Author Topic: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch  (Read 5736 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3773
Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2013, 06:05:25 PM »
page 518 of ABOK, the text concerning # 3114 and # 3115

Now that is interesting!
Good catch.

As I noted above, ABOK shows Ashley's, er, flexibility
with using "half hitch" in conflicting ways --there is much
inconsistency, and one can find examples to support
either of the definitions he gives for it & "single hitch".

E.g., consider these:

#1474, #1671,#1681, #1725 ("2 b HH'd twice"), #2080,
#2095 (vs. #2094), #1709 (vs. #1708), & #1711.
--enough?!


As for that example of "how the <whatever> is formed",
in tying (to be) taut that is not how the rope-on-rope part
is formed; and of cases where it is --to my surmise
from knots in the wild observations--, interestingly
it seems that the structure comprises a trio of such
workings, the first-formed of which puts the turn
into the structure's SPart, effectively making an eye knot!?
(My surmise is that this happens more by happenstance
than intent, as the use doesn't really call for or depend
on it being a fixed eye vs. a well-secured noose.  Also,
the orientation of the structures I've seen will be of
both granny/clove & reef/reversed-hitches handedness.)


--dl*
====

Wed

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 313
Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2013, 07:43:19 PM »
Another problem is that there are many people who use the terminology as they have been taught. You are not likely to be able to convince them all about what term actually means what.

Too many are convinced that their facts are the truth.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3773
Re: What if ? The Half Hitch and the Single Hitch
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2013, 07:09:08 AM »
... about what term actually means what.
Too many are convinced that their facts are the truth.

By some lexicographical methods, it's a matter of usage,
*voting*, popularity : the irony can be that those who
follow a dictionary to be "right" will end up following those
who ignore it and yet influence it (e.g., "comprised of"
ought never to occur, but ...)!

I think that this "H-H" case sees a poor definition --or one
arguably not so poor but immediately violated by those who
are seen to make the definition (here, where the (single)
"H-H" is clearly enough defined, but then the cases of
multiples of it confound that definition).  Then, one might
prefer to choose based on how a definition works, overall.


--dl*
====