tow line connected to cleats on each corner of a barch, where the
line is wrapped or cleat-hitched so to prevent the eye from slipping around
the cleats on changes in direction:  is it a "bowline"?  One can chop the
line between cleats (on the barge) -- now is it a bowline, this knot joining
(in a way) two distinct lines?  The "nub" has been unaffected in these
hypothesized changes, NB!  Is there a "bowline" and something happening
beyond it, or is that beyond part part of the "knot" such that one might
distinguish then a "nub" ?

Quote
To replace Nip: Nip

Currently, the weather is turning a bit nippy here in the States
on the Right Coast, expecting a BIG snowfall (our 4th !).  We'll
be tightly bound.

CLDay doesn't define "nip", unfortunately; Ashley has a seemingly
(IMO) conflicting definition of both transitive and intransitive senses
of holding !?  I understand it as akin to pinching -- i.e., that
one part of a knot might "nip" another (and, yes, here I've a verb not
a noun -- and I am more liberal than the singular "the nip" implies).

Quote
To replace Lead (as in "Ashley says that knot 494 has a good Lead"):
 Lead, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

I confess to not really understanding what "lead" means.  (I used to take it
--as I think Harry Asher did-- to mean my "SPart", "entry part".)  Another of
his uses comes in #1017, the Angler's (Perfection) Loop, which he claims
"has the best lead of any loop" (<- nb:  "loop" only, not "loop knot" !).
(How is 1017 better than #1043/5, or a collared Slip-knot?)

Perhaps "lead" can be lost -- where is it used, productively?

Quote
To replace Capsize: Deform, Capsize

I see deformation as a most general condition,
of which capsizing is more particular, involving some significant
alteration of structure/geometry,
and flyping even more particular --a turning inside-out, inversion.

E.g., a Bowline capsizes if its nipping loop opens into a broad spiral,
but doesn't flype.  A Klemheist hitch can capsize around its rope object
at the load end if that object lacks tension there.  Some other friction
knots can deform by cascading turns around others -- where the SPart
reaches to the away end of the coil and turns back towards loading,
this away end can *peel* off turns to wrap around the others.

Quote
To replace Jam: Jam, Hard_Lock

Looking for substitutes?  I see no need here:  "jam" is sweet.

Quote
To replace Slipped: Slipped, Unlocked, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

"Slipped" works find; "unlocked" is more misleading (IMO more
implying a behavioral state than a geometric one).

Quote
To replace Noose (i.e. [e.g] an Overhand slip knot but loaded the opposite way):
 Noose, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

Ashley is a bit confused -- defining "noose" to be a running eye knot,
but then allowing it to be a Slip-knot or Hangman's Noose sort of knot.
CLDay (in AKS) seems to echo this duality.

My desire is to go somewhat differently from tradition, in using the
term with a structural/geometric sense of rope hitching to itself
-- e.g., Two Half-hitches => "Clove noose-hitch".  My point is that
there can be variance as to whether the behavioral *noosing* even
obtains depending upon material & force, and I prefer NOT to have
such consideration muck about with knots classification.  (E.g., the
Midshipman's knot might form a temporary eye knot in natural-fibre
rope, but certainly in hi-mod ropes (Vectran, e.g.) it will be a noose,
as load becomes significant (we have seen even a Dbl.Bowline work
qua noose in HMPE line!!).  So, looking towards classification, I'm
pushing towards this re-definition of "noose".
Hmmm, "noose-hitch" & "noose-eye" (e.g. Running Bowline as latter)!?

Of course, this spits into the wind of common parlance.

Quote
To replace Half Hitch: Half_Hitch, {Is there a more descriptive term?}

What I find confusing re HH is the differing orientations of load
on the knot.  I don't see the minimal-timber-hitch-like structure as a HH;
I think that, generally, a HH should entail some bite, some nip
-- which the succeeding HHs of a 2-/3-/... structure surely show, and
the initial turn can be seen to approximate, at least.

Quote
The following list contains some suggested terms (in blue) for certain types of knots
(see the reasoning for these terms in an earlier post).  To start the voting, I'll mark my votes in bold:

To replace Bend: Join_Knot, Union_Knot, Bend

So many suggested terms seen to work equally well for tying to <anything>
-- vs. to another piece of cordage.  But "union" might connote strongly
enough a likeness of the two pieces AND contribution to the knotting of both!?

Quote
To replace Single-Loop Knot (as in "The Bowline is a single-loop knot"): Loop_Knot(1), Single_Loop_Knot
To replace Double-Loop Knot (as in "The Spanish Bowline is a double-loop knot"): Loop_Knot(2), Double_Loop_Knot

I favor "eye knot".

Quote
To replace Hitch: Tether_Knot, Attachment_Knot, Hitch

"Hitch" works, why replace?

Quote
Please post your votes or alternate suggestions.

Definitely "alternative" -- do away with highway-dept. simplicity!

--dl*
====
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 06, 2010, 05:40:13 PM
I made a mistake when I started to introduce what I saw as 'sensible' terminology into the thread "Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!".  As Dan defined the thread, it was to review and rationalise terminology in existing use - i.e. it was to optimise day to day language.

