Author Topic: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!  (Read 35203 times)

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2010, 03:32:58 PM »
Ahhh a terrific example of how confusing the accepted nomenclature is. I used "standing end" as opposed to "standing part" in my question. And is that correct even?

Citing the definition of the word "standing" in your post just seems to be a distraction as I think that most English speaking members have a fair idea of the definition of this word.

But back to the maybe poor example of mine. If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term "Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.

Somehow, someway the application of the KISS principle needs to be employed here.
Even using something as simple as main part is a better descriptor.

Wrap is better than round turn in my opinion also. Very little confusion I believe.

Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it

Explain please.

SS

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2010, 04:29:43 PM »
But back to the maybe poor example of mine. If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term "Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.

Somehow, someway the application of the KISS principle needs to be employed here.
Even using something as simple as main part is a better descriptor.

We're thinking along the same lines, because I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15).  Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.

Dave

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2010, 05:23:47 PM »
Citing the definition of the word "standing" in your post just seems to be a distraction ...

It was a slight correction to the on-line source, as a matter of interest; I happen
to have that dictionary (1913) --and have nearly completed mending its fragile
pages' tears-- as well as an 1888 predecessor (there is one major edition between),
and the two successors (of which the now-current-standard "3rd New Int." is way
long in the tooth by historical durations -- presumably a consequence of use of
the Net & on-line access.  (It was pub'd 1963, so stands approaches a half century
vs. rough quarter-century durations of some prior editions.)

Quote
If we have a case where a cord (please accept the use of this term for now) that has a knot
 on each end of its length, regardless of the intended use or even if it is decorative, then the term
 "Standing >whatever" does seem pretty useless, archaic, weird, and distracting.
...
Don't point to some place in a list of definitions; find some use of it
Explain please.

The explanation is simple:  please find USES --you know, occurrences in literature--
of this term you question!  Get out your favorite knots books and present how the
term is used ("Meaning is use", a paraphrase of Wittgenstein, whom I quoted
w/o citation (Phil.Investigations #271) )

Consider --and this is my point to objecting to the scouts text-- this from the
Tenderfoots document cited by Derek:

Quote
Standing end:   The rest of the rope excluding the running end
Bight:    A bend or U-shape in a rope
Loop:    Formed by crossing the RUNNING END over the STANDING
                                    part, forming a ring or circle in the rope
Turn:    The placing of a loop around a object with the RUNNING END
                                    continuing in a direction opposite to the STANDING part
Round turn:   A modified TURN, but with the RUNNING END leaving the
                                    circle in the same direction as the STANDING part

Now, even in these definitions they cannot use their own defined term!
And they botch[**] the indication of what the defined term is (i.e., "standing" alone
is the capitalized term ('STANDING' presumably indicating it being a defined term),
"part" misses this fanfare, and "end" was completely forgotten.
But this isn't fully the use I'm looking for:  that will come in the text discussing
knots (or will be absent, leaving the term(s) a wheel moved w/o effect).
** [Perhaps 'part' vice expected/defined 'END' indicates some later editing,
      to bring the terms into agreement with some other texts?]

Quote
I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15).
Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.

And, Dave, this begs the same question/response:  please find the uses of SPart in
the literature and try substituting this (novel) term -- I think the point will be
obvious.
E.g., from Knight's Modern Seamanship, 16th ed.

Quote
Overhand Knot:  ... is formed by passing the end of the line over the standing part.

Running Bowline:  ... It is made by tying a bowline around the standing part.

Two Half Hitches:  ... When tying, pass the end around the standing part twice ...

Blackwall Hitch:  ... To tie, make a loop with the end under the standing part.

   versus

Clove Hitch:  ...  To make the hitch more secure, after tying it, add a half hitch around the standing part.

Fisherman's Bend:  ... The end should be seized to the standing part.

To my thinking, the first few definitions belie your "entry point" connotations
--there isn't at the logical time any thing to refer to as having that--,
and the latter couple show what you have in mind, there being a completed
knot to which one might see such a part.  I suppose I should post my reaction
to those listed terms of the other thread IN that other thread, but have resisted
as I'd really like to see the (drudgery) work done on dredging up actual uses
of knotting terms (as well as text that might be longwindedly showing the
lack of a good term or few!), so we have a better feel for problems & need.
Right now, people are shooting without looking.


