whether the 'ends' have any load or not (or the direction of the force acting on them)
is immaterial when it comes to classifying a knot as a hitch, right?
?! No, not per my definitions : a hitch is a knot
of one piece of cordage and an object in which
one end is loaded in opposition to the object
and the other end is not loaded.
(That's for a basic hitch, neverminding that one
can think of more complex things (and the simple
girth hitch).
I mean,... in hitches with an outward load, the force tends to pull that end away from the host.
Yes, as noted above.
And in the mooted 'binding knots' the load appears to BE the 'host' itself, thereby exerting forces