I realised that there was a need for a new clean and sensible language that was not bound by history or folk lore and which would perhaps help us take the next steps forward in developing our field into a science.  In many respects, while each approach has its own logical purpose, they are in essence diametrically opposite.

To that extent, it is worth reiterating what I believe are still the guidelines towards establishing this Lexicon.

The Lexicon should be structured so as to enable the development of the science of Nodology.
The language will be used by people involved in the study of Nodology.
The language is NOT concerned with being understood by users in any of the existing fields of knot use, and therefore does not have to reflect any extant terminology unless to do so adds to a logical and rational terminology.

To that end, our present anachronistic terminology will almost certainly be discarded in favour of terms featuring rational clarity.  Inevitably, this means that the 'Knotspeak' tyers presently use will hopefully be largely discarded, built as it is upon almost medieval terminology based on trade and use rather than structure or functionality .

I am certain that we will make mistakes and will have to backtrack to the foundations over several iterations in order to refine a viable lexicon, and I would not doubt that it will take us a number of years to undertake these iterations as we start to use the lexicon and discover its limitations.

However we get to a functional Lexicon of Nodology, I am confident that the smoothest path is to be found by casting off the past and not to be bound or influenced by any of its terminology.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 06, 2010, 08:17:29 PM
This post is a digression into the chessboard that may one day serve to be our workench of Nodology, and as such it has no direct reason to be posted here, other than that to be able to talk about it, we will need first to have created the necessary terminology to visualise and reference it.

So here goes with a first stab at creating the workspace of Nodology.

First, I would like to introduce an axis of 'knottiness' or 'entanglement' or 'interference'.  

At its origin is a straight piece of cord exhibiting zero 'knottiness'.  

As we move away from zero, we might come across the cord wound snake like, but never touching, then wound up into a tidy coil or laid out snake like, then overlaid snake like at right angles to the first layer - the complexity is getting greater but we are still describing a family without enforced entanglement.

Moving yet further, we might come across numerous cords interwoven as a flat weave.  We could pull any single cord out of the weave, but the weave now acts as a coherent whole and can take and distribute force through its structure.

Next along might be the closed weave where the 'weft' cord traverses back and forth between the many 'warp' yarns, and following closely are the plaits, braids and then the circular Turks Head arrangements wherin the entanglement essentially amounts to nothing more than interweaving, yet entanglement is extreme through the extent of the interweaving - we can no longer simply pull cords out of these structures.

Yet further along would be simpler constructions, yet they would now be exhibiting intrinsic entanglement, such that despite their simplicity, they could not be pulled out - for example a cord containing a simple overhand knot.

From here on, the entanglement / interference simply get more and more complex and in theory passing on to the mythical Gordian Knot (and beyond ?).


The second axis describes the degree of 'penetration' or 'involvement'

All of the structures described so far on the knottiness axis involve zero 'penetration' and so are strung out in a line on one side of the workspace.  However, this second axis is complex and subject to recursion, i.e. a braid can form a cord which finishes up back on the zero penetration axis being used to make the structures we have already seen on the 'knottiness' axis.

Ignoring the recursive nature of this axis for the moment, the first encounter we might meet would be a splice in three strand laid rope, where the structure involves entering the structure of the cordage by one level of structural complexity.  The splice though, being essentially a braid like structure would sit out in the board, lined up with braid on the 'knottiness' axis and with primary component on the penetration axis.

Penetration into cords with more complex structures would sit further along this axis as indeed would the construction of the thread, strings, ropes etc, themselves.

Sewing through a cord penetrates to the finest structures, so will sit far out along this axis as will glueing which penetrates yet further, right to the molecular level.

So you see we need some words.  A good term to use for 'knottiness' and a term to use when talking about 'penetration' and then some words for varying degrees of these parameters (I don't think numbers are particularly good for perception).

Any offers?

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 07, 2010, 09:20:27 AM
Call to all you academics out there...

While the term Nodology will keep me firmly grounded with the vision of that little yellow coupe, I have a fear that practitioners of Nodology will become known as 'Big Ears' because of both that association and the general extended age of its male followers.

So I have to ask those who might know - should the term in fact be Nodeology (with an 'e').  I have to admit, I feel considerably better at the inclusion of an 'e'.  Perhaps also, if this field ever touches the heady heights of University study, students might have an easier time if we drop the little yellow coupe association as quickly as possible.

Note - Lasse uses the tag line of 'Nodeo, ergo sum' which he tells me is his version of 'I knot, therefore I am'.  Although light hearted, I can't think of a more appropriate sentiment.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Sweeney on February 07, 2010, 09:45:54 AM
The Guild motto maybe?

Barry
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 07, 2010, 12:12:32 PM
The Guild motto maybe?

Barry

I couldn't agree more Barry.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 07, 2010, 12:23:02 PM
Terms are starting to accumulate and the breadth of the topic is beginning to stretch the abilities of a forum topic.

Time perhaps to open up a place to collect the stuff that is starting to make sense and meet with general agreement, while keeping all the idea creation and discussion here on the forum.

