Indeed, this is an intellectual discussion - and that is one of the purposes of this forum - to facilitate discussion.
We dont all have to agree of course - and thats fine. But, I sense that you might reach your limits of acceptance of this back n forth discussion at some point?
I don't profess to have all the answers Derek - but I do like to have a solid theory / set of rules to describe knots.
I do feel that the key to this discussion is nailing down (ie solving) knotting definitions/terminology (eg 'loop', versus 'bight', versus 'turn', versus 'hitch', versus 'end-to-end join', etc).
per Derek:
You have decided that all the knots described by Clifford Ashley as Loopknots will be renamed as Eyeknots for three reasons :-
A. ABOK is a "throw back to the era of Clifford Ashley"
B. Loopknots have the same form as a metal Eyebolt .
C. The commonplace existence of spliced eyes (with or without thimbles).
Have I missed anything significant?
You asked the question; "Have I missed anything significant".
My respectful response is; Yes. You have missed a lot of significance (and that is not intended as an insult - its simply my response to your question).
In reference to your point 'A':ABoK was published in the 1940's.
Ashley wrote his masterpiece in that era (obviously) - and he was bound by the limitations of understanding at that time.
Ashley didn't have the internet or a computer (obviously). So he couldn't collaborate like we can today.
It is unlikely that Ashley engaged in technical discussions like we are now - with peers from around the world. I would say that he tried to source written texts that were available to him at the time - but the content was largely evolved from his mind and his personal experiences - together with the common vernacular at the time. So, Ashley's use of the descriptor 'loop' was the best effort for that era. Things were less complex in those days - there wasn't the multitude of new knots and Bowline discoveries as we have today - so classifying things was somewhat easier. Precise use of language to clearly define what a 'loop' is wasn't necessary. It was sufficient to simply use the term
loop - and it wasn't questioned.
With the virtual explosion of new knots claiming the title of 'Bowline' - I (and others) found ourselves in a position of having to more clearly and precisely define what constitutes [a] 'Bowline'. And this gave rise to the concept of a 'nipping loop' (which I conceptualise as a
closed helix that is
loaded at both ends). And this definition had to be distinguished from an 'eye' (which is
fixed, and not collapsing like a noose); and so on...
Now, I
did say that the term 'loop knot' was a throw back to the era of Ashley and ABoK. But, I
didn't say; "ABoK is a throw back to the era of Clifford Ashley" - since that wouldn't make sense!
What I was referring to is that Ashley's use of the term 'loop' - is what I conceptualise as an 'eye' (and yes, by definition, the 'eye' is
fixed - otherwise it wouldn't be an eye, it would be a
noose).
In reference to your point B:I did
not state that; "Loop knots have the same form as a metal eye bolt"
Respectfully, I am not sure how you derived that understanding? (you will not find those typed words - because I would never make such a remark).
Please understand that my reference to eye bolts (which
are distinct from ring bolts), is to provide an
analogy.
The idea being that an eye bolt provides a means to connect or attach something.
Its the same with 'eye knots' - in that the 'eye' permits connections/attachments.
Obviously, a metal eye bolt isn't a knot. It was simply an analogy.
In terms of terminology, if I walked into a hardware store - I would ask for an 'eye bolt'. I wouldn't ask for a 'loop bolt' or a 'bight bolt'. Its 'eye bolt'.
In the same light, there is 'eye splice' - it isn't 'loop splice' or 'bight splice'.
With reference to your point C:"The commonplace existence of spliced eyes (with or without thimbles)"
I looked back over my previous posts and could not find any specific argument that I tendered in detail about eye splices.
However, I would again emphasize that an 'eye splice' permits connections/attachments to the 'eye'. It is an analogy.
I would
not refer to an 'eye splice' as a 'loop splice' or a 'bight splice'.
Derek, with respect - I dont think you have tendered a
precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' so as to clearly distinguish it from a 'bight' and a 'nipping loop' and a 'turn'.
For example, at what point do you consider a 'bight' to make the transition to a 'loop'? And how do you distinguish between a 'turn' and a 'loop' (and indeed a 'hitch')?
For example, Xarax has advanced that a 'loop' takes the form of a
closed helix, but does not require a full 360 helical arc to be scribed. He says it can be less than 360 degrees.
Also of interest is
distinguishing a 'bight' from a 'loop' (in precise, measurable language).
(I also feel that you haven't addressed my distinction of a round sling that is formed by taking 2 ends of a length of cord and then uniting the ends with an 'end-to-end joining knot' - which you
possibly refer to as a 'loop'?).
Some random points:It is implied that the 'eye' in an 'eye knot' is
fixed. It does not act like a noose. I sometimes conceptualise a
noose as having a
collapsing eye.
I did point out that Ashley made a number of errors in ABoK - but this is understandable. Firstly, he is (was) human -and all humans make mistakes, we are not infallible. Secondly, Ashley didn't have the power of a computer and the internet like we do today. He did have multiple entries for the same knots, and in my view, he did not have a robust theory of what constitutes [a] 'Bowline'. I gave examples of 2 entries in ABoK that were erroneously labelled as 'Bowlines'.
Ashley's definition of [a] 'bend' is problematic. And further, he wasn't clear on the correspondence between eye knots and bends. In my view, a clearer term is 'end-to-end joining knot'.
I think you haven't fully defined what a 'turn' is. For instance, does a 'turn' form around an object? Example is a 'round turn and 2 half hitches'. Does a 'turn'
uniformly encircle a parent object? Is '
uniform encirclement around an object' a necessary qualifier? If yes, then how many degrees of arc must be scribed to create a 'turn'? The encirclement usually takes advantage of the 'capstan effect'.
Xarax had proposed qualifying terms such as:
[ ] 'U turn' to denote a 180 degree partial encirclement
[ ] 360 degree uniform encirclement (with each end exiting at
opposite sides)
[ ] 540 degree uniform encirclement (where the tail exits in the same direction and in parallel with its own SPart)...and this would be a 'round-turn' in the common vernacular. A capstan effect would play a role.
And the term 'hitch' - eg #1763 Prusik hitch.
Does a 'hitch' form around a parent object and exert a
force upon that object? For example, a 'Prusik hitch' exerts a force by crushing the parent object that it is formed around. If you remove the parent object, the hitch ceases to exist. Note that
uniform encirclement isn't a qualifier to be classed as a 'hitch' (in my view).
And #1195 'Munter hitch' - is this a subset of hitch termed 'load control'?
For a Munter hitch to function, it needs to form around a parent object (eg a carabiner). If you remove the carabiner, the Munter hitch ceases to exist. It is possible to control loads using a Munter hitch...and indeed, in my view it works because of a 'capstan effect'.
With reference to eye bolts:Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_bolt#Ring_bolts Note the sub reference to 'ring bolt'.
Ring bolt references:[ ]
https://www.bunnings.com.au/zenith-110-x-9-3mm-galvanised-ring-bolt_p3968405 [ ]
http://wireropeshop.co.uk/wire-store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=17_87 [ ]
https://www.sheridanmarine.com/product/ring-bolt EDIT NOTE:I have made numerous grammatical corrections and clarifications to make sure that my use of language is as precise as I can achieve (with my non scholarly education level). This is so what I wrote is more difficult to misunderstand.