Scratchpad for resolving naming issues

[DaveRoot]

As we (or anyone else) attempt to create a comprehensive or "standard" or "official" list of knots, inevitably it will become necessary to address naming collisions and other naming issues.

This thread can be used as a scratchpad for these discussions, as Derek suggested in the "Knot Index" topic.

Dave

[DaveRoot]

Doing a Google on "Double Bowline" yields two different knots at various websites:

Knot #1 (ABOK #1013):


Knot #2:



The prefix "Double" is generally used for knots which have two loops, but knot #1 (above) and the Double Dragon (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm#aaa) are examples of single-loop knots which use the word "Double."

I have occasionally seen knot #1 (above) referred to as the Double-Knotted Bowline or the Round Turn Bowline, which are preferable to Double Bowline (IMHO) because they are a little more descriptive.

Knot #2 would appear to be more worthy of the Double Bowline name since it is a Bowline which is formed in a doubled rope, and it results in two loops.  However, it is really the same knot as the Triple Bowline where the 3 loops are sized differently (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_TripleLoops.htm#TripleBowline).


So.....  If there is ever going to be an official or standard list of knots which we can all refer to for consistency, here are some questions:

A. How should we refer to knot #1 (above) as our standard name?  Double Bowline seems too ambigious.  Double-Knotted Bowline is better, but the Water Bowline (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#WaterBowline) can also be described as a "double-knotted" Bowline.  Round Turn Bowline seems most accurate.

B. Is knot #2 a Triple Bowline, or should it stand on its own as a separate knot?  If it should be cataloged as a separate knot, then should it be called the Double Bowline or should it be given some other name?


I think we've all seen that naming knots can a head-spinning, brain-cramping exercise, but we've got to call these puppies something!  

Dave

[roo]

The first picture is a Double Bowline.  The second picture is a Triple Bowline.

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/doublebowline.html

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/triplebowline.html

[Dan_Lehman]

The prefix "Double" is generally used for knots which have two loops

Hmm, like "Dbl.Fishermans Knot", "Dbl. Scaffold knot" (Budworth!), "Dbl.Overhand",
& "Dbl.Constrictr"?
No, "double" seems to have use in denoting a repeated central part of some knot,
typically to increase security.

The first picture is a Double Bowline.  The second picture is a Triple Bowline

Exactly the sort of confused nomenclature we want to avoid !
"Twin-/Dual-Eye" (& appropriate variant for other numbers) is perhaps the best
qualifier one can use for loopknots.  ("loop" is used, but is such an overloaded term,
it's best to avoid it here; "eye" is pretty precise).

Derek's knot is a bowline with a bight (and then some special positioning ...),
which can be used to yeild three eyes.  There are many bowlinesque ways to make
multiple eyes (e.g., the Bwl on a Bight can do multiples of 2; Derek's, 3 by 2
--i.e., odd numbers); Derek's & Bwl on Bight tying can be combined (which finish
would give Derek's in this case 4 eyes & a triple collar).

NAMES are going to be problematic, and beyond control, to much degree,
but one can try to fight The Good Fight, sometimes.  Some kind of more *scientific*
nomenclature--tedious to the ear, eye, & fingers (!)--will be needed for exact
references, helpful for classification.

--dl*
====

[roo]

Exactly the sort of confused nomenclature we want to avoid !

I'm not confused by the generally-used terminology.  If you want to call them something else, no one's going to stop you, but those who speak Klingon (for example) in English-speaking cultures aren't generally understood.

There is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is.  We are a mere handful of knot nerds in a world with long-established and widely-used knot names when it comes to common or simple knots.

If you have an uncommon knot without an established name, you may be able to influence the name it eventually takes on.  Of course this assumes it ever catches on at all.

[squarerigger]

Two cent's worth:

I agree with Dan;

Some kind of more *scientific*
nomenclature--tedious to the ear, eye, & fingers (!)--will be needed for exact
references, helpful for classification.

But it will never stop people calling a knot by whatever name appeals to them, be they climbers, cavers, sailors, butchers or bakers!  Does anyone have a suggestion for a "scientific" name convention?

SquareRigger

[roo]

Two cent's worth:

I agree with Dan;


But it will never stop people calling a knot by whatever name appeals to them, be they climbers, cavers, sailors, butchers or bakers!  Does anyone have a suggestion for a "scientific" name convention?