--dl*
====


Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2010, 05:40:55 PM »
A couple of thoughts. First "bight" - also used to describe a geograghical feature (eg in UK shipping weather forecasts one sea area is "German Bight") ie a bay which is open to the sea. In knotting it means much the same whereas to me a loop is by definition closed. I think there is an important point here - it's not just about precise definition but precise usage. If you refer to a closed loop as a bight then (assuming bight is defined as here) then that is incorrect; why? Because the Lexicon says it is! Trying to find some sort of alternative only shifts the problem it doesn't get rid of it.

Second thought re standing part etc. If I am drawing a knot (I rarely do as I'm hopeless at it) I label the parts - something I first saw in "Knots, Splices and Fancy Work" - rather than use a term which is imprecise as the audience may think I am talking about something else.  I can understand the need to standardise definitions but that does not mean inventing new words - merely defining precisely the meaning of the ones we have and the problem seems to be that different people understand different meanings of the same word - very common between UK English and US English for example. At the end of the day it matters not at all what you call something as long as you have a diagram or whatever to make the meaning clear - standardisation in other words. The bit of rope which is called the standing part is .....? If we cannot actually agree what it is then no amount of terminology will make any difference. I suggest the lexicon tries to engender a common understanding of the language and the discipline to use it not start a new one unless there simply is not a word or phrase available. How old a term is is neither here nor there.

Barry

PS Latest post from Dan appeared whilst I was typing this - I don't think we disagree

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2010, 07:54:07 PM »
Quote
I used a similar example in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1636.15).
Scroll down and see the reasoning for my suggestion of Entry_Part.

And, Dave, this begs the same question/response:  please find the uses of SPart in the literature and try substituting this (novel) term -- I think the point will be obvious. E.g., from Knight's Modern Seamanship, 16th ed.

Quote
Overhand Knot:  ... is formed by passing the end of the line over the standing part.

Running Bowline:  ... It is made by tying a bowline around the standing part.

Two Half Hitches:  ... When tying, pass the end around the standing part twice ...

Blackwall Hitch:  ... To tie, make a loop with the end under the standing part.

   versus

Clove Hitch:  ...  To make the hitch more secure, after tying it, add a half hitch around the standing part.

Fisherman's Bend:  ... The end should be seized to the standing part.

To my thinking, the first few definitions belie your "entry point" connotations --there isn't at the logical time any thing to refer to as having that--, and the latter couple show what you have in mind, there being a completed knot to which one might see such a part.

Granted that Entry_Part might not be the best term, but notice that all of your examples were written from the perspective of traditional terminology.  If a new lexicon is created which includes Entry_Part, then the examples above would simply be written in a way which uses Entry_Part appropriately.  For example, Entry_Part could be defined something like this: "The part of the cordage which enters into the finished knot from one side ["side" being defined somewhere], OR which enters into the area where a new knot will be tied."  I've scoured my brain (and the Internet) for a term which will address your examples and also address the case in which we've already tied several consecutive Overhand Knots before beginning a new knot (similar to SS's example above), and nothing seems to be a 100% fit.  Suggestions are welcome and desired!


I suppose I should post my reaction to those listed terms of the other thread IN that other thread, but have resisted as I'd really like to see the (drudgery) work done on dredging up actual uses of knotting terms (as well as text that might be longwindedly showing the lack of a good term or few!), so we have a better feel for problems & need. Right now, people are shooting without looking.

I don't have ready access to much printed material that might be helpful, but in this topic and in the "Lexicon of Knotology" topic I've made at least 4 posts concerning the online research that I've been doing to find good terms and descriptions which are already in use.  As you have pointed out, the terms and definitions out there are quite muddled!  This confusion of terms and definitions led to the idea of creating a useful lexicon, which might contain some traditional terms and might contain some new terms.  Consider the end of the cord which is manipulated while tying a knot...what term should we incorporate into the new lexicon?  Should we keep "Working End"?  Should we keep "Running End"?  Should we keep "Bitter End"?  If any terms are unclear or ambiguous or unsatisfactory for some reason, then this is our opportunity to clean up the vocabulary by choosing a better and more descriptive term.