Yes, you guessed, I am going to suggest a wiki, in fact http://nodeology.pbworks.com/FrontPage (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/FrontPage)

I have made it completely open, so anyone can start a PBWorks account and start editing / contributing to it without needing to be given permission for access.  If total openness creates anarchy, we can always lock it later, but I hope the topic will not attract nutters other than knotters.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 08, 2010, 03:33:37 AM
Call to all you academics out there...

While the term Nodology will keep me firmly grounded with the vision of that little yellow coupe, I have a fear that practitioners of Nodology will become known as 'Big Ears' because of both that association and the general extended age of its male followers.

So I have to ask those who might know - should the term in fact be Nodeology (with an 'e').  I have to admit, I feel considerably better at the inclusion of an 'e'.  Perhaps also, if this field ever touches the heady heights of University study, students might have an easier time if we drop the little yellow coupe association as quickly as possible.

Note - Lasse uses the tag line of 'Nodeo, ergo sum' which he tells me is his version of 'I knot, therefore I am'.  Although light hearted, I can't think of a more appropriate sentiment.

Derek

Here's a quote from the knottyers Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knottyers/message/7035 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knottyers/message/7035)):

      "According to University of Notre Dame on-line dictionary:
      http://www.archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm

      nodus -i m. [a knot; a girdle; any tie , bond, connection, obligation;
      a knotty point, difficulty].
      nodo -are [to knot , tie in a knot].

      nodosus -a -um [full of knots , knotty].

      Neither "nodi" nor "nodology" are listed in their book

      According to "Collins Pocket Latin Dictionary:

      nodo - (verb transitive) "to knot, tie"

      nodosus (adjective) "knotty"

      nodus (masculine) figurative "knot, knob, girdle, knotty point"

      In addition the suffix "ology" is an informal Greek noun, so whether
      it could be added to a Latin word is debatable."



So Nodology and Nodeology might both be incorrect (mixing a Latin prefix with a Greek suffix).  It looks like "kombos" is the Greek word for knot: http://www.greekkomboloi.com/ (http://www.greekkomboloi.com/).

Personally, I prefer Knotology because it's clear and unambiguous, and therefore it avoids confusion.

I'll post some thoughts on the Wiki soon.

Dave
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: alpineer on February 09, 2010, 08:20:11 AM
I favor "eye knot".

This is an important distinction which perhaps even Dan L. may not fully appreciate.  "Eye" is a term which is broader in scope than "Loop" (This is a good thing). I could elaborate more on this now, but, as I'm in process of putting meat on some conceptual bones would prefer to do so later. Eye see less mis/uninformed controversy adopting this term than for other knot forms being discussed, and so suggest this could/should be the first item to be ratified and thereby get something hard on the books.

alpineer      
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Dan_Lehman on February 14, 2010, 03:08:11 AM
I'd rather wait to learn more of this eye-opening perspective,
and have some idea of where it might lead (skeletons in the
closet being bad things).  So, your meaty insight is eagerly
awaited (and I'll not as long as we've awaited Agent_Smith
to return to testing activity).

 :)
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on February 14, 2010, 10:20:33 AM
Hey guys...Just wanted to get my 2 cents in on this naming thing. In my opinion, Latin is kind of a Greek dialect. Having been a student of Greek for 2 years, and Latin for 1, the amount of root words that are the same or similar is astounding. Most medical terms, many of which people say are Latin, come straight from the Greek language. In this context, joining a Greek conjugation to a Latin root would not be considered outlandish or improper. However, in the interest of keeping knotting simple and understandable for the masses now and those to come, we should strive for simplicity and clarity. Therefore if one wants to name the study of knots, "Knotology" would be my choice. Whoever hears it will understand what it means. Ask a sailor from 100 years ago what they would have called it, and the likely response would be, "It's me job!" I vote for "Knotology" for clearness, understandability, and ease of translation into other languages. My second choice would be "Knotty Science" ;D
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 15, 2010, 05:28:10 PM
This post is a digression into the chessboard that may one day serve to be our workench of Nodology, and as such it has no direct reason to be posted here, other than that to be able to talk about it, we will need first to have created the necessary terminology to visualise and reference it.

So here goes with a first stab at creating the workspace of Nodology.

First, I would like to introduce an axis of 'knottiness' or 'entanglement' or 'interference'.  

At its origin is a straight piece of cord exhibiting zero 'knottiness'.  

As we move away from zero, we might come across the cord wound snake like, but never touching, then wound up into a tidy coil or laid out snake like, then overlaid snake like at right angles to the first layer - the complexity is getting greater but we are still describing a family without enforced entanglement.

Moving yet further, we might come across numerous cords interwoven as a flat weave.  We could pull any single cord out of the weave, but the weave now acts as a coherent whole and can take and distribute force through its structure.

Next along might be the closed weave where the 'weft' cord traverses back and forth between the many 'warp' yarns, and following closely are the plaits, braids and then the circular Turks Head arrangements wherin the entanglement essentially amounts to nothing more than interweaving, yet entanglement is extreme through the extent of the interweaving - we can no longer simply pull cords out of these structures.

