Author Topic: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!  (Read 35147 times)

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2010, 04:08:34 PM »
So How about this - that the standing part is the part of a line that transfers the load when under tension but is otherwise not included in the knot structure - would that combine all and yet still be acceptable?

SR

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2010, 06:17:38 PM »
Take one piece of cordage.

Make a fixing in one end, say an eye splice, and fix it to the item to be 'controlled' (i.e. to be retained by tension)

Next feed the cordage to the loading / tensioning point and fix it - cleat, hitch, belay plate etc, etc.

Take up the slack to apply load to item under control and lay the slack and unused cordage to one side.

This system has four parts (five if the first part was a knot rather than a splice -  it would have had its own end)

The first part is eye splice
The second part is the cordage under tension
The third part is the hitch
The forth part is the slack

When this construction is part of say rigging, that is going to be in place for some time, it is quite probable that meaningful names can be given to these four parts.  The term Standing Part for the second part might even have some meaning or value.

But if the eye splice is replaced with a rethreaded fig 8 forming a loop through say a climbers harness, then as the climber and their second progress  up the climb, the ends and the slack will repeatedly 'change ends' - then the names of the parts once meaningful in rigging parlance become meaningless in a climbing reference.

Are we heading for 'Trade specific' terminology ? or is this why we are in the mess we find ourselves in now ?

Derek

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2010, 07:03:33 PM »
SR, that seems to be a good enough definition, to me at least and it handles most of the use examples I see in my head, but what about the name itself. I am thinking that perhaps "standing part" is keyed to nautical and is maybe archaic, especially to those who are uninformed.

Then there is the cord use in decorative knotting that the end(s) may never see a load.

Ask someone on the street "What is a standing part?" and I fear the answers you may get. ;-)

I believe there is some generic term that can apply here that could keep us from getting too "trade specific" as Derek has asked.
Though I do think that the trades will continue to call them as they have grown accustomed to.
Old habits die very hard.

Maybe "starting lead or line" for the cord as it goes into the knot. The general populous would get that I am thinking.

SS




DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2010, 07:45:10 PM »
snip...
To start the ball rolling how about trying the following:

Standing end:  The end of the rope that does not have the knot in it (Wikipedia)
Working end:  The part of the line that is moved, to make the shape we need for the knot we want to make (PAB Knots 101)
Standing part:  The inactive part of the line, as opposed to the end and bight (Ashley); that part of a rope around which the end is worked in tying knots and other ropework (Lenfesty)
Working part:  No definition found
Loop:  A shape produced by a curve that bends round and crosses itself (Concise OED); a line crossing itself once (PAB Knots 101)
Bight:  A loop of rope (Concise OED); one part of a line that does not cross itself (PAB Knots 101); any slack part of a rope between the two ends, particularly when curved or looped (Ashley); a bend or loop in a line or cable (Lenfesty)

From this brief sojourn it appears to be somewhat like defining pornography - we know it when we see it?  There are some very confusing definitions out there, so I can see there is a real need for such definitions.

SR


I used to think I knew what the SPart was - at least I knew what part I meant.  Now it seems, others could have taken my use of the term to mean something which is incomprehensible to me.

Derek

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2010, 08:44:36 PM »
We are short on analysis, though Derek has upped the ante on presented
definitions.
(I was sort of waiting to reply with maybe a set of dummy posts each
intended to hold definitions sets, which posts could be occasionally updated
by editing -- and so holding a common in-thread reference point.  Not sure
now what per-msg. character limit is (maybe none?).  Idea would make it
easy, e.g., to say "see p.3 for definitions", constantly referenced, sometimes
updated; rather than a scatter throughout several pp of thread.)

Analysis, I said.  What's intended by (i.e., How is it used? ) "standing end"
and "standing part", for starters, since those have popped out?  Re the former,
I find little use for it -- any examples?  On the latter, its knotting-wise use
has been supposedly rather temporally constrained to be during tying
and pretty much not after.  And yet, looking at some definitions, you must
wonder --thinking Chicken Or Egg?-- how the SPart can be fixed at
a time when the knot is inchoate!?  And distinguishing this somehow
from "the bight" ... ?  I don't see even fuzzy boundaries, just muddle!
And clearing away muddle is the point of this exercise, not stirring it up,
or making new.

