International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: DaveRoot on May 16, 2006, 08:23:59 PM

Title: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: DaveRoot on May 16, 2006, 08:23:59 PM
As we (or anyone else) attempt to create a comprehensive or "standard" or "official" list of knots, inevitably it will become necessary to address naming collisions and other naming issues.

This thread can be used as a scratchpad for these discussions, as Derek suggested in the "Knot Index" topic.

Dave
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: DaveRoot on May 16, 2006, 08:37:57 PM
Doing a Google on "Double Bowline" yields two different knots at various websites:

Knot #1 (ABOK #1013):
(http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/dbowline2.gif)

Knot #2:
(http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Bowline%20Family/f/double-bowline.jpg)


The prefix "Double" is generally used for knots which have two loops, but knot #1 (above) and the Double Dragon (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm#aaa) are examples of single-loop knots which use the word "Double."

I have occasionally seen knot #1 (above) referred to as the Double-Knotted Bowline or the Round Turn Bowline, which are preferable to Double Bowline (IMHO) because they are a little more descriptive.

Knot #2 would appear to be more worthy of the Double Bowline name since it is a Bowline which is formed in a doubled rope, and it results in two loops.  However, it is really the same knot as the Triple Bowline where the 3 loops are sized differently (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_TripleLoops.htm#TripleBowline).


So.....  If there is ever going to be an official or standard list of knots which we can all refer to for consistency, here are some questions:

A. How should we refer to knot #1 (above) as our standard name?  Double Bowline seems too ambigious.  Double-Knotted Bowline is better, but the Water Bowline (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#WaterBowline) can also be described as a "double-knotted" Bowline.  Round Turn Bowline seems most accurate.

B. Is knot #2 a Triple Bowline, or should it stand on its own as a separate knot?  If it should be cataloged as a separate knot, then should it be called the Double Bowline or should it be given some other name?


I think we've all seen that naming knots can a head-spinning, brain-cramping exercise, but we've got to call these puppies something!  ;D

Dave
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 16, 2006, 10:06:21 PM
The first picture is a Double Bowline.  The second picture is a Triple Bowline.

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/doublebowline.html

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/triplebowline.html

Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 16, 2006, 10:45:56 PM
Quote
The prefix "Double" is generally used for knots which have two loops

Hmm, like "Dbl.Fishermans Knot", "Dbl. Scaffold knot" (Budworth!), "Dbl.Overhand",
& "Dbl.Constrictr"?
No, "double" seems to have use in denoting a repeated central part of some knot,
typically to increase security.

Quote
The first picture is a Double Bowline.  The second picture is a Triple Bowline

Exactly the sort of confused nomenclature we want to avoid !
"Twin-/Dual-Eye" (& appropriate variant for other numbers) is perhaps the best
qualifier one can use for loopknots.  ("loop" is used, but is such an overloaded term,
it's best to avoid it here; "eye" is pretty precise).

Derek's knot is a bowline with a bight (and then some special positioning ...),
which can be used to yeild three eyes.  There are many bowlinesque ways to make
multiple eyes (e.g., the Bwl on a Bight can do multiples of 2; Derek's, 3 by 2
--i.e., odd numbers); Derek's & Bwl on Bight tying can be combined (which finish
would give Derek's in this case 4 eyes & a triple collar).

NAMES are going to be problematic, and beyond control, to much degree,
but one can try to fight The Good Fight, sometimes.  Some kind of more *scientific*
nomenclature--tedious to the ear, eye, & fingers (!)--will be needed for exact
references, helpful for classification.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 16, 2006, 11:26:56 PM
Quote


Exactly the sort of confused nomenclature we want to avoid !


I'm not confused by the generally-used terminology.  If you want to call them something else, no one's going to stop you, but those who speak Klingon (for example) in English-speaking cultures aren't generally understood.

There is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is.  We are a mere handful of knot nerds in a world with long-established and widely-used knot names when it comes to common or simple knots.

