ABOK - corrections

[nautile]

Thanks  to the two Dan mainly.

Wish that this sort of information will be safely tuck away to be retrieved at will for a loooooong time.

Best regards to all.

[deckhandiana]

Phew, that started a correspondence! Thanks everyone for your help - Jimbo, I'll let you know when I've found my island.

Meanwhile, I'm off to a corner with ABOK and my pencil and all your suggestions.

Deckhandiana.    

[KnotNow!]

Hi Everyone,
 I am coming in late but:  Knot News issue #13 was compiled form "Knotting Matters" 1, 28, 31, 32 & 33.  When I got #13 of Knot News I ripped around cursing at trees and kicking rock.  Many of the eratta are in error!  I revised my copy of ABOK and I revised issue #13.  Then came Knot News # 15 which revised some of the errors in the eratta of #13 and even corrected some, but then made new errors, so # 15 needs an adendum.
 I started collecting ABOK's.  Things got worse.  There is an UK version.  I am trying to get one on Ebay.. Just got outbid.
 Tomorrow I'll print out this whole thread, over the next weeks I'll go through it line by line.  But you know?..  I make mistakes too.   So after I am through reading all the comments and pontifications... will I be further ahead?  Maybe we need to take it (that is to say the ABOK)  one by one.  After all there are only 3854 (first edition) numbers to deal with... 10 per day and we could be done in a year.  I just looked at 1 to 10... I am pretty happy.  Any naysayers?
 Splended things have come of working with ABOKas it is.  I published a variation of #788 due to a misunderstanding on my part.  That is my misunderstaning lead me to a useful variation.
 I am sure that everyone who tried to revise ABOK was really sincere and I know that the talent was there and it got into print...... but just look at the eratta of the eratta.  There never should have been a revised edition... simply an adendum of opinion... a list of possible eratta.  Just glancing at my anotated copy of Knot News #13 I see 8 rather robust margin notes.  That was before I got too upset to continue.   I even have margin notes on issue # 14!  Of course, as you all know.. when I am wrong I am always wrong at the top of  my lungs.  If you look at #788 the A and B diagrams don't match. I resolved this problem, to my satisfaction, and ended up with a wonderful lanyard knot where the buried ends disappear.. first published in Knot News # 27.  ABOK errors are just a part of your learning process.  When you work with an aparent ABOK error and solve it (not that it should not have ever been there) you have grown and advanced your skill.  ABOK is not perfect.  My not too humble advice is: Be very careful when you choose to find fault.  Therefore you will not find a PABPRES list of eratta.  

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Therefore you will not find a PABPRES list of eratta.  

Yes, but would you trade a "last edition" for Deckhandiana's First Edition, thereby saving him/her the ignominy of defacing ABoOk?

IMNERHO, some of the errata are just silly, but I'm grateful for some others.  A lot are in my 3 month-old last edition already, but some aren't and some can't be.  I like to think of the so-called "errors" as little mini-exams in AKU (Ashley's Knotting University).  Fail them at your own peril, as your survivors may knot understand...

[deckhandiana]

No, no - you can always write comments in books. It make them so much more personal (ever read 84 Charing Cross Road?).  If I do in my 1st ed. ABOK though, I promise to use pencil.

Deckhandiana (female, actually!)

[Knotman]

PABPRES raises an interesting point about opinion when it comes to errors.  In my mind #2611 is clearly wrong; not in the tying but in the untying.  However, what Ashley says and proposes is correct.  I just believe that if Ashley knew the far better solution to this he wouldn't have published what he did.  

I wouldn't propose changing anything Ashley wrote in this case, and probably wouldn't even add in the better solution; I only raise it out of interest.

[KnotNow!]

Hello Knotman... O.K.  I don't know the better way.. even though it is sort of off the thread... tell us, Please.  I am not very good with puzzles so always assumed 2611 was all there is.