Dave


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2010, 05:34:49 AM »
A couple of thoughts. First "bight" - also used to describe a geograghical feature (eg in UK shipping weather forecasts one sea area is "German Bight") ie a bay which is open to the sea. In knotting it means much the same whereas to me a loop is by definition closed ...

I cannot find "bight" used  much in geographical senses,
but I'm not equipped for such a precise search -- quick Google
doesn't show much, except in some extant names of places.
(I have a sense that perhaps it once mattered in terms of then
capable sailing vessels ("can sail out of in one tack" or some such
constraint), and with modern ships is not relevant?)

In any case, I find the given condition of whether it's "closed"
to really be beside the point:  that a "loop" is essentially round
and a "bight" elongated.  ("loop" is overloaded/general such
that it covers all sorts of meanings.)  And, after all, the crossing
of legs is something dependent upon a perspective -- change that
by 90 degrees and the legs are merely adjacent.  The 1913 & '34
Webster's include the bends of elbow & horse's knees, and that
of a river, which goes much towards bending and without
regard for openness.  And neither of these other cases
much resembles the main need & object in knotting, which is
a quite elongated fold of cordage.

The sense in knotting of merely "without ends", got somewhat
indirectly by some "middle of the rope" or "slack part of the
standing part" (!?), I am happy to lose to some other term.

As for a bight being "open", I have some terms in mind where
a bight is a general term (lacking better) to then constrained
cases of "open" & "closed", where the latter equals an "eye"
and where both legs are tensioned, and the former indicates
the case such as in a Sheet Bend (new sense) where only one
leg is tensioned.  "Bight Hitches" I see as a sub-class of knots
(to which I donate the Sheet Bend & Becket Hitch, resp. open
& closed bights), quite useful.

 - - - - - -

As for "standing part", we need to look at how the term has
been used (and WHEN it has been -- or is it just often defined
but largely ignored), and see what works.  We do NOT need
to find a replacement that fits everywhere "S.P." once occurred,
and that somehow makes those different uses sensible.  But we
need to understand what was trying to be conveyed.  (My sense
is that it really makes no sense to try to point to a supposed
part of plain rope and identify a "standing part" -- but might
make sense in the course of a tying method to so identify
some part of the cordage thus engaged. )

Identifying parts of a knot can be completely distinct from tying.

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 07:34:10 AM by Dan_Lehman »

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2010, 04:39:34 PM »
..."bight" and "loop", as I believe I've said, have conflicting definitions.
It might be that "eye" can take over from "loop" some of its duties,
and "bight", well, that remains a problem with the "u-shape" sense
vs. the "middle-of-rope" sense (and nautical history of "slight concavity"
sense).   argh  dl

Coming from an outsider's perspective (a useful perspective, I would argue, when there are so many experts here) I'd agree there is a difference, and a useful one, between "eye" and "loop": An eye is smaller than a loop.

That last statement is arguably worthless; what do I (or anyone else) mean by small?

It's a question of context.  An eye on a steel cable used in a ship-yard would typically be just the right size to fit snugly on a hook used for lifting a container.  A loop in that same context might fit around the container.  A fisherman's eye will fit snugly around a tiny fishing hook; a loop might fit around the fish.  It's not difficult to come up with similar examples.

In the above paragraph I happen to have twice mentioned "hook".  Perhaps a better, more general suggestion might be that an eye tied in a particular piece of cord would be big enough for one strand of that cord to pass through it - maybe two strands at a pinch.  A loop, in contrast, is designed/destined for something other than, much bigger than, a hole for a strand or two of cord.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 04:57:43 PM by SpitfireTriple »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2010, 08:51:09 PM »
... a difference, and a useful one, between "eye" and "loop": An eye is smaller than a loop.

That last statement is arguably worthless ...

Worthless?  It might show some connotation we should be aware
of, but having relative size be a discriminating factor I think is
unwanted, problematic.  Perhaps the origin of "eye" used in such
contexts implies a smallness relative to some whole, but there is
enough separation of the term from a sense of size to purely the
nature of enclosure in our domain of interest to let us define it
without regard to the size issue.  There are e.g. "hard" & "soft"
eyes -- the former being splices around thimbles.  "Eye" splices
are of lengths suitable for use and need to be in a certain
at-least-this-big relation to their intended enclosed objects;
e.g., the Cordage Institute gives the recommendation of a
minimum of 3- and preferably 5-to-1 ratio of eye size to object
diameter (to ameliorate tearing forces in the eye).