Yet further along would be simpler constructions, yet they would now be exhibiting intrinsic entanglement, such that despite their simplicity, they could not be pulled out - for example a cord containing a simple overhand knot.

From here on, the entanglement / interference simply get more and more complex and in theory passing on to the mythical Gordian Knot (and beyond ?).


The second axis describes the degree of 'penetration' or 'involvement'

All of the structures described so far on the knottiness axis involve zero 'penetration' and so are strung out in a line on one side of the workspace.  However, this second axis is complex and subject to recursion, i.e. a braid can form a cord which finishes up back on the zero penetration axis being used to make the structures we have already seen on the 'knottiness' axis.

Ignoring the recursive nature of this axis for the moment, the first encounter we might meet would be a splice in three strand laid rope, where the structure involves entering the structure of the cordage by one level of structural complexity.  The splice though, being essentially a braid like structure would sit out in the board, lined up with braid on the 'knottiness' axis and with primary component on the penetration axis.

Penetration into cords with more complex structures would sit further along this axis as indeed would the construction of the thread, strings, ropes etc, themselves.

Sewing through a cord penetrates to the finest structures, so will sit far out along this axis as will glueing which penetrates yet further, right to the molecular level.

So you see we need some words.  A good term to use for 'knottiness' and a term to use when talking about 'penetration' and then some words for varying degrees of these parameters (I don't think numbers are particularly good for perception).

Any offers?

Derek

Hi Derek,

For your first axis:

"Knottiness" is the noun form of "knotty," which means:

  "having knots; full of knots"
  "Tied or snarled in knots."
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knottiness)

 
"Entanglement" means:

  "something that entangles; snare; involvement; complication."
  "To twist together or entwine into a confusing mass; snarl"
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entanglement)


"Interference" means:

  "The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding."
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interference)


Therefore, if my proposed definition of "N.Knot" is acceptable (in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms)), then "N.Knottiness" would seem to be the best choice for your first axis.


For your second axis:

"Penetration" means:

  "The act or process of piercing or penetrating something"
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penetration)
 

"Involvement" doesn't appear to have a useful definition in this context at dictionary.reference.com, but here are some other ideas:


"Infiltration" means:

  "to filter into or through; permeate."
  "to pass into or through a substance, place, etc., by or as by filtering."
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infiltrate)


"Piercingness" is the noun form of "pierce," which means:

  "to penetrate into or run through (something), as a sharp, pointed dagger, object, or instrument does."
  "to make (a hole, opening, etc.) by or as by boring or perforating."
  "to make a way or path into or through"
  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piercing)


In addition, dictionary.reference.com distinguishes between "pierce" and "penetrate" in this way:

"PIERCE, PENETRATE suggest the action of one object passing through another or making a way through and into another. The terms are used both concretely and figuratively. To PIERCE is to perforate quickly, as by stabbing; it suggests the use of a sharp, pointed instrument which is impelled by force: 'to pierce the flesh with a knife' ; 'a scream pierces one's ears.'  PENETRATE suggests a slow or difficult movement: 'No ordinary bullet can penetrate an elephant's hide' ; 'to penetrate the depths of one's ignorance.'" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piercing)

Based on these definitions, "pierce" might be a better choice than "penetrate" for your second axis.


Concerning the varying degrees of these parameters, perhaps we should simply start with expressions such as "a low degree of N.Knottiness" and "x has a higher degree of N.Knottiness than y does" and so on, with the understanding that adjustments will need to be made along the way.

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 15, 2010, 05:31:14 PM
Hey guys...Just wanted to get my 2 cents in on this naming thing. In my opinion, Latin is kind of a Greek dialect. Having been a student of Greek for 2 years, and Latin for 1, the amount of root words that are the same or similar is astounding. Most medical terms, many of which people say are Latin, come straight from the Greek language. In this context, joining a Greek conjugation to a Latin root would not be considered outlandish or improper. However, in the interest of keeping knotting simple and understandable for the masses now and those to come, we should strive for simplicity and clarity. Therefore if one wants to name the study of knots, "Knotology" would be my choice. Whoever hears it will understand what it means. Ask a sailor from 100 years ago what they would have called it, and the likely response would be, "It's me job!" I vote for "Knotology" for clearness, understandability, and ease of translation into other languages. My second choice would be "Knotty Science" ;D

Hi Sharky,

What would be the Latin or Greek for the study of bindings (which can include knots, splices, etc.)?

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on February 15, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
Guess we would be talking about the noun rather than the verb...in Greek would be "desimo" for general bindings. Greek language gets very specific for the use of bindings like bibliodesima for book bindings and such...better not to get into linguistics...but keep it simple...We don't need a complicated word for knots...
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: SpitfireTriple on February 16, 2010, 04:19:44 PM
I'm a newbie here (reckon I've got at least 6 months' to use that excuse) and most of this is way over my head.  But that's never stopped me chipping in on other forums.