[Knotman]

Look at the second picture of #2611 (and perhaps do this on a coat at the same time).  If the eraser end of the pencil is pushed back through the button hole you find that the string tightens before the pencil is pulled out.  It seems the string is not long enough; and this is the case. However instead of trying to pull the pencil out of the buttonhole push a little more of the buttonhole flap through the loop of string.  In this way the buttonhole will pass off the end of the pencil.

If you make up a pencil or stick with a hole in the end and tie a loop of string through it you'll find it easier to work with.  In fact its so easy to work, you can come up besides someone and grab the buttonhole through the loop of string and put the hole thing on before they see how you do it.  

[knudeNoggin]

If you look at #788 the A and B diagrams don't match.

Or they do, by rotating A about a quarter turn clockwise.

ABOK is not perfect.  My not too humble advice is: Be very careful when you choose to find fault.  Therefore you will not find a PABPRES list of eratta.

May I suggest that this is a non sequitur?  Or are you claiming that you cannot
be careful?  Actually, what one may take from this airing of critique at some prior
Errata is the benefit of a forum such as this.  In a way, the care that should be
exercised in making such critiques (and perhaps they are presented first as mere
questions of understanding) can result from community thought.  Some of those
supposed errors previously cited really smack of a lack of attention/reflection,
and of too few people taking any care in them.

So put forth your questions concerning ABOK and evaluate the responses.
(I think it good that in the review of others' Errata there are "concur" notes,
to add a vote, one might say, to that opinion.  And to those without any comment,
I presume there was no review.)

*knudeNoggin*

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

And to those without any comment, I presume there was no review.

(Begging your pardon for using this sentence as a launching point...)

An equally likely presumption would be that the rest of us are considerably slower at converting the hordes of textual errata (both real and alleged) into some semblance of useful information, without which any comment would be irrelevant at best.

But just to illustrate that some of us are actually trying, let me "comment" on my "review" of the "original" errata graciously provided by knot_tyer:

The item for p190, IMNERHO, is merely a derisive comment about Ashley's introductory comment about "the next two pages" of his (Ashley's, not the commenter's) book.  The commenter apparently didn't catch the "The next two pages are..." part of the paragraph, and chose instead to point out two of many examples which would fit the "with a bight, on the bight" phrase, but are not on "The next two pages".

To my tired old eye, that just looks silly.  In other words, ol' Cliff is correct about "the next two pages" (190 & 191), although the commenter is correct that not all knots that can be tied "with a bight, on the bight" are (re-) presented on 190 & 191.

Now I ask you all, is that "erratum" or "mudslinging"?  And if that's an error, what about the error (to my eye) of multiply repeating knots, giving references (forward and backward) in some cases but not others?  Those of you looking to revise & extend the ABOK can find many "available" numbers just by filtering out the repeats!

As I was working on another post regarding loops, using the information on those very pages, that particular comment was perplexing at first.  I looked it up to make sure I didn't compound a known error, only to find such trivial BS posing as a "correction".

I find many of these, comments of the nature of "In My Opinion, Ashley should've said ______" listed as "errata".  This makes the filtration process quite difficult.

Needless to say, I will take whatever effort is required to separate the wheat from the chaff, both in ol' Cliff's tome and in the addenda provided by others, regardless of the source.  IOW, "Love Ya, Mean It", but I'm not trusting my hide to anyone's opinion!!

The kink in the cord is the main thing.  Failing to appreciate that yields not an "errata", but an "obituary".

Looking over this thread and knot_tyer's scan brings up a Big Question to me, to wit:

Is there any compendium of errata or an index or any sort of precis which we might use to focus our studies on the actual ABOK errors, thereby saving the entangling differences of opinion for "later" - say, once we've mastered every nuance of every single knot & therefore have an opinion worth sharing?

Perhaps someone would care to take the whole list & categorize it into "actual errors" and "differences of opinion", as a favor to us newbies.  