If you have an uncommon knot without an established name, you may be able to influence the name it eventually takes on.  Of course this assumes it ever catches on at all.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: squarerigger on May 16, 2006, 11:58:18 PM
Two cent's worth:

I agree with Dan;

Quote
Some kind of more *scientific*
nomenclature--tedious to the ear, eye, & fingers (!)--will be needed for exact
references, helpful for classification.


But it will never stop people calling a knot by whatever name appeals to them, be they climbers, cavers, sailors, butchers or bakers!  Does anyone have a suggestion for a "scientific" name convention?

SquareRigger
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 12:06:55 AM
Quote
Two cent's worth:

I agree with Dan;


But it will never stop people calling a knot by whatever name appeals to them, be they climbers, cavers, sailors, butchers or bakers!  Does anyone have a suggestion for a "scientific" name convention?

SquareRigger


I don't know why it's automatically assumed that the standard or common naming that has evolved is not scientific or not systematic.

For example, could it be that since the "double coil" bowline is used more often than any of the "double loop" bowlines, it thus rightly took the title of the Double Bowline?  

I'd dread coming back to this group in a few months to find three or four folks talking to each other in some sort of knot binary code. ::)
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: squarerigger on May 17, 2006, 01:42:22 AM
Hi Roo,

It is not assumed:

Quote
I don't know why it's automatically assumed that the standard or common naming that has evolved is not scientific or not systematic.


It has been known for some time that the naming convention is not scientific and not systematic :):

Quote
ABOK p. 12 & 13; "There are four exceptions, among sailors' knots, to the classification that has been given.  24.  The Fisherman's Bend is an Anchor Hitch.  25,26.  The Studding-Sail Halyard Bend and The Topsail Halyard Bend are Yard Hitches, etc., etc.  


If a bend is sometimes a hitch and a knot is sometimes a knob, and a hitch is sometimes a knot, where are we ????  There is no true and completely unequivocal, systematic or scientific method accepted by all users for naming knots (as they are collectively known) or parts of knots, otherwise why would we be having this discussion in the first place?  The common naming is not, as it turns out, all that common   :(  , particularly in different languages (other than English, that is).  You probably won't have to learn a completely new language, because no-one is suggesting that the scientific system be used to replace common terms, just that it would exist as a unique means for naming every knot and knot part, particularly when there is NO common name.  Just trying to advance the practice is all.....

Quote
There is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is.  We are a mere handful of knot nerds in a world with long-established and widely-used knot names when it comes to common or simple knots.



You are right, and I think we recognize that this may seem unwieldy for common knots, but again, the common name among climbers (among whom a name may not be so common) for instance, may not be the same as the common name among arborists and among cavers.  The search for a common language among all knots and knotters continues...  If you think it exists, could you please point me in that direction?

SquareRigger
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 01:58:48 AM
Quote
 The search for a common language among all knots and knotters continues...  If you think it exists, could you please point me in that direction?

SquareRigger


Show me an important knot that lacks a recognizable designation.

For the occasional mystery knot that shows up, a diagram is the preferred mode of communication.  If the mystery knot gains wide acceptance, it always occurs after the first few fans give it a distinct name.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: squarerigger on May 17, 2006, 03:01:05 AM
Hi Roo,


Quote
Show me an important knot that lacks a recognizable designation.


OK, how about:

The knot that started this discussion from Dave Root - is it a Double Bowline or a Double-Knotted Bowline or a Round Turn Bowline??  How many people did it confuse?  How is it formed - does it have one or two or no turns about the SPart?  Does it have two loops or one?  Is a loop the part that goes around the SPart or the part that hangs below it?  What is it called when the SPart is made into a turn - is that a cinch, a round turn or a turn?  :P Yes, the picture is good, unless you have no sight, in which case it is no good at all.  :-/ Does it occur that not all is common and something, maybe, is not quite regular in this weird world of ours?