Hi Derek and Dave,

As usual, you two are way out in front of all and thank you for that!  I have a minor suggestion - if we use the term "-logy" to end the word describing knotting (root of -logy is Greek as in -logo or Latin as in -logia) then perhaps using the same root to describe "knot" is appropriate?  The word for studying knots then comes out as Nodology - what do you think of that?   SR


Call to all you academics out there...  So I have to ask those who might know - should the term in fact be Nodeology (with an 'e').  I have to admit, I feel considerably better at the inclusion of an 'e'.  Perhaps also, if this field ever touches the heady heights of University study, students might have an easier time if we drop the little yellow coupe association as quickly as possible.

Note - Lasse uses the tag line of 'Nodeo, ergo sum' which he tells me is his version of 'I knot, therefore I am'.  Although light hearted, I can't think of a more appropriate sentiment.   Derek

Here's a quote from the knottyers Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knottyers/message/7035 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knottyers/message/7035)):

      "According to University of Notre Dame on-line dictionary:
      http://www.archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm

      nodus -i m. [a knot; a girdle; any tie , bond, connection, obligation;
      a knotty point, difficulty].
      nodo -are [to knot , tie in a knot].
      nodosus -a -um [full of knots , knotty].

      Neither "nodi" nor "nodology" are listed in their book

      According to "Collins Pocket Latin Dictionary:

      nodo - (verb transitive) "to knot, tie"
      nodosus (adjective) "knotty"
      nodus (masculine) figurative "knot, knob, girdle, knotty point"

      In addition the suffix "ology" is an informal Greek noun, so whether
      it could be added to a Latin word is debatable."


So Nodology and Nodeology might both be incorrect (mixing a Latin prefix with a Greek suffix).  It looks like "kombos" is the Greek word for knot: http://www.greekkomboloi.com/ (http://www.greekkomboloi.com/).   Personally, I prefer Knotology because it's clear and unambiguous, and therefore it avoids confusion.   I'll post some thoughts on the Wiki soon.    Dave

Mixing our Greek with our Latin:  There is, of course, some precedent for this:  TeleVision.  And if Greek can be mixed with Latin, then English can be mixed with Latin.  Which leads us safely to Knotology.

Having said that, I do not wish to tread on the toes of someone (the paper-strip origamists) who have already coined the word Knotology.  We may feel we have far more right to the word, and we are much bigger than them, but we should show graciousness in our might.

Which leads me, personally, towards Nodology.  Besides, it sounds more "important" than mere "Knotology".  

Should it be Nodology or Nodeology?  My Latin is not up to making the decision, but I'd suggest we look at similar words,  where a noun with a long final vowel and ending in the letter "e" is converted to an "~ology".  We should, however, bear in mind that many 'ologies appear to have been formed not from an english noun ending in an "e", but from an earlier Latin root - in our particular case, nod~ rather than node.  Here's a list of words ending in "~ology" (http://www.morewords.com/contains/ology/).   Okay, "Ideology", "Theology" and "Arch(a)eology" are  common examples of such a word, but their "e" is pronounced - would we want the e" in "Nodeology" to be pronounced?  I wouldn't have thought so.

Precedent isn't everything, but in the absence of a good reason to the contrary I'd argue we should follow precedent.  My vote (not that I'm suggesting that this is a democracy, and if it is, my vote should be under-weighted) would therefore be for Nodology

I fully understand (I think!) Derek's point about "this is a language for the knot geeks" or words to that effect.  I recognise that such a language has different needs from the language used by "normal" people.  Nevertheless, it would be nice if it can share as much with normal English as possible.  As regards the dot notation - I'm guessing, Derek, you are a big fan of Object-Oriented programming?  My favourite language is Ruby (http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/)  But even Excel can produce unexpected benefits; a while ago I translated a pile of pension legislation into an Excel app.  One of the things that surprised me was that the discipline of writing the Excel formulas etc exposed ambiguities and weaknesses in the legislation, the understanding of the legislation, and the application of the legislation.  I suspect the same is likely to prove true of progress towards encoding the knotting process.  Even if the resulting code/lexicon is not used much, the exercise of creating it will prove to have been usefully illuminating.  I suspect the only tangible value (though I concede it could be a significant value) of an improved written language of knots would be as an aid in computerising the knotting process.  I suspect Derek and Dave and co are way ahead of me on this.

Finally, one of the things that has amazed (and perhaps disappointed) me on the IGKT forum generally is that people use language to describe knots when a photo or two would be a hundred times more meaningful.  It takes time and effort to arrange a knot neatly, clearly showing cross-over points etc, to photograph it and then to load up the photo, but it is so much more intelligible to a human than is any written description.  
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on February 16, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
Thanks Spitfire,

Nicely phrased and intelligible.  I also take Derek's point about the little yellow car (Noddy and big ears fame) where one could conceivably interpret that as Noddology, but I found that a bit of a stretch.  Your point about "nodeeology" is a good one when it comes to pronunciation.  Nodology does seem more in line with our overall "nod" to the ancients and to the more modern, whereas "Nodeology" seems to come to a point (node = point) that may not be as readily understood.  Just a perspective, after all, and why worry?  We should just agree and move forward.