Yes, this is just my opinion!!

(Flame OFF...)

[Dan_Lehman]

[MSG. 1 of 2]

(Begging your pardon for using this sentence as a launching point...)

An equally likely presumption would be that the rest of us ...

I read the "those" as referring to the subject errata:  i.e., in my review of others'
errata, there are some citations I "concur" in and others for which I make no
comment one way or t'other--and for "those" one might guess that I've simply
not been interested or w/time adequate to review.  In that case, a safe guess.
(It dawned on me a little slowly that giving "concur" would be beneficial, so as
to add one more reviewer's weight to the citation.)

The item for p190, IMNERHO, ...

which is--for quick reference:

"p.190: Reference in first prg. to 'the next two pp' excludes 1035 & 1038 of the
preceding page, which can be tied in the bight."  Yes, and at first I thought that
Ashley intended "with the bight" to mean "using a bight as a unit in tying the knot";
but the tying of e.g. #1048 deviates from this, in working with various bights
and not as units in hand.  But please note that ALL of the preceding 11(!) knots
--viz., #1045 back through 1034--are TIB.  (How could this be overlooked, esp. for
e.g.  1040 & 1043?!)

... is merely a derisive comment about Ashley's introductory comment about "the next two pages" of [ABOK].  The commenter apparently didn't catch the "The next two pages are..." part of the paragraph, and chose instead to point out two of many examples which would fit the "with a bight, on the bight" phrase, but are not on "The next two pages".

To my tired old eye, that just looks silly.  In other words, ol' Cliff is correct about "the next two pages" (190 & 191), although the commenter is correct that not all knots that can be tied "with a bight, on the bight" are (re-) presented on 190 & 191.

[My italics & emphasis.]
I take your point, but on the other hand, what an odd thing to say at THIS point
(i.e., for Ashley to write, here), when the statement in fact could say "THREE" and
be put back one page (and then some)?

More importantly, Ashley is WRONG, by his definition of "WITH the bight"--though,
alas, he doesn't treat this definition prominently enough to put it where one can readily
locate it (in Glossary, in Index, or even in early front matter of generalities).
NB:  Ashley has made deliberate emphasis (with italics) of these "bight" exresssions here!
Firstly, HIS definition of "bight" conflicts with his (and generally, now) use of that
term--cf. #30-2 & 40.  Except for the general "without ends" sense, his precise
definitions are not used.
As for with the bight, confer #1074 vs. 1080:  the implied special sense
(and why have "with"/"in"/"upon"/"on" distinguish nothing?) of this expression
is what I suggested in my comment; it is that of using a folded/"paired"/"doubled"
part of rope in tying (not merely of not using the ends).
The Overhand & Fig.8 loopknots are paradigms of "with the bight" tying;
whereas the rest of what follows are not.  To put it in set terms, what is "with..." is
a proper subset of what is "in"; I'm resigning to seeing "on"/"upon" as mere
synonyms of "in".

Now I ask you all, is that "erratum" or "mudslinging"?

--a gratuitous question.  One can simply evaluate the citations for accuracy & value.
(But the suggestion of "mudslinging" implies some elevation of Ashley to devine status,
and keeping mum when the king IS naked helps whom?)

[ARGH, GOTTA CHOP INTO 2 MSG.S BECAUSE OF MSG.-LENGTH LIMIT]

[Dan_Lehman]

[MSG. 2 of 2]

And if that's an error, what about the error (to my eye) of multiply repeating knots, giving references (forward and backward) in some cases but not others?  Those of you looking to revise & extend the ABOK can find many "available" numbers just by filtering out the repeats!

I've elsewhere chided folks who tout blindly that the book contains "nearly 4,000
knots", noting both repetitions and things unlikely to be considered "knots".
Cross references are helpful, esp. where added information is available (and maybe
it's a different illlustation that proves the reward).  These can be captured mostly
in the Index, but might be useful in the text(s) as well.

