The Lexicon of Knotology

[DerekSmith]

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

[sharky]

(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?

[DerekSmith]

(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

[alpineer]

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

  

[alpineer]

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
 
 
     

[squarerigger]

Alpineer,

Aye, Eye - Sounds good to me!

SR

[DaveRoot]

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.  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.

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

Dave

[Deacon]

'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.

[Dan_Lehman]

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*
====

[Deacon]

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......

[Dan_Lehman]

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.

 

[DerekSmith]

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