SR
 
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on February 16, 2010, 06:20:28 PM
Hi SpitfireTriple,

It's interesting that people who do origami have adopted the word "knotology," but I guess origami sometimes involves tying knots in paper...

One thing we've realized is that "nodology" and "nodeology" and "knotology" all focus on knots, and they ignore other types of bindings such as splices and so on.  Therefore, it would be good to find a more comprehensive term which essentially has the meaning of "binding-ology."  Derek came up with "nectology," and according to Sharky it should perhaps be "desimology."  Thoughts?


The lexicon discussion has moved to a wiki that Derek created (go to http://nodeology.pbworks.com (http://nodeology.pbworks.com) and click the "Lexicon of Nodeology" link, then click "Bindings Terms" and explore the links).  There's a growing list of definitions for the parts of a knot and actions on a knot and types of knots and other types of bindings, so take a look and add some feedback to help improve the lexicon.  Thanks!

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: SpitfireTriple on February 16, 2010, 08:10:20 PM
Okay, I'm off there now.  I assume this is effectively a closed thread.

Oh, I found out more about "knotology" simply by googling the word.  Here's one site I reached (http://home.tiscali.nl/gerard.paula/origami/knotology.html).  There's actually some rather beautiful stuff there.  Especially if, like me, you're interested in Islamic tiling, the Golden Ratio and Penrose tiles.


But who would have thought that a Latin for for binding would contain the word string?  Surely Latin is not the origin of the word?

One on-line translater gave these options for binding:
redimio, adstringo, necto, evinxi, evictum, evincio, connecto

Alternatively,

adstringo :  (persons) bind, oblige, (+ refl.) commit oneself to
adstringo : to tight, compress, compact /
adstringo : to draw together, tighten, bind.  I like this
constringo constrixi constrictum :  to bind, confine, restrain.
construo construxi constructum : to construct, build, arrange.

One last thought though.  I believe it was Humpty Dumpty who once said,

"A word means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, and no less."

Frankly, if an institution as august as the International Guild of Knot Tyers states that the word "Nodology" (or "Nodeology if we must) means the science and study of knots, including splices, then who on earth will argue?
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 16, 2010, 08:18:48 PM
Hi Andrew,

Yes, I dabble in OOP (Delphi) but Dave is way beyond my standard - he has put all the 'working' extras to KnotMaker.

I take particular note of your comment re 'finding the ambiguities' once you start to lay down clear definitions.  Exactly this has happened with the proposed name of the field.  I kicked in with 'Knotology' - Nodology anad Nodeology (hopefully pronounced (No - de - ology), only to realise that knots are but a part of the field we aspire to describe.

I realised that I had started us off in the wrong place - we needed a term for the whole field of bindings, of which 'Knots' is but a sub section.

I used Translation Guide (http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin) to translate 'binding' to Latin and was rewarded with

redimio, adstringo, necto, evinxi, evictum, evincio, connecto

I then used the same service to translate the terms back to English (which is often the killer) and found that Necto returned -- to tie up, bind, fasten, to fasten together

So, dropping the 'o' and adding 'ology'  arrived at Nectology  which I take to be the field of binding, fastening and tying

NB  Connectology also had a logical association but was a little bit too Leggo-esque / Potter-esque to take forward.

This is very much our first pass at attacking the challenge, and we are going to see glaring issues both in the field as it now stands and in the developing field as we explore it, exactly as you have pointed out.  The key will be not to be precious about anything, but to be bold and constructive in the creation of usable terminology.  It is going to be a very big field, and we will probably only be able to work on small parts of the overall field as expertise / interest in those areas comes available.

So - trouble right at the 'Get-Go' and we need a binding type name and I am now putting up 'Nectology' as an Aunt Sally for thoughts and comments.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on February 16, 2010, 08:30:45 PM
Dave and Derek,

Nectology has a very good ring to it - logical and useful for those who know and no connotations of weirdness for those who do not know.  Well done!

SR
PS  I do like the idea of including part of connected in there....
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 16, 2010, 08:49:06 PM
Wow,  flying back and forth between writing the post and watching the bolognese sauce cook and I completely missed the cross post - talk about a case of Synchronicity ! !

Nee Nah Nee Nah..

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: SpitfireTriple on February 16, 2010, 09:28:49 PM
I like stringology!
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on February 16, 2010, 09:52:08 PM
It seems that we might be viewing the problem backwards...we are trying to decide what to call this based on the definition of what it entails...perhaps we should be trying to settle on a definition in the context of what we do, and then naming it. Let's take the field of "safety science" for example. We could go on forever trying to explain the word, "accident". What they have done is to write their own definition of accident: An unplanned event that causes more than $25 damage or loss of more than 4 man hours. "Accident" is a pretty ambiguous term in itself, but with the accompanying definition, becomes very specific and clear. So let's try building a definition of what we do as far as knotting, binding, splicing, and etc... then give it a name.
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 16, 2010, 11:03:16 PM
It seems that we might be viewing the problem backwards...we are trying to decide what to call this based on the definition of what it entails...perhaps we should be trying to settle on a definition in the context of what we do, and then naming it. Let's take the field of "safety science" for example. We could go on forever trying to explain the word, "accident". What they have done is to write their own definition of accident: An unplanned event that causes more than $25 damage or loss of more than 4 man hours. "Accident" is a pretty ambiguous term in itself, but with the accompanying definition, becomes very specific and clear. So let's try building a definition of what we do as far as knotting, binding, splicing, and etc... then give it a name.