Quote
For the occasional mystery knot that shows up, a diagram is the preferred mode of communication.  If the mystery knot gains wide acceptance, it always occurs after the first few fans give it a distinct name.


What would you define as a mystery knot and to whom would it count as a mystery?  Do diagrams always work?  What does "wide acceptance" mean [expletive deleted]  :o?  I guess that the search for naming conventions is already done?  ???

Can you tell that I have some level of frustration with comments like yours?  ::) Perhaps I am so fixated on having something that works all the time, that I forgot for a moment that not everyone else is that particular - vive la difference!  OK - you go your way, and I'll go mine, because this resolves nothing - Bah!  Humbug!  ;D

SquareRigger
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 03:23:50 AM
Quote
Hi Roo,



OK, how about:

The knot that started this discussion from Dave Root - is it a Double Bowline or a Double-Knotted Bowline or a Round Turn Bowline??  How many people did it confuse?  How is it formed - does it have one or two or no turns about the SPart?  Does it have two loops or one?  Is a loop the part that goes around the SPart or the part that hangs below it?  What is it called when the SPart is made into a turn - is that a cinch, a round turn or a turn?  :P Yes, the picture is good, unless you have no sight, in which case it is no good at all.  :-/ Does it occur that not all is common and something, maybe, is not quite regular in this weird world of ours?


What would you define as a mystery knot and to whom would it count as a mystery?  Do diagrams always work?  What does "wide acceptance" mean [expletive deleted]  :o?  I guess that the search for naming conventions is already done?  ???

Can you tell that I have some level of frustration with comments like yours?  ::) Perhaps I am so fixated on having something that works all the time, that I forgot for a moment that not everyone else is that particular - vive la difference!  OK - you go your way, and I'll go mine, because this resolves nothing - Bah!  Humbug!  ;D

SquareRigger


It seems you're having more of a problem with people calling knots the wrong names.  That is separate issue.  It is cured by noting the mistake.

Even if certain knots have multiple names, that is a lesser problem, because you can still tell what people are talking about.

The "persons having no sight" issue seems to be beyond the scope of what's being addressed here (no pun intended).  Besides, I doubt many blind folks are reading this forum.

As far as mystery knots, isn't that determined immediately when confusion occurs?  It's either a mystery to person "A", or person "B".  A decent diagram then clears things up.  A code would only make people more frustrated.


Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: DerekSmith on May 17, 2006, 04:29:35 AM
Doubtless both of these knots have a bag of names used quite happily by various groups of knot users.  However, no matter what names these knots are known by, I believe that the key issue is -  'What SHOULD they be called !!'

In my own field of chemistry, chaotic nomenclature was rife and it formed a very real stumbling block for any form of progress for the science.  At various points in the history of chemistry, naming conventions have been invented and have led the field to what it is today.

Doubtless along the way, many will have said, 'It will be called what people want to call it' or 'you will never change everyone'.  To a small extent they were right, there are still some trades today who talk of 'Spirits of Salt' instead of HCl.  But if those focused individuals had not made the attempt to rationalise the nomenclature, the chemical industry which has made possible the computer you are using to read this post would simply not exist.

Despite centuries of quaint naming and trade specific naming, it is possible to rationalise the naming structure of knots.  One day it will happen, perhaps that day starts with this post.

One thing is certain, it will not happen until there is a will for things to change.

If the naming of knots is confusing to those who 'live' knots, then imagine what that must seem like to those outside the clan.  Is it any wonder that the vast majority of 'normal' people think velcro is better?

If we think it would be of value for our grandkids to have cord and knots as parts of their lives, then we had better start looking seriously at kicking some of the crap out of the history which leaves us with a near joke at the very heart of our field.

Please, do not be precious about what you have always known these knots by.  If they were being named by you today - what should they be called and why?

It took a long time, but the chemical industry managed to do it and there is no reason why the knot industry should not be just as successful.  The body to do it is the IGKT and the people to do it are the contributors to this forum.  And where better to start than with the biggest mess of all - the sheet bend / bowline muddle - or should that be 'tangle'.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: DerekSmith on May 17, 2006, 04:43:32 AM
The 'knot' in figure 2 is the bowline and it is tied with two strands of cord.  In particular it is tied using a bight of cord.