SquareRigger

I don't know why it's automatically assumed that the standard or common naming that has evolved is not scientific or not systematic.

For example, could it be that since the "double coil" bowline is used more often than any of the "double loop" bowlines, it thus rightly took the title of the Double Bowline?  

I'd dread coming back to this group in a few months to find three or four folks talking to each other in some sort of knot binary code.

[squarerigger]

Hi Roo,

It is not assumed:

I don't know why it's automatically assumed that the standard or common naming that has evolved is not scientific or not systematic.

It has been known for some time that the naming convention is not scientific and not systematic :

ABOK p. 12 & 13; "There are four exceptions, among sailors' knots, to the classification that has been given.  24.  The Fisherman's Bend is an Anchor Hitch.  25,26.  The Studding-Sail Halyard Bend and The Topsail Halyard Bend are Yard Hitches, etc., etc.  

If a bend is sometimes a hitch and a knot is sometimes a knob, and a hitch is sometimes a knot, where are we ?  There is no true and completely unequivocal, systematic or scientific method accepted by all users for naming knots (as they are collectively known) or parts of knots, otherwise why would we be having this discussion in the first place?  The common naming is not, as it turns out, all that common    , particularly in different languages (other than English, that is).  You probably won't have to learn a completely new language, because no-one is suggesting that the scientific system be used to replace common terms, just that it would exist as a unique means for naming every knot and knot part, particularly when there is NO common name.  Just trying to advance the practice is all.....

There is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is.  We are a mere handful of knot nerds in a world with long-established and widely-used knot names when it comes to common or simple knots.

You are right, and I think we recognize that this may seem unwieldy for common knots, but again, the common name among climbers (among whom a name may not be so common) for instance, may not be the same as the common name among arborists and among cavers.  The search for a common language among all knots and knotters continues...  If you think it exists, could you please point me in that direction?

SquareRigger

[roo]

 The search for a common language among all knots and knotters continues...  If you think it exists, could you please point me in that direction?

SquareRigger

Show me an important knot that lacks a recognizable designation.

For the occasional mystery knot that shows up, a diagram is the preferred mode of communication.  If the mystery knot gains wide acceptance, it always occurs after the first few fans give it a distinct name.

[squarerigger]

Hi Roo,

Show me an important knot that lacks a recognizable designation.

OK, how about:

The knot that started this discussion from Dave Root - is it a Double Bowline or a Double-Knotted Bowline or a Round Turn Bowline??  How many people did it confuse?  How is it formed - does it have one or two or no turns about the SPart?  Does it have two loops or one?  Is a loop the part that goes around the SPart or the part that hangs below it?  What is it called when the SPart is made into a turn - is that a cinch, a round turn or a turn?   Yes, the picture is good, unless you have no sight, in which case it is no good at all.  :-/ Does it occur that not all is common and something, maybe, is not quite regular in this weird world of ours?

For the occasional mystery knot that shows up, a diagram is the preferred mode of communication.  If the mystery knot gains wide acceptance, it always occurs after the first few fans give it a distinct name.

What would you define as a mystery knot and to whom would it count as a mystery?  Do diagrams always work?  What does "wide acceptance" mean [expletive deleted]  ?  I guess that the search for naming conventions is already done?  

Can you tell that I have some level of frustration with comments like yours?   Perhaps I am so fixated on having something that works all the time, that I forgot for a moment that not everyone else is that particular - vive la difference!  OK - you go your way, and I'll go mine, because this resolves nothing - Bah!  Humbug!  

SquareRigger

[roo]

Hi Roo,



OK, how about:

The knot that started this discussion from Dave Root - is it a Double Bowline or a Double-Knotted Bowline or a Round Turn Bowline??  How many people did it confuse?  How is it formed - does it have one or two or no turns about the SPart?  Does it have two loops or one?  Is a loop the part that goes around the SPart or the part that hangs below it?  What is it called when the SPart is made into a turn - is that a cinch, a round turn or a turn?   Yes, the picture is good, unless you have no sight, in which case it is no good at all.  :-/ Does it occur that not all is common and something, maybe, is not quite regular in this weird world of ours?


What would you define as a mystery knot and to whom would it count as a mystery?  Do diagrams always work?  What does "wide acceptance" mean [expletive deleted]  ?  I guess that the search for naming conventions is already done?  