I think cap'n Billy, that we are doing already as you suggest.

We started with a name, started to develop the context and saw that the name did not fit the context that was developing and so have gone back and reviewed the name - we have just done it quite quickly, and at this rate we might yet even do it again before we are done.  Although we need at some point to start to nail the terminology down, doing it too soon - before it starts to feel right and answer the questions without creating ambiguities - would be a negative step.  This is still very embrionic, to try to 'nail' it too soon could create problems instead of staying fluid as long as possible.

After all, we have a few more weeks yet before Barries prediction comes into force.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: sharky on February 17, 2010, 12:22:37 AM
(LOL) and right you are...are going to include crochet, knitting and so forth in the definition? I guess what I am asking is what does the IGKT want to encompass?
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on February 17, 2010, 11:59:47 AM
(LOL) and right you are...are going to include crochet, knitting and so forth in the definition? I guess what I am asking is what does the IGKT want to encompass?

With all due respect, that is not for the IGKT to decide...  (other than that we are (mostly) members of the IGKT and in that respect we are the IGKT)

It is for the creators (and users) of this lexicon to decide, and yes, crochet, knitting, weaving, plaiting, splicing, even laying up rope are all part of the field of 'bindings' and have a place here.  How fully we develop each of these sub fields will probably depend on the contribution of interested users in those fields (Indeed, some fields may be defined yet remain essentially empty because none of us here know enough about the field to be able to make a fist at creating a lexicon for it).

We are simply utilising the IGKT forum to discuss the matter.  If later on it becomes useful and the IGKT wish to endorse it - so well and good, but at the moment, the Humpty Numpties that are using the KT&C board are deciding 'what the words mean'.

Derek
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: alpineer on February 28, 2010, 11:19:20 PM
I favor "eye knot".
This is an important distinction which perhaps even Dan L. may not fully appreciate.  "Eye" is a term which is broader in scope than "Loop" (This is a good thing). I could elaborate more on this now, but, as I'm in process of putting meat on some conceptual bones would prefer to do so later. Eye see less mis/uninformed controversy adopting this term than for other knot forms being discussed, and so suggest this could/should be the first item to be ratified and thereby get something hard on the books.  

Continuing; "Eye" better describes that fixed closed opening part of a knot which engages an object, and which can vary in size and form whether under tension (working) or not.

Any historical references to Eye having a particular size (absolute or otherwise) should be considered as secondary to it's central application of object engagement.

Although Ring loading has a nice "ring" to it, it implies a round or circular structure, and therefor is too restrictive by definition.

As for Eye "Form", I'll cite the Alpine Butterfleye, which can have 3 discreet Eye forms depending on the amount of torsion present within the knot. I'll have more a little later. Must watch the end of Canada U.S. Olympic hockey game, then go for a quick hike up Grouse Mtn. and then drink some beer.


Cheers,
alpineer

  
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: alpineer on March 01, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
Wow! That was one exciting hockey game!

So, to continue from where I left off in my previous post, those 3 distinct forms the Alpine Butterfly's Eye can take are 1) that of a Bight (eye Legs running parallel into the nub), 2) an obtuse Loop (Elbow?) with eye legs crossed, and lastly, 3) a second Elbow version with eye legs crossing in the opposite manner to the previous.

All of these forms are special examples of closed openings having different torsion signatures relative to the knot as a whole. Torsion is an essential component of these knotting forms and serves well to differentiate and define them (more on this later). The term EYE includes all torsion properties of a closed opening.

To conclude, EYE best describes that class of knots having a closed structure of fixed size which serves to engage/encompass an object.

alpineer
 
 
     
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: squarerigger on March 01, 2010, 05:55:43 PM
Alpineer,

Aye, Eye - Sounds good to me!

SR
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DaveRoot on March 01, 2010, 10:27:00 PM
I took a stab at creating a fairly concise knot-tying notation which should be easy to extend as needed.  It makes full use of the richness of the growing Nodeology lexicon.

Developing the knot-tying notation involved some enhancements to the lexicon, so I have updated the list of definitions for the parts of knots and actions relating to knots at the Nodeology wiki.

The definitions in the Nodeology lexicon are located at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Knots-Terms (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Knots-Terms).  Most of the definitions have their own individual "discussion" links, so click the links which say "[Discussion: 1 or more comments]" to see the reasoning and other comments.

The knot-tying notation is located at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Knot-Tying+Notation (http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Knot-Tying+Notation).

Nothing is set in stone, just trying out ideas...

