Semantics

[75RR]

.

[X1]

   Yet another problem : ABoK#1821 ( "The Half Hitch" ?? )

[X1]

   Consider this : The Single Hitch is topologically equivalent to the Overhand knot, while the Half Hitch to the Unknot.   
   { However, I think that we should better talk about "a hitch"( either a "Single" or a "Half" one), only if the knot we are referring to is a genuine hitch - that is, iff it is loaded through the one end ( the "standing" end ). The other, the second end (the "tail") of a "proper" hitch should be free of any load : any tensile forces which are fed into the hitch through the loaded = the standing end, are supposed to be completely absorbed and eliminated, within the knot, before they reach the unloaded end = the tail - otherwise I believe we should better talk about a "nipping loop". This complicates things even more  - but I can not see any other way to distinguish a "hitch" from a "nipping loop". My understanding is that the main function of a genuine, "proper" "hitch", which is loaded by the one only end, is to nip its own tail by its own riding turn - while the main function of a "nipping loop", which is loaded by both ends, is to nip anything it encircles ( be it one or more segments of flexible ropes or solid poles )}.

[Dan_Lehman]

Having a little trouble with the Single Hitch vs the Half Hitch.

Argh, there are worlds of knotting terms to have trouble with.
I suggest a clean sweep rather than trying to warp vision to
see a line through the mess.

(ABoK 48) The Half Hitch is tied with one end of a rope which
is passed around an object and secured to its own standing part with a Single Hitch.

That would make the Clove Hitch = two Single Hitches. ✓
And the Round Turn and two Half Hitches. ✓

So far so good.

Rather, that would make "RT & Two Single Hitches" !
--or, I suppose, "a RT & HH & SH", or "Double HH"?! 
Which isn't something oft' off the tip o' the pen/tongue.   

The problem is when I get to (ABoK 1733)
the Timber Hitch and Half Hitch. ✗

Surely that should be Timber Hitch and Single Hitch?

Ashley has the inconsistency you're pointing to in various
places besides this.

Is this something along the lines of the Anchor Bend which is really a Hitch?

And I'm happy to dispense with the Ashley-driven revision
of "bend" = "end-2-end", which wasn't then consistent
with "to bend".

"Hitch" I find least? tarnished/compromised.  But even here,
I deny RT&2HH that status, preferring to see it as a noose
composed with a clove hitch (aka "two half-hitches") --a compound
knotted structure, not itself purely a *knot*.  Ditto for the
midshipman's & rolling/Magnus/tautline hitches.

Frankly, from the orientation/perspective of an end /
perpendicular hitch, it's hard to argue that the clove
is = 2HH --that initial *crossed turn* not really having
the essence of the HH (wrong part bearing upon other)!

You were hoping for fog lights, not more fog, though?   
 




--dl*
====

[X1]

otherwise I believe we should better talk about a "nipping loop".

That would make the Timber Hitch ...

   The Timber Hitch is the Timber Hitch : a hitch where the standing part is wrapped around the continuation of the tail a number of times larger than one - at a "Single" Hitch, that number is one, at a "Half" hitch, it is not even one ( = we may say that it is one half, indeed ). Now, if you are talking specifically about ABoK#1733, it is a Timber Hitch + a nipping loop + a half hitch. The middle knot is not a "hitch", it is a nipping loop, because both its ends are loaded ( otherwise we would nt need the genuine half hitch at the end of this compound knot, would we ? )
   All that I am saying is that we should try to "see" the invisible tensile forces that go through the lines. There are two ends in any "thing" we wrap around one or more flexible or solid objects. If both those ends are loaded, we have a "nipping structure", and if this nipping structure is a (single) loop, we have a nipping loop, period. If the one end is loaded, while the other is "free", (= free of any load ), we have a "hitch", period. The tensile forces that go through the one / the loaded end are absorbed and eliminated within the knot, so they do not reach the other / the unloaded end, the tail. So this unloaded end = tail is a testimony of the fact that the knot we are talking about is a hitch, indeed, i.e. a "thing" that connects a rope and an object. If there is no "free" end, no tail, and both ends are loaded, and remain loaded, we have a nipping structure that nips the object around which it is wrapped, but is not meant to function as a hitch : it is not supposed to connect an object and a rope, but to nip/constrict an object with a rope. Of course, a hitch "constricts" an object, too, and a nipping loop "is connected" with an object, too, but if we "see" the flow of the tensile forces, we are easily able to distinguish the two knots. At a hitch, one end is loaded while the other is free, at a nipping loop both ends are loaded.
   Now, if one wishes/enjoys to blur things, he can try and discover cases where even this distinction can not apply so clearly/easily. This blurring of "things" can lead us to be forced to admit that there are no "real" differences between the various types of knots, that all the differences of the "things" , and all the "things" themselves, are but a matter of definition, that they are subjective, that they exist only in the eye of the beholder, that All are the Same, the One, etc...   The equivalent of this blurring in knots is not called "a hitch" or "a nipping loop" - it is called "a glue".