So, although this name is already allocated, shouldn't this not be called the 'Bowline on a bight'?

Although I really like the cute little knot that already goes by that name;

(http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/BlnBgt_6.jpg)

It is not even the bowline knot so this really is an abuse of naming.

To resolve the contention then, I would suggest that we find a more suitable name for this little beastie and hand the appellation of 'Bowline on a bight' to the knot in figure 2.

If the bitter end loop is extended, we might also run to an AKA 'Tripple bowline'
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 05:02:34 AM
Quote
Doubtless both of these knots have a bag of names used quite happily by various groups of knot users.  However, no matter what names these knots are known by, I believe that the key issue is -  'What SHOULD they be called !!'
.


I've heard that France has some agency for adjudicating on matters of the French language.  Somehow, I doubt even they repeal many terms.

Anyway, that's barking up the wrong tree.   What should a knot be called?  Ask and investigate.  Sometimes it's OK for something to have different names.   There is a good reason for language (or just about any system) to have inertia.  It keeps silly things from becoming entrenched on an impulse.  Terms may emerge or become archaic.  If you want to encourage one term over the other, you're welcome to give it a try, but be prepared to explain your reasons.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 05:06:54 AM
Quote
The 'knot' in figure 2 is the bowline and it is tied with two strands of cord.  In particular it is tied using a bight of cord.

So, although this name is already allocated, shouldn't this not be called the 'Bowline on a bight'?

Although I really like the cute little knot that already goes by that name;

(http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/BlnBgt_6.jpg)

It is not even the bowline knot so this really is an abuse of naming.

To resolve the contention then, I would suggest that we find a more suitable name for this little beastie and hand the appellation of 'Bowline on a bight' to the knot in figure 2.



I won't be joining you.  Do you have any idea how many times that is identified as a Bowline on a bight in literature and in a universal way?
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: KC on May 17, 2006, 06:14:47 AM
i've always called 'Derek's Bowline' as a version of B.O.B.; and a Round Turn Bowline as a double, if maid with yosemite tie off a DBY.  Water Bowline to me is with a Clove Hitch instead of Round Turn.  Round Turn gives softer bend to Standing Part than Single Bowline.  Water Bowline gives same bend to Standing Part as Single.

i think a Bowline is a Sheet Bend to self, to form eye.  i like classifications by mechanics; that includes direction of initiating force pull.  Calling a Crossed Turn as Bitters over Standing Part, but same arraingemeant pulled by other leg, so that now the Standing Part traps Bitters is a Hitch.

i find the common description of a Clove as 2 half hitches etc. lacking, as it should be a Crossed Turn, followed by a Hitch by these descriptions; A Cow/Larks ;same except for a reversal of 1 end.

It is a great mess we have been handed, but then agian that part of it reflects history and culture that we should not totally sterilize out of it perhaps?
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 17, 2006, 09:38:43 AM
Quote

I'm not confused by the generally-used terminology.
...
There is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is.  We are a mere handful of knot nerds in a world with long-established and widely-used knot names when it comes to common or simple knots.

You can't really be THIS blind, can you?
That the common knots have varied & confused names--names that apply to more
than one knot, and knots with more than one name applied to them, and discernable
qualifier/adjectival names (e.g., "double", "bend", "twin") names used in conflicting
senses, is a serious detriment to communication among knot users (not (just) knot "nerds").
Within some small knot sets one can live with certain inconsistencies, and others
won't show up for want of comparison.  But "to promote the study of knots, ...", etc.,
a better means of communication & knot identification will be greatly helpful
(because otherwise one must give a lengthy dose of context/explanation for the
so-called common name of choice).