Dave

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Deacon on March 10, 2010, 02:26:47 PM
'Novices' were outed the moment they 'tied' two pieces of string together - Ohhh No...  Those from within the Guild 'bent' their cordage and knew how to spell 'bight' and strew about their 'SParts', keeping those novices firmly in thrall of the 'experts'.

Guilty on all counts ........ And I say that with complete humility.(one must know his limitations.)

However, while I am enthralled, I will strive to understand and use the proper terminology.
I've tried to commit as much to memory from what I've read in ABOK. But it will take some time for me to completely review everything in just this thread.
With that being said, and readily admitting my novice status, I would greatly welcome any correction to my incorrect terminology.


Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 12, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
I would greatly welcome any correction to my incorrect terminology.

The main point that you should "get" from this discussion is that knotting
terminology is confused, inconsistent, contradictory, and varied per person
or locale or application.  Efforts here are to try to move beyond that.  In
the thread I started I hope (still) to have extant definitions AND USES TO
ILLUSTRATE ... put forward for examination.  (And I fear that in this thread
there is too much hurry to move forwards (or sideways) in ignorance of
what has gone before.)

E.g., this whole zeal to call end-2-end joints "bends" is an Ashley-adoration
run amuck; as CLDay remarks, the case isn't there, in actual usage (ends
were equally if not more so "bent" to objects, e.g. an anchor bend).  As
I was just saying, ... .   ::)

We are sure of "bight" as a spelling, if less sure of its meaning.   ;)

Now, excuse me as there are some salty Knots in the Wild to go
observe & photo-record (or collect!) -- south end of New Jersey again.
(Oh, and some snow-broken-down cedar branches & tops to cut.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Deacon on March 15, 2010, 03:57:54 PM
Ashley-adoration run amuck;

We are sure of "bight" as a spelling, if less sure of its meaning.   ;)

Now, excuse me as there are some salty Knots in the Wild to go
observe & photo-record (or collect!) -- south end of New Jersey again.
(Oh, and some snow-broken-down cedar branches & tops to cut.)

--dl*
====

Hmmmm, ........... interesting (and funny).
I guess that the best approach is to understand ABOK, and then not think about it too much.
My biggest concern was trying to understand how the terminology was evolving.
Which meant (in my mind at least) trying to understand where it came from.......ow! Now I have a headache...........
I think I'll join you looking for Knots in the Wild......

Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 18, 2010, 08:16:24 PM
I guess that the best approach is to understand ABOK, and then not think about it too much.
My biggest concern was trying to understand how the terminology was evolving.

Please realize that your particular (novice) eyes might give us the
benefit of seeing in ABOK things that other eyes might not see
(just as one shouldn't edit one's own work).  There's a big plus in this.

It will be one thing to see some term presented in an Introduction,
later defined in a Glossary, and then how is it actually used in the
text?  (-- if much at all!)  This is my push in the related, current thread here.

 :)
Title: Re: The Lexicon of Knotology
Post by: DerekSmith on August 09, 2011, 04:28:51 PM

Using this schema, both LOOP and BIGHT are TURN(1).  By adding another distinction to TURN(1) we should be able to dispense with these two specific terms.  The LOOP is Object(indeterminate) Double End(NO), while the BIGHT is Object(NO) Double End(YES).  If we use the convention of 0 for NO, 1 for YES and blank for indeterminate, we can add these distinctions to the TURN() description.

TURN( Amount of Turn , Object included , Double End formed )[/size][/color]

BIGHT then is  TURN( 1 , 0 , 1)  -  i.e. 1hR, no object, double end formed.
While LOOP is  TURN( 1 ,   , 0)  - i.e.  1hR, object not specified, no double end.

Alternatively, we could make more use of the Object term by using it to denote anything, nothing, self or fixture.
          Anything (, ,) - as the term suggests , the loop can contain something if you want, as in the bowline, you can make it around an object or clip into it or not - your choice.
          Nothing (,0,) -- the loop must be clear - apart from decorative, I can't think why you would use this.
          Self  (,s,)--  the loop goes around some other part of the cord.
          Fixture(,f,)  --  as in a hitch or a loop around an anchor or other solid object etc.

This only leaves the question of with or sans 'an end' - from this follows the question of 'how far from an end?'.  Obviosuly, the end cannot be incorporated, otherwise it is not a loop, and  'how far from an end?' is surely no more relevant than 'how long is a piece of string?' - so lets try working without the 'with / without end' criterion.

We can compile all the present terms and attempt to rationalise them or we can essentially dispose of them and attempt to create a rational terminology to see if we can work with it.  Personally I do not care what the OED defines a loop or a bight as and do not believe that we should limit ourselves by these existing definitions - after all we are only on this thread because we know the mess these present definitions are in.

Can this sort of logic take us forward or is this too far too fast?

Derek

There are probably two more properties of the .Turn we need to consider - these being  -Diameter and -Handedness

i.e. a .Turn could be 2hR on 2 cord diameter with a Right hand helix (using the standard clockwise away from viewer=right hand).
or .Turn(2hR,2,R).

This is probably more useful than the previously suggested properties of 'containing' and 'end'.

Thoughts?

Derek