[X1]

   This is NOT ABoK#1733 ! It IS a Timber hitch ( the knot at the left side ) + a Half hitch ( the knot at the right side ). ABoK#1733 is a Timber hitch ( the knot at the upper side ) + a nipping loop ( the knot at the middle )+ a half hitch ( the knot at the lower side ). ( See the attached picture).
   Also notice that the continuation of the tail ( the tail of the Timber hitch, which is not shown very clearly at the left side of your drawing ) goes 'under" the 1-6 segment, while at ABoK it goes "over" it.
  "My point" is that a "proper""hitch", be it a "Single" or a "Half" one, is supposed to absorb and eliminate the tensile forces which are fed into it by the tensioned end, so it should have one tensioned/loaded end, and one free/unloaded end. Otherwise, it is a "nipping loop". The middle knot, at ABoK#1733, is a nipping loop. We should try to "see" the structural function of a part of the knot, not only its shape... At a "Single" or "Half" hitch, we have one loaded and one unloaded end - at a nipping loop we have two loaded ends. I do not see any point to repeat this point yet another time...

[X1]

   Tie a ABoK#1733, pull its standing end, and tension the knot as much as you can, until it is almost jammed on the pole. Then, go for a coffee. When you return, try to "see" what is what.
   You can distinguish three parts of this compound knot, connected by two rope segments, which are parallel to the axis of the pole. ( At your drawing, there are only two ).
   The first part ( the "red" one ) is a Timber hitch, no question about that. It has one unloaded end ( the tail of the "whole" compound knot ) and one loaded end - as every hitch does. You can easily verify that the second end is loaded, by "seeing" it, or just by thinking about it. If it was not loaded, the Timber hitch part would have been isolated - so the other parts, before it, would have been isolated, too. A compound knot is not many isolated knots, the one after the other ! The segments that connect the parts of a compound knot are supposed to be functional / tensioned, so the "parts" would be able to cooperate, and form a functional, coherent "whole".
  The second part is what Ashley calls a "Single" hitch in his text. I think that, by this, he just means a hitch that could function even if it was isolated - as a Half hitch or a Single hitch can. However, if we distinguish the "Half" hitch from the "Single" hitch, according to the argument proposed at Reply#4, :

   The Single Hitch is topologically equivalent to the Overhand knot, while the Half Hitch to the Unknot.   

...it would be more correct to call it a "Half" hitch, and not a "Single" hitch.
   However, the moment you will decide to call it according to its topology, as a "Half" hitch, you will notice that it is not even a "hitch" !  BOTH segments that connect it with the other two parts of the compound knot are loaded - or should be loaded, if the compound knot is a genuine compound knot of three parts, and not just an arrangement of three isolated knots alongside a pole. So, both ends of this second part of the compound knot are loaded - and when both ends of a knot of such a shape are loaded, the knot is a "nipping loop".
   The third part is the most easy, AND the most difficult part to describe/characterize !  We have seen that the segment that connects it with the second, the middle part, the nipping loop, is loaded - and because its other end is unloaded, it is easy to tell that this third part is a "half" hitch, indeed. However, one will immediately notice that this part s unloaded end, this knot s tail, is the standing end of the "whole" compound knot... So, we face the odd situation to be forced to call this third part "a half hitch" after the coffee, when we are just "seeing" the compound knot - AND/BUT (yet another) "nipping loop", before the coffee, when we were pulling the compound knot by its standing end ! 
   I had not said that ANY definition is an easy job, had I ? 
   Nevertheless, we can say that the ABoK#1733 compound knot is a Timber hitch + a nipping loop + a Half hitch - OR a Timber hitch + a nipping loop + another nipping loop... but NOT a Timber hitch + two "Half" hitches ( and, of course, not a Timber hitch + two "Single" hitches ).
   Your knot, shown at your drawing, is a two-parts compound knot : a Timber hitch + a Half hitch - OR a Timber hitch + a nipping loop...
   Now, I think that, because the ABoK#1733 knot, after this coffee  , could still remain tightened without any further pulling by its standing end, we better characterize the last part as a "Half" hitch, and not as a "nipping loop" - and the same can be said in the case of the two-parts compound knot shown at your drawing. In general, the last "Half-hitch-looking" part of a compound knot should better be called a "Half hitch", but all the other intermediate / middle ones should be called "nipping loops".   

[X1]

... this his does not support my "Epiphany" theory.