I'm who coined "SPart" --at first really 'SPart' (i.e., typography not sense)--,
for typing convenience; but I use it much as I think Derek thinks he understood
it, to denote the part of a knot (of some knots) that delivers 100%
tension to it  (and by this one should immediately e.g. question What of a
mesh knot, then?
).  But my sense from knots books is that the only USE
of the term is at the time of tying a knot, though there seems some
tendency of one so-denoted part to become the 100%-tensioned part.
One could conceive of a "standing part" in some tyings (varying per method)
of a binder, where ultimately the knot in use had no tension on that part.

--dl*
====

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2010, 01:38:21 PM »
Dan, I take your concern about using a forum to produce meaningful results (i.e. conclusions).  A forum is ideal to stimulate far ranging discussion, but it is a lousy medium to then collate any form of distillation or consensus.  That is why I have asked if we could have the 'Tabs' mod added to the forum.  this would allow up to tab a post with its subject, then at any time you can just pull out all those posts that only cover that one subject, making review and conclusions so much easier - I don't know if we will be allowed the function though...

Apart from decoratives and knitting / weaving / crotchet etc., all knots are functional in that their purpose is to take or deliver load, and the application of that loading to the knot structure is often critical.  Not many knots can be loaded indiscriminately.  Identifying (naming) these parts is I believe fundamental in being able to have a functional lexicon.  I take your point that making a knot probably needs some aspects of terminology, but I believe the essential terminology should relate to describing a knot in its final dressed, set and working mode.  Not that a language should be job specific, but at least should be able to be load specific.

Derek

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2010, 07:04:11 PM »
In my experience, people can easily understand that while a knot is being tied, one end of the rope (sometimes called the Working End) goes around/through/over/under/etc. the "Main Part" of the rope.

In other words, a knot generally takes up a small part of a rope, and the rest of the rope is the main part of the rope (whether under tension or not).  To me, that's easier to understand and picture than "Standing Part."

Derek, when we use terminology to discuss knotting, isn't it fair to say that our terminology is frequently used to describe the making of a knot?  I agree with you that we need terminology which relates to a knot in its final form, but that terminology should also relate well to the making of a knot.  We wouldn't want to end up with one set of terminology for the making of a knot, and another set of terminology for the finished product!

Dave

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2010, 07:15:44 PM »
Derek, when we use terminology to discuss knotting, isn't it fair to say that our terminology is frequently used to describe
 the making of a knot?  I agree with you that we need terminology which relates to a knot in its final form,
but that terminology should also relate well to the making of a knot

Why, and how(!) ??
How can you speak of something that is yet unformed, not there (whatever
in-the-completed-knot part you might care to refer to) ?

It is for us in this review & analysis to see how the commonly defined terms
are actually used -- I've gotten the sense that in some cases there isn't much
use, just parroted definitions for the sake of keeping to community standards
and nothing more (like the Sheepshank:  often presented, hardly employed).

--dl*
====

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2010, 07:33:04 PM »
A knot (e.g. a Bowline) which is in the process of being tied shares some common features with the finished product.  They both have a "Standing Part," and they both have a "Working End" (which is not being used for "working" in the finished product, but which is there in the finished product nevertheless, sometimes referred to as a "tail"), and so on.  So my suggestion is that any features which are common to the unfinished and the finished knot should have the same terminology, unless perhaps there is a useful and meaningful reason to have a different term in some situations.

Dave

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2010, 05:19:58 AM »
A knot (e.g. a Bowline) which is in the process of being tied shares some common features with the finished product.
  • They both have a "Standing Part," and
     
  • they both have a "Working End" (which is not being used for "working" in the finished product,
      but which is there in the finished product nevertheless, sometimes referred to as a "tail"), and so on.

The trouble with "standing part" is its vague definition.  Also, have you ever tied
a bowline with an eye splice (i.e., so that the eye is the bowline's collar -- a sort
of cannot-come-undone bowline, which might be made even though the eye splice
is present in order to make a much larger eye for use)?  One does this by sort of
tying the bowline in reverse, going around the eye and tucking out through it,
which btw is like the tying of the so-called "Ring bowline".  In that case, what
one is "working" with is what supposedly you'd see as the "SPart" upon completion,
and there is no "end", rope-wise.

"Working end" has an intuitive, plain interpretation that has effect only during
tying; typically, it is what one has left as the knot's "end" or "tail" (amusing to
find Peter Owen saying to "leave a tail on the working end" in one spot), but
the sense still is of an in-process distinction rather than an of-the-knot one.