Quote
... standard names ... people calling knots the wrong names

What is this great standard by which you assess correctness of knot names?
Do you have separate standards for application areas--arborist, caver, climber,
sailor, fisherperson, construction worker, utility-line hauler, SAR workers, ...
in which region of the country, or world?

I'm not discounting the problem of spitting into the wind (fighting common
(mis-)naming),
but with the nomenclature as confused/conflicting as it is, there's also trouble
trying to stay within it.  (I argued with RescueMan over his insistence to make
"Fisherman's Bend" be the "bend"--Ashley's def.--rather than F.Knot, as has
been the case historically, given the entrenched usage AND the lack of historical
basis for "bend" meaning what Ashley wanted.  But I share his desire for functional
naming (class names); this of course confronts the peculiar naming of anglers, i.p.!)

I don't think you'd fancy your toolbox names so much if in the bolt case "hex"
meant 6-sided but for the wrench it (surprise!) meant 6 or 8 or maybe just square,
and sometimes just "bad luck".

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: DerekSmith on May 17, 2006, 10:08:01 AM
Quote
I won't be joining you.  Do you have any idea how many times that is identified as a Bowline on a bight in literature and in a universal way?


Do you have any idea how many times Hydrochloric acid was refered to as 'Spirits of Salt' or 'Pickle liquor'?  But today the only place you will see these terms being used is in lectures on the history of chemistry.

IF it is worth doing, then this is the only group that can do it, and then it will take a considerable amount of time for the rationalised system to be rolled out and adopted - it may even take a generation to pass (or pass away)  before it becomes defacto - but the change can never begin  until the rationalisation is made.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 07:33:46 PM
Quote


Do you have any idea how many times Hydrochloric acid was refered to as 'Spirits of Salt' or 'Pickle liquor'?  But today the only place you will see these terms being used is in lectures on the history of chemistry.

.


Was "Spirit of Salt" or "Pickle Liquor" ever the universal name?  Bowline on a bight, however confusing or unsystematic you think it may be, is the universally accepted and long-established name.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: roo on May 17, 2006, 07:49:11 PM
Quote

You can't really be THIS blind, can you?
That the common knots have varied & confused names--names that apply to more
than one knot, and knots with more than one name applied to them, and discernable
qualifier/adjectival names (e.g., "double", "bend", "twin") names used in conflicting
senses, is a serious detriment to communication among knot users (not (just) knot "nerds").

You can do what you wish, but this simply has not been such a great difficulty.  The biggest "problem" that occurs is that people who are intent on arguing or "being right" chase this issue for no real benefit.  Are you assuming that if you push one name over another, that people will stop using alternate terms?  That millions of books will vanish?  Won't happen.

Quote

What is this great standard by which you assess correctness of knot names?

The Ashley Book of Knots is one, but so is common parlance and English dictionaries.  Other knot books or reference material have introduced names to other more obscure knots.

A resolution or decree on an IGKT forum is likely to have much less impact than any of the sources listed above.
Title: Re: Scratchpad for resolving naming issues
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 18, 2006, 12:02:49 AM
Quote
Are you assuming that if you push one name over another, that people will stop using alternate terms?  That millions of books will vanish?  

Of course not.  But I'm also realizing that those books have only a limited effect
over the long haul (or even short one), and that authors can be influenced.
If the IGKT (or whoever) can come up with some good guidance on naming
(if only to kill some of the bigger blunders), AND present it to some of the bodies
deemed reasonably authoritative in their fields (UIAA, BMC, Nat.Spel.Soc., e.g.),
and certain authors, considerable influence can be gained.  (Oh, and Scouts.)

Quote
The Ashley Book of Knots is one, but so is common parlance and English dictionaries.  Other knot books or reference material have introduced names to other more obscure knots.

And, as has been noted repeatedly, these do NOT a unified, consistent reference make!

Quote
A resolution or decree on an IGKT forum is likely to have much less impact than any of the sources listed above.

No one thinks that our course will be to issue a statement to the world, and
"World, Heed This!".

--dl*
====