I find many of these, comments of the nature of "In My Opinion, Ashley should've said ______" listed as "errata".  This makes the filtration process quite difficult.

Specific questions can get specific answers; the citations are presented openly to
an open forum, in part with the hope that Other Eyes can see any flaws in them,
and the flimsy bits trimmed away.  Many of us resort to ABOK as a sort
of standard, and it's to our collective benefit to improve our understanding of it.

Is there any compendium of errata or an index or any sort of precis which we might use to focus our studies on the actual ABOK errors, thereby saving the entangling differences of opinion for "later" - say, once we've mastered every nuance of every single knot & therefore have an opinion worth sharing?

It surprises me--am I alone in this?--that there was no saved list of the errata that
the IGKT gave to Ashley's publisher for revision:  I'd think that this was regarded
(and still would be) as a major act of the Guild which would be preserved for posterity
and reference!?  In any case, what you see before you now is a 2nd and seemingly more
open venture at that.  Whether a publisher acts on it, or whether the IGKT might
itself publish such an Errata, is a Next Step question for the future.  In the meantime,
I'd think many of the regular users of the book would have some notes to toss into
the pot for consideration,
as I have done--why have all those bits of attention lost to others?

Perhaps someone would care to take the whole list & categorize it into "actual errors" and "differences of opinion"

Yeah, some sort of split presentation such as this makes sense.
For there are things that can be said that stray more into addenda than properly
in errata, though the former easily fills another few volumes!

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Jimbo wrote, privately, that one of my citations gave the wrong page #;
I've edited my post (p.30 not "130" for #143).  This is an obvious and simple
mistake, easily corrected (done!).  But, Jimbo, why not say it *out loud*?  Anyway,
I will, here.  scientific process, peer review, ... --good things.

Jimbo also makes what I find a provocative assertion:

And FYI, my "last edition", ISBN 0385040253, whose date of publication is somehow omitted from the Title Page (another "errata"??) already has most of the corrections.  I bought it 2005-07-05.

(With my conversion of Amer. date form into ISO/worldwide one.)

Jimbo (and others w/new edition), it would be best to have a per-citation list of whether
the new edition reflects the citation (is corrected or adjusted).  Frankly, as many of
the citation entail image adjustments, I find this hard to believe!?

Nevertheless, a full list as per the 1st or pre-IGKT/-corrections edition is beneficial
to those of us who own such, and will prefer to slip in a print-out of some errata
vs. buying a new one.  Actually, I think many folks will care to know what the errata
are/were, regardless of the particular edition held.

Thanks,
--dl*
====

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

[MSG. 1 of 2]what an odd thing to say at THIS point (i.e., for Ashley to write, here), when the statement in fact could say "THREE" and be put back one page (and then some)?

Nay, I say to thee!  Nay!

Go ye hither to the hallowed lines of ABOK, and turn ye to the Chapter & Verse of ABOK #1034.  Read ye the Firste Sentence therein inscribed.

CWA was obviously not as "mechanical" as some of us (like me) would prefer.  His prose is interleaved at a higher (lower order of fundamentality) level than the mere enumeration some of us (me) prefer.

Sorry about the affected style, but I'm trying to point out why it struck me as silly.

Back to reading your post.  TTFN...

Jimbo

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Firstly, HIS definition of "bight" conflicts with his (and generally, now) use of that term--cf. #30-2 & 40.  Except for the general "without ends" sense, his precise definitions are not used.

With a kindly nod to Brian, here's Yet Another Newbie Question:

What happened to Ashley's terminology??

As you point out, e.g., what he calls a "turn" is now commonly called a "loop".  This makes it hard to describe a "loop knot" textually, and that's just the one obvious example a newbie like me can see.

I've stuck a bookmark there (one of my napkin kites) so I can return, grateful to you for showing me, to that page; as soon as I finish reading...

J