Can you tell that I have some level of frustration with comments like yours?   Perhaps I am so fixated on having something that works all the time, that I forgot for a moment that not everyone else is that particular - vive la difference!  OK - you go your way, and I'll go mine, because this resolves nothing - Bah!  Humbug!  

SquareRigger

It seems you're having more of a problem with people calling knots the wrong names.  That is separate issue.  It is cured by noting the mistake.

Even if certain knots have multiple names, that is a lesser problem, because you can still tell what people are talking about.

The "persons having no sight" issue seems to be beyond the scope of what's being addressed here (no pun intended).  Besides, I doubt many blind folks are reading this forum.

As far as mystery knots, isn't that determined immediately when confusion occurs?  It's either a mystery to person "A", or person "B".  A decent diagram then clears things up.  A code would only make people more frustrated.

[DerekSmith]

Doubtless both of these knots have a bag of names used quite happily by various groups of knot users.  However, no matter what names these knots are known by, I believe that the key issue is -  'What SHOULD they be called !!'

In my own field of chemistry, chaotic nomenclature was rife and it formed a very real stumbling block for any form of progress for the science.  At various points in the history of chemistry, naming conventions have been invented and have led the field to what it is today.

Doubtless along the way, many will have said, 'It will be called what people want to call it' or 'you will never change everyone'.  To a small extent they were right, there are still some trades today who talk of 'Spirits of Salt' instead of HCl.  But if those focused individuals had not made the attempt to rationalise the nomenclature, the chemical industry which has made possible the computer you are using to read this post would simply not exist.

Despite centuries of quaint naming and trade specific naming, it is possible to rationalise the naming structure of knots.  One day it will happen, perhaps that day starts with this post.

One thing is certain, it will not happen until there is a will for things to change.

If the naming of knots is confusing to those who 'live' knots, then imagine what that must seem like to those outside the clan.  Is it any wonder that the vast majority of 'normal' people think velcro is better?

If we think it would be of value for our grandkids to have cord and knots as parts of their lives, then we had better start looking seriously at kicking some of the crap out of the history which leaves us with a near joke at the very heart of our field.

Please, do not be precious about what you have always known these knots by.  If they were being named by you today - what should they be called and why?

It took a long time, but the chemical industry managed to do it and there is no reason why the knot industry should not be just as successful.  The body to do it is the IGKT and the people to do it are the contributors to this forum.  And where better to start than with the biggest mess of all - the sheet bend / bowline muddle - or should that be 'tangle'.

[DerekSmith]

The 'knot' in figure 2 is the bowline and it is tied with two strands of cord.  In particular it is tied using a bight of cord.

So, although this name is already allocated, shouldn't this not be called the 'Bowline on a bight'?

Although I really like the cute little knot that already goes by that name;



It is not even the bowline knot so this really is an abuse of naming.

To resolve the contention then, I would suggest that we find a more suitable name for this little beastie and hand the appellation of 'Bowline on a bight' to the knot in figure 2.

If the bitter end loop is extended, we might also run to an AKA 'Tripple bowline'

[roo]

Doubtless both of these knots have a bag of names used quite happily by various groups of knot users.  However, no matter what names these knots are known by, I believe that the key issue is -  'What SHOULD they be called !!'
.

I've heard that France has some agency for adjudicating on matters of the French language.  Somehow, I doubt even they repeal many terms.

Anyway, that's barking up the wrong tree.   What should a knot be called?  Ask and investigate.  Sometimes it's OK for something to have different names.   There is a good reason for language (or just about any system) to have inertia.  It keeps silly things from becoming entrenched on an impulse.  Terms may emerge or become archaic.  If you want to encourage one term over the other, you're welcome to give it a try, but be prepared to explain your reasons.

[roo]

The 'knot' in figure 2 is the bowline and it is tied with two strands of cord.  In particular it is tied using a bight of cord.

So, although this name is already allocated, shouldn't this not be called the 'Bowline on a bight'?

Although I really like the cute little knot that already goes by that name;



It is not even the bowline knot so this really is an abuse of naming.

To resolve the contention then, I would suggest that we find a more suitable name for this little beastie and hand the appellation of 'Bowline on a bight' to the knot in figure 2.

I won't be joining you.  Do you have any idea how many times that is identified as a Bowline on a bight in literature and in a universal way?