--dl*
====

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2010, 09:56:54 PM »
I didn't know that about a standard for eye size in an eye splice.   I'd never thought about it, but it does make sense to make an eye splice several times bigger than the cord diameter.  I dimly remember studying tension in catenary curves etc, and whilst I'm not sure I could mathematically prove it these days, I accept that too small an eye would create unnecessarily high tension.

I was thinking though about creating eyes, temporary or otherwise, when tying knots rather than when creating eye splices.  In a different thread I think I used the words "small loop" when describing how to tie a Versa-Vice Loop;  I could perhaps have more concisely and precisely used just one word, "eye".  I would concede there is probably no dictionary definition insisting that an eye is smaller than a loop.  But I disagree that we should turn our backs on size as a discriminating factor.   I think size could well be a useful thing in which to draw a distinction.  Unless there is some other, more useful (while still plausible) shade of difference that we could exploit?

Sticking for the moment with "eye" denoting a small loop, perhaps the small twisted loop in the Gleipnir/~ binding could be described as an eye.  By the way Dan, I like your "TurNip" suggestion for that knot.  I didn't see anyone suggest "Twist" - which seems appropriate to me.  How about "TurNip Twist"!?  But we'd need to ask Gleipnir.

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2010, 10:35:56 PM »
Here are some thoughts from the Nodeology wiki:

-- A .Ring is the oval-shaped section of .Cord which remains after certain .Knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines).  .Rings are useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with a carabiner, and so on.  Traditionally referred to as a Loop.  "Loop" has conflicting meanings in traditional terminology, so it's not a clear and unambiguous term to use.  "Eye" is another possibility, but "eye" suggests or implies smallness.  For example, go to any hardware store and look at their eye bolts...virtually all of them are relatively small (usually under 3").  Ostrich eyes are generally 2" in diameter and are the largest eyes among land animals, and so on.  "Eye" suggests smallness, which to me makes it less suitable than "ring" because rings can be found in all sizes from very small to very large (e.g. wedding rings to gymnastics rings to circus rings to Saturn's rings).  In addition, "ring" is an ideal fit with "ring-loading," which is a traditional term that seems sensible and unambiguous enough to keep in the new lexicon.

-- An .Eye is a permanent .Ring at the end of a .Cord which is usually made by .Splicing the end of the .Cord back to the .Cord itself (similar to an eye bolt).


For more proposed definitions and naming conventions, see http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms

Dave


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2010, 07:01:40 AM »
I didn't know that about a standard for eye size in an eye splice.   ... it does make sense to make
an eye splice several times bigger than the cord diameter.

No, bigger than the OBJECT diameter -- you know, the pile over which
the dockline eye will be placed.  A foot-diameter pile wants a 4-foot-long eye.

Quote
... perhaps the small twisted loop in the Gleipnir/~ binding could be described as an eye.
  By the way Dan, I like your "TurNip" suggestion for that knot.  I didn't see anyone suggest "Twist"
 - which seems appropriate to me.  How about "TurNip Twist"!?  But we'd need to ask Gleipnir.

An eye is an opening of the (finished) structure.  We are
looking to avoid overloading "loop" with "loop knot" and want
to match "eye splice" with "eye knot".  The Gleipnir structure
is a turn, or that-plus --insofar as the resolution of dealing with
that problematic term goes (180-360deg?)--, that nips, ergo,
"turNip".   ;)  A twist will have twisted parts adjacent,
touching, as in the Bimini Twist; in the turNip, they might not
even be touching (upon loading), opening a bit into a spiral.

Quote
but "eye suggests...smallness. For example, go to any hardware store and look at their
 eye bolts...virtually all of them are relatively small (usually under 3").

I could go look in a store at Fruit Loops, too, if I was lacking for
entertainment.  Really, pick your hardware store appropriately and
you can find the eyes I see regularly in ground anchors for utility
pole guy lines of galvanized cable.  But let's stick to "eye splice"
in this thinking and not get carried away.