I think that an examination of the literature will show a not-so-well ordered
way of talking about tying --often frustrating to do--, and little to no way
to refer to knots parts.  Doing a quick scan for examples just now, I found
many knots presented w/o use of these terms, just relying on graphics.

"bight" and "loop", as I believe I've said, have conflicting definitions.
It might be that "eye" can take over from "loop" some of its duties,
and "bight", well, that remains a problem with the "u-shape" sense
vs. the "middle-of-rope" sense (and nautical history of "slight concavity"
sense).   argh

--dl*
====


squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2010, 05:24:00 AM »
OK Dan,

Now we have your analysis of what it is not - so what is it (bight, standing part, standing end, loop, etc., etc.).  Start with any one and we'll follow suit......

SR

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2010, 07:12:41 PM »
For reference, here are a couple of websites which contain illustrations of the parts of a knot:

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot (scroll down to "Components")

Boy Scouts: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf (see p.2)

In addition, Agent Smith's Bowlines.pdf file was online temporarily, and it contained a picture of various other components of a knot (collar, nub, tail, etc.) which are not shown in the above websites.  I have a copy of the PDF, but I don't want to post the picture without permission.  Agent Smith, can you post a JPG or GIF of the picture on Page 1 of Bowlines.pdf (which shows a Bowline with the various parts labeled)?

These illustrations can provide a common reference as we propose new names.  For example, if I refer to the part labeled "Loop" in the Wikipedia picture and propose a better name for that part, then there's no ambiguity about what I mean by "Loop."

Dave

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2010, 06:41:29 PM »
s: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf


Something wrong either with the turn or the round turn descriptions there ?

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2010, 10:14:10 PM »
As Dan said in the original post, "The difficulties of talking about knots & knotting --even of naming knots & knot parts-- continually frustrate efforts to understand the topic.  Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them, and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with them."

To help step beyond the problems encountered with the existing definitions, The "Lexicon of Knotology" topic contains a list of potential new terms for creating an unambiguous vocabulary (see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0).

Dan's original post generated much agreement that a sensible nomenclature is needed.  Therefore, I wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to evaluate the potential new terms listed in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic, and to help build a useful vocabulary that we can all use in the IGKT forum.  It would be far better to contribute to the development of the new lexicon than to be unhappy with it after-the-fact!

Dave

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2010, 07:37:43 AM »
s: http://www.t1699.com/Training/tenderfootfiles/Tenderfoot4ba.pdf
Something wrong either with the turn or the round turn descriptions there ?

I'd remove your "?" and turn that utterance into a declaration:  yes,
egads, those definitions are poorly crafted (they define "standing <blank!>"
and use something else. (sorry, don't care to chase down the pdf again)
But to your particular question re "(round)turn", well, yes,
I don't see those as winning acceptance broadly or as solving
the problem; they stand apart in being particular/clear about
"turn", but let's see how that definition fits into discussion,
how it can be (well, or not so well) used.   (I think we'll find some
basis for concluding that a "round turn" = 2 turns,
and yet 2 round turns will = 3, not 4 turns -- that sort of problem,
as well as direction-of-ends, degree of wrap (180 vs 360 ...).

Quote
As Dan said in the original post, "...  Here, let's review the extant definitions, such as we find them, and see how we might step beyond the problems encountered with them."

To help step beyond the problems encountered with the existing definitions, The "Lexicon of Knotology" topic contains a list of potential new terms for creating an unambiguous vocabulary (see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.0).

There is eagerness to go on with the postulating but seemingly no
stamina to do the work of seeing how terms are used in the literature.
Above in this thread SS369 asks
Quote
So if you have a cord that has stopper knots at each end and the purpose is to limit the movement of to items (both move), which then is the standing end?

And to that one must reply Why are you talking about "standing end",
where do you get that term?
  And let's see from what usage it comes (if any!).
Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it.
Quote
A wheel that can be turned, though nothing else moves with it, is not a part of the mechanism.

--dl*
====

ps:  "standing  2. At rest; specif., of water, not flowing, stagnant."
from
Webster's New International Dictionary (1909 rev. 1913, G&C Merriam)

!?  Hmmm, 1888 ("Webster's Unabridged") has as #2 the "Not transitory..."
definition, and nearly the on-line cited-for-1913 def. for #3.  (I can do 1934
New Int. 2nd Ed. as well.  :)  )