   

   However, in this picture the continuation of the tail goes under the continuation of the standing part, just like it happens in your drawing. With more than one wrap it does nt matter a lot, but it is different from the knot shown at ABoK#1733, where it goes over it.

[Dan_Lehman]

ABoK#1733 is a Timber hitch ( the knot at the upper side ) + a nipping loop ( the knot at the middle )+ a half hitch ( the knot at the lower side ). The middle knot, at ABoK#1733, is a nipping loop. We should try to "see" the structural function of a part of the knot, not only its shape... At a "Single" or "Half" hitch, we have one loaded and one unloaded end - at a nipping loop we have two loaded ends. I do not see any point to repeat this point yet another time...

I do not see any point to read it yet another time.
But I'm smiling seeing how Derek's view of "hitch"
has come into your analysis of the trio of parts of
#1733 --how you can see the SPart-most one as
different from the center one must result from
some sort of strong elixir!

 

[X1]

must result fromsome sort of strong elixir!

   First, I have already mentioned the difference between the central knot and the third knot, and that this difference may be difficult to distinguish, as the third knot is :

the most difficult part to describe/characterize ! 

   I understand that many people will fail to see the difference. I had tried to explain it, and "I" can see the point to try yet another time.
   Let me put it this way : If the "whole" compound knot is jammed, and not pulled, both ends of the second ( middle ) knot will be, and will remain, loaded, while the one end of the third knot ( the standing end of the "whole" compound knot ) will be not.

    I am proud that I have learned something from Derek Smith, who knows far more things about knots than me. As for the "elixir" staff, see the attached picture / sign ( sign=σημα / sema, in Greek... We are talking about "sema-ntics" in this thread, are nt we ? ) !   

[Dan_Lehman]

must result fromsome sort of strong elixir!

   First, I have already mentioned the difference between the central knot and the third knot,
and that this difference may be difficult to distinguish, as the third knot is :

the most difficult part to describe/characterize ! 

   I understand that many people will fail to see the difference.
I had tried to explain it, and "I" can see the point to try yet another time.
   Let me put it this way : If the "whole" compound knot is jammed, and not pulled,
both ends of the second ( middle ) knot will be, and will remain, loaded,
while the one end of the third knot ( the standing end of the "whole" compound knot )
will be not.

And do you also apply such reasoning to the turNip of your
beloved bowline ?!  --haven't heard any allowance of that
suffering the symptom of a nasty hitch!

Considering the *knot* "jammed" is a curious addition
to perspective, and arguably inappropriate to deliberation
(something dependent upon our unsettled definition of "knot").

The mirrored bowline is another place where I can make
trouble with my unicorn's horn --works great as a marlinespike
to penetrate and untie confused thinking jammed into a knot!--:
the "bridge" part can be left quite loose, even to serve qua
additional eye (perhaps best done if eye-side knotting is
in the form of the Eskimo bowline), and as such, the
turNips lack the pull-on-both-ends aspect that you put
as the key to differentiating them from "hitches" as given
by Derek.

It is in recognition of such difficulties/anomalies --unintended
consequences--, I have tried to follow the evident form
in preference to some notion of behavior :
 e.g., at least to seeing the venerable (turn &) two half-hitches
and midshipman's/tautline hitch(es) as *nooses*
 --i.e., as compound *knotted structures* that incorporate
 a hitch tied to the SPart of the structure--,
I chose to put away any argument and vagary/variability
of whether in fact such a structure could serve qua (sliding)
noose or fixed eye; I just examined and judged that the one
part passed w/o significant *deflection* through the knotted part,
and so defined that as not a part of a *knot*,
and that the knot was a hitch to it.

Which doesn't entirely free one of making irksome, uncomfortable
decisions; but I think does get some forward movement.


Now, back to the term/notion "half hitch" : it seems to me
that there is a considerable body of usage in which there
are multiples of whatever this "HH" is, and Ashley's
definition really doesn't fit multiplication at all --you can
do that "HH" thing once, but what ... for an encore?!
.:.  Hence, I don't care to follow that part of Ashley.


--dl*
====

[X1]

do you also apply such reasoning to the turNip of your beloved bowline ?! 

   No, simply because the beloved bowline is not a compound knot.
   Also, because the beloved bowline can not be jammed, i.e. it can not remain tightly tied, even after any initial loading on any of its (three) limbs has been removed. The Timber hitch + nipping loop + Half hitch compound knot I had applied this reasoning on, can. In such a jammed knot, the third "half-hitch-like" part can be part of the "whole" compound knot, i.e. it can remain tightly attached to it, even if one of its end is unloaded ( the standing part of the "whole" compound knot ). That is why I think it is better to characterize this third knot as a "Half hitch", indeed, and not as a "nipping loop". ( A "hitch", any hitch, be it either a "Half" hitch or a "Single" hitch, has one loaded and one unloaded end, while in a "nipping loop" both ends are unloaded ). The second / middle "half-hitch-like" knot, if it is functioning part of the "whole" compound knot ( in a jammed knot, it is...), and not just loosely attached to the Timber hitch first part, has always both its ends loaded, so it is a nipping loop.
   I know that this is not such a tasty vegetarian salad, but I believe it can be digested without severe consequences ! 
   I am not saying that it is the only thing one can eat, but, for the time being, I do not see any other dish around.

  Considering the *knot* "jammed" is a curious addition to perspective, and arguably inappropriate to deliberation
  (something dependent upon our unsettled definition of "knot").

   It is an addition, indeed, and it might even be curious to some, but it was the only salad I was able to prepare in order to feed the discussion. My purpose was to show that the second / middle"half-hitch-like" knot is not a genuine / "proper" "hitch", because it always has both its ends loaded : it is always a "nipping loop".  On the contrary, the third "half-hitch-like" knot, even if it also has both its ends loaded when the "whole" compound knot is pulled by its standing end, it can be / should better be characterized as a "Half hitch". Why ? Because it can be a part of the "Whole" compound knot even if the standing end of the "whole" compound knot is NOT loaded, i.e. even if this third part is loaded by one end only - the end that connects it to the second / middle part. When ? In the case the standing end of the "whole" compound knot is not loaded any more, but the knot remains tightly tied : in the case of a jammed knot. In the case this third part can be firmly attached to the rest of the compound knot when the standing end of the "whole" compound knot is not pulled any more, it is not a nipping loop, so it can be / should better be characterized not as a nipping loop but as a Half hitch, in all cases. 

   another place where I can make trouble with my unicorn's horn --works great as a marlinespike to penetrate and untie confused thinking jammed into a knot!--:

 

   As said, the "Mirrored" bowline, as a whole, is not a compound knot - and I believe it can not be jammed either.
   However, the Girth-hitch-like Double nipping loop can be considered as a compound knot, indeed, made by two "bridged" single nipping loops, so there might be a hole in between for your horn. However, it will only penetrate an already wide open hole : If no limb of the "Mirrored" bowline knot is loaded, the two single nipping loop parts will not be tightly connected the one to the other, as the three parts of the Timber hitch + nipping loop + half hitch jammed knot were ! Why ? Because the two single nipping loops will be connected by a loose bridge, and by three other loose segments - and if two parts are connected by four loose segments, they are still two loosely connected parts, so they are not parts of a compound knot ( four is not better than one, in this case !  ). What you were able to figure out with the part underneath the horn, was not a compound knot, as the knot on which I had "applied such reasoning" : it was just two isolated knots, arranged the one after the other. Read my lips :

if the compound knot is a genuine compound knot of three parts, and not just an arrangement of three isolated knots alongside a pole.   

   The unloaded "Mirrored" bowline with a loose bridge is not a compound knot, and can not be jammed either, because the two parts are not tightly connected the one to the other : They are isolated : so they are just two individual knots are arranged the one after the other, alongside three loose rope segments.
   In fact, one could dispense with the discovery of the part under the horn or of the horn itself, right at the start, by just pointing out that two loosely connected bowlines can not be jammed, just because no one of the two bowlines can be jammed... but I would nt miss the opportunity of a little big horn fight, would I ? 

I have tried to follow the evident form in preference to some notion of behavior :
 e.g., at least to seeing the venerable (turn &) two half-hitches and midshipman's/tautline hitch(es) as *nooses*

   Not too bad ! Even if form and/or function alone does not define a knot - we need to "see" the tensile forces going through the lines, so to be able to distinguish a half hitch from a nipping loop - nevertheless it is an interesting attempt to characterize the parts beyond the skin-deep "looks". I wouldn't mind if I was to characterize / describe the second / middle knot, not as a "nipping loop", as I already did, but as a "noose". 

Hence, I don't care to follow that part of Ashley.

   Neither do I - but I believe his biggest mistake was the confusion of the bowline s nipping loop with the Sheet bend s half hitch, which, incidentally, blinded a generation of knot tyers, including you.
   As for the distinction of the "Half" hitch to the "Single" hitch, the topology-based definition I had attempted at Reply#4 :

The Single Hitch is topologically equivalent to the Overhand knot, while the Half Hitch to the Unknot.   

   is a very clear one, I believe. It does not matter much if we decide to characterize the two form as Ashley did, or as I did ( the exact opposite of Ashley : what he calls a "Single" hitch I call a "Half" hitch, and vice versa ). The important thing is that the two forms are topologically distinct from each other.