And as for "Ring", consider that we have "ring hitches" and don't
need to muck about with "ring" beyond generalizing it for the
purpose of (sub)classifying hitches.  (I see "ring", "spar", and "pile"
as relative-sized hitches -- and one thin rope's spar will be some
thicker rope's ring.)  A Timber hitch e.g. is not a ring hitch
-- for there isn't room on a ring for the necessary dogging of the
tail in a Timber hitch ; similarly, an Ossel h. isn't a spar or pile
hitch, for it requires the proximity of the hitched object for friction
against the tail for security.  (Hmmm, discriminating spar/pile
might be more than I'm up for at this <yawn> hour; hmmm, I am now
wondering about changing the criterion from the presumed size
to availability of object end -- "pile hitch" being one requiring the
ability to cast a bight over the object's end.  -- but it would be best to
have a separate adjective to qualify each of the size-determined types
("open pile", "closed ring", "closed pile"...) )

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 07:22:47 AM by Dan_Lehman »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4075
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2010, 06:20:23 PM »
Here are some thoughts from the Nodeology wiki:

-- A .Ring is the oval-shaped section of .Cord which remains after certain .Knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines).  .Rings are useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with a carabiner, and so on.  Traditionally referred to as a Loop.
...
-- An .Eye is a permanent .Ring at the end of a .Cord which is usually made by .Splicing the end of the .Cord back to the .Cord itself (similar to an eye bolt).

I really don't like this:  IMO, a "ring" connotes surrounding/enclosure and
a full circle of equal essence; whereas an "eye" differs in providing mainly
two equal legs of resistance for pulling on ONE thing.  E.g., a ring might
enclose and so bind two things trying to move in contrary directions, and
the material of the ring is independent; whereas the eye is itself an
active member in resistance to the ONE thing enclosed.

Thus, ring-loading of an eye is an exceptional not defining condition!
These concepts should be reinforced in developed terminology,
not compromised.  (And this might guide us to "ring sling" vs. "eye sling"
--or "eye-2-eye", which sense is more perspicuous--  as terms, which seem
useful (and help resolve that issue re "sling").)

  - - - - - - - - - -

Another realm of knotting nomenclature can arise from speaking of
certain actions performed on knots in terms of loading.  E.g.,
an eyeknot can be (some mused terms following...)
a) ring-loaded if pulled so that knot functions qua bend ;
b) through-loaded if pulled on the SPart & its eyeleg only;
c) bend-loaded if pulled on the SPart & opposite leg only;
d) reversed if ... what:  load end vs. SPart, or load end-side
eyeleg qua SPart and now fuse former SPart to former end?
... and so on.
Eye knots would have various such operations not available
with other types of knot, and vice versa.  (I'd say that the "reverse"
of a bend is loading ends vice SParts.)  Now, this gets potentially
confusing as one named knots Reverse might BE some other named
knot, and so on.

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 04:56:14 PM by Dan_Lehman »

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2010, 07:03:38 PM »
In this topic and in the 'Lexicon of Knotology' topic there seems to be unanimous agreement that our knotting vocabulary can stand being improved.

In the 'Lexicon of Knotology' topic I tried to get some momentum going by presenting a list of terms for discussion and voting, but that didn't generate much response.  Derek felt that this type of discussion would work better in a different format, so he created the Nodeology wiki.  That generated even less response.

The good news is that we've had one success in all of these discussions because there's a clear consensus in favor of the term "eye."  So let's start with this one success and see if it generates any momentum.

Here's a first pass at a definition for "eye":

"An eye is the elliptical section of cord which is created when certain knots are tied (e.g. Bowlines).  Traditionally referred to as a loop."


If we can nail down a decent definition of "eye," then we can move on to another term, then another, etc., and gradually build up a vocabulary which we can all be comfortable using.  For now let's build on our one success and work on one thing at a time to avoid confusion. 

How can we improve the above definition of "eye"?

Dave


wood

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2010, 07:19:08 PM »
I'll bight.

I tend to think of an "eye" as the space created by a splice. I think of a "loop" as a space created by a bend or knot.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Knotting Nomenclature -- How/What are we talking about?!
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2010, 08:46:59 PM »
To me the eye is the space and the loop is the cord which surrounds it. Right or wrong it's a useful distinction aqnd doesn't matter how the loop/eye was formed as long as it was closed (differentiating loop from from bight but eye applies to both in that it is a space).

Barry