International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: 75RR on May 06, 2013, 01:29:15 PM

Title: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: 75RR on May 06, 2013, 01:29:15 PM
.
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Ruby on May 06, 2013, 02:35:50 PM
I think there's one tucking in a half hitch

And there's no tucking in a single hitch
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 06, 2013, 04:37:43 PM

The Half Hitch
ABoK definition: The Half Hitch is tied with one end of a rope which is passed
around an object and secured to its own standing part with a Single Hitch.
The Single Hitch
ABoK defenition: The Single Hitch is tied to another object, its end is secured under the turn.
(Cobbled this from two sentences at ABoK # 48 page 14 third paragraph)

Do we need additional species/subspecies of HH and SH?
...

Simply put, I don't buy the first definition, nor think much
of the latter's term.  As I noted previously, you can see in
ABOK usage of the first term that contradicts this given
definition (as one can find inconsistency in the term "bight",
also).  (CLDay, although following Ashley in terminology,
notes the problems arising from A.'s definitions.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: X1 on May 07, 2013, 05:41:05 PM
  A "single" thing is not a "double" thing, but it is not a "half" thing either... It is a "whole" thing, regardless its loneliness... :)
  According to your definition, a "Half" hitch, is the half of what ?
  I believe that it makes much more sense if the "Half" hitch is the half of the "Single"/"whole" hitch, than the other way around - because then the "Half" hitch would be less convoluted than the "Single"/"whole" hitch, indeed, as it should have been : a "Half" of something can not be more complex / convoluted than the "Whole" of the same thing ! The standing part of the "Half" hitch can not be more twisted than the standing part of the "Single" hitch. Reverse the order of your definitions, and you will see how more sensible the whole thing becomes... 
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 08, 2013, 10:55:26 PM
Additionally the last (second) hitch on the Round Turn and two Half Hitches is a Single Hitch.

The first hitch would be a Half Hitch as I think a return to the origin of the Half Hitch and its relationship with the Half Knot shows.

It's absurdities as this that I'd like to avoid :
with "two half-hitches" I want to see just that
--not some mumbo-jumbo about their not being
twins but cousins or maybe neighbors!   ;D

Then someone points to other absurdities:
Quote
According to your definition, a "Half" hitch, is the half of what ?
:P
... half of what any reasonable person would want of
such hitching at a minimum!   ;D

I still say Avoid calling the noose structures by names that
imply that they're *knots* --which here means dispensing
with Ashley's unfortunate definition (not always of his use
of "half hitch".  Throughout knotting literature I think one
will find occurrences of "half hitch" in terms of multiples or
sequences of them, none of which is consistent with this
unwanted Ashley definition of a compound beginning with a turn!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Luca on May 09, 2013, 01:27:57 AM
HI,

  A "single" thing is not a "double" thing, but it is not a "half" thing either... It is a "whole" thing, regardless its loneliness... :)
  According to your definition, a "Half" hitch, is the half of what ?
  I believe that it makes much more sense if the "Half" hitch is the half of the "Single"/"whole" hitch, than the other way around - because then the "Half" hitch would be less convoluted than the "Single"/"whole" hitch, indeed, as it should have been : a "Half" of something can not be more complex / convoluted than the "Whole" of the same thing ! The standing part of the "Half" hitch can not be more twisted than the standing part of the "Single" hitch. Reverse the order of your definitions, and you will see how more sensible the whole thing becomes... 

Personally I would be perfectly willing to follow the exchange of names proposed by X1(even if I agree with 75RR  that after decades, if not centuries of evolution of the common use of these terms(which I do not think have been coined by Ashley), this exchange would create some confusion to present it all of a sudden in a knot booklet(with wonderful illustrations!)!


Quote
According to your definition, a "Half" hitch, is the half of what ?

... half of what any reasonable person would want of
such hitching at a minimum!   

I still say Avoid calling the noose structures by names that
imply that they're *knots*

O.K.,but for my curiosity then I add:the Half knot is the half of what? Of a Reef or/and Granny knot?And then, the Half hitch(noose) is the half of a "Cloved" or/and  "Cowed" hitch(noose)(I try to follow what you wrote(I know that I can not because I have little time, actually I still have to look good what you wrote)  also in the other thread  opened in this regard by 75RR(but these Clove and Cow hitches around the SPart,really work as their correspondings around an object,pulled perpendicularly to it?))?
Or "Half Hitch"comes from"Half-knot used as a- hitch"?

                                                                                                                   Bye!


Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 10, 2013, 06:27:28 AM
with "two half-hitches" I want to see just that
--not some mumbo-jumbo about their not being
twins but cousins or maybe neighbors!   ;D

I still say Avoid calling the noose structures by names that
imply that they're *knots*
--which here means dispensing
with Ashley's unfortunate definition (not always of his use)
of "half hitch". 

The soothing balm of a Smiley. I wonder if they work with bee stings as well?

So no Half Hitch following Ashley's definition.
...

You say what it is not or should not be, would you care to say what they are or should be?

P.S. Adding image to give people their first look at a Round Turn and two [half-]Hitches

I go with the venerable, wide-spread "& two half-hitches"
--then slip away before any thoughtful discussion ensues!

As for bees & stings, what's your point?
Here's my personal own pointer, unstung
(rather quite ignored --shunned, even!) .

--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Wed on May 10, 2013, 02:13:18 PM
This is exactly where Squareriggers idea of a clean break from history would be a good thing. Hence the thread about new nomenclature was started with entirely new words for all things knotty. That thread is slumbering for now.

Here is the link: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2209.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2209.0)
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 10, 2013, 07:08:16 PM
I go with the venerable, wide-spread "& two half-hitches"
--then slip away before any thoughtful discussion ensues!

So that is it then. We are stuck with the much abused and misapplied Half Hitch.

We might prefer to make that --typographically-- 'half-hitch',
to signify a particular name/item vs. the "'half' of what?" sort
of something as piqued by X1.  But to that half-jocular question,
my answer of "half of what <will work, surely>" has some
reasonable merit.  Consider the clove hitch (albeit noting that
if initially applied at roughly perpendicular-to-object orientation
the first "h-h" lacks any characteristic (half-)nipping) and,
better, what I call the "reverse ground-line hitch" commonly
used in commercial fishing --among other structures-- there is
some observable sense in which the brief "h-h" structure will
combine to effect a full securing.  So, some reasonable sense
of answering "half of what?!" --these are some examples.

In contrast, "single hitch" is to my awareness an uncommon
utterance, and begs the question of application to anything
that holds --to any "hitch".


--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Luca on May 10, 2013, 10:06:35 PM
Hi,

One last trifle: if the Half hitch(I follow the nomenclature of Ashley!) is topologically the same as a Half (Overhand)-binding-knot, and two half hitches and the reversed Half hitches are topologically the same respectively of a Granny and a reef knot:the "true round turned Half hitch" should perhaps not be the so-called Anchor bend, (at least in its basic form,without half (single) hitch(es) added), being topologically equal to a Strangle (Double overhand)-binding-knot?

                                                                                                                              Bye!
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: roo on May 11, 2013, 12:09:21 AM
Dusting off the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/half%20hitch

Definition of HALF HITCH
: a simple knot tied by passing the end of a line around an object, across the main part of the line, and then through the resulting loop ...

First Known Use of HALF HITCH
1769

If you've ever tied a half hitch around an object with round rope and applied load, you'll know why it's only thought of as half a hitch.   ;D
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Luca on May 11, 2013, 01:40:18 AM
Hi 75RR,

It is I who thank you! I find that these threads that you opened are very interesting, unfortunately I'm not the guy best suited to respond quickly and properly to what I sense to be the questions you ask:more than anything else I have limited to take advantage of these threads to "hang me on" and put a couple of my questions,please excuse me!
If you do "climb over" one of the two turns of a Double Overhand/Strangler over the other you will see the shape of an Anchor bend without the common additional Half hitch(in this pic the standing part corresponds to the tail and vice-versa):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4318.msg26959#msg26959

If you've ever tied a half hitch around an object with round rope and applied load, you'll know why it's only thought of as half a hitch.   ;D

Hi roo,

But the Half knot seems to works"almost good enough" as a binding(maybe even the Half hitch,around certain objects with square corners (at least if these objects have some measure with respect of the diameter of the rope) seems to work (but in fact I would never be very inclined to use it!)).


Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 11, 2013, 06:45:54 AM
So you prefer half-hitch to single-hitch and to hitch on its own.

"hitch" on its own is a class name,
on the level of "eye knot", "end-2-end knot",
"stopper", & "binder".

Quote
Let us then define half-hitch as we had previously defined single-hitch in post # 4:
A turn of the rope over itself (or additionally an object) resulting in the nipping of the rope.

I wouldn't; I'd say it's "a turn around an object such that
its tail is jammed between turn & object" --which then
shows a clove hitch to be a somewhat problematic
example of two "half-hitches".

And to see the marline hitch presented as your #2
as a half-hitch takes some good vision --it can be
seen as that but as a quite re-oriented form!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: X1 on May 11, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
   I do not know why the "Half hitch" is called a "half" hitch, and where the other half is ... :)
   And I doubt that the guy who wrote about it on the "Webster", or those people that are learning things by reading dictionaries  :), know anything more.
   So, I guess that I had not :

ever tied a half hitch around an object with round rope and applied load

  Sometimes knot chatting can be as entertaining as knot tying ! 
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Luca on May 12, 2013, 12:21:37 AM
The trouble is not that the author is calling a Single Hitch a Half Hitch, but that the illustrator has drawn a Single Hitch instead of a Half Hitch!

Starting from the Marline hitch mentioned above by Dan Lehman perhaps it may be useful to clarify the reason why Ashley writes "Half hitch" (topologically equivalent to an Overhand, I follow the"classic" nomenclature ) and then draws a Single hitch (an unknot) around the object: to page 518 of ABOK, the text concerning # 3114 and # 3115 about Half and Marline hitching should be quite enlightening:about"Half hitching"he wrote "Unless put a rope around, this is really single hitching but it is Commonly called half-hitching." So It seems that personally Ashley would have no problem to call "Single" the added hitch(es)(or possibly nipping loops,as pointed out by X1) around the object after the Timber hitch or other knots, but in the end decided to follow a well-established practice;then If he had drawn as you illustrated in # 2, then maybe he would have called Timber + Marline(Overhand equivalent,which is not a practical solution unless one first builds the additional hitch before the Timber).

                                                                                                                       Bye!

Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 12, 2013, 06:05:25 PM
page 518 of ABOK, the text concerning # 3114 and # 3115

Now that is interesting!
Good catch.

As I noted above, ABOK shows Ashley's, er, flexibility
with using "half hitch" in conflicting ways --there is much
inconsistency, and one can find examples to support
either of the definitions he gives for it & "single hitch".

E.g., consider these:

#1474, #1671,#1681, #1725 ("2 b HH'd twice"), #2080,
#2095 (vs. #2094), #1709 (vs. #1708), & #1711.
--enough?!


As for that example of "how the <whatever> is formed",
in tying (to be) taut that is not how the rope-on-rope part
is formed; and of cases where it is --to my surmise
from knots in the wild observations--, interestingly
it seems that the structure comprises a trio of such
workings, the first-formed of which puts the turn
into the structure's SPart, effectively making an eye knot!?
(My surmise is that this happens more by happenstance
than intent, as the use doesn't really call for or depend
on it being a fixed eye vs. a well-secured noose.  Also,
the orientation of the structures I've seen will be of
both granny/clove & reef/reversed-hitches handedness.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Wed on May 12, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
Another problem is that there are many people who use the terminology as they have been taught. You are not likely to be able to convince them all about what term actually means what.

Too many are convinced that their facts are the truth.
Title: Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 13, 2013, 07:09:08 AM
... about what term actually means what.
Too many are convinced that their facts are the truth.

By some lexicographical methods, it's a matter of usage,
*voting*, popularity : the irony can be that those who
follow a dictionary to be "right" will end up following those
who ignore it and yet influence it (e.g., "comprised of"
ought never to occur, but ...)!

I think that this "H-H" case sees a poor definition --or one
arguably not so poor but immediately violated by those who
are seen to make the definition (here, where the (single)
"H-H" is clearly enough defined, but then the cases of
multiples of it confound that definition).  Then, one might
prefer to choose based on how a definition works, overall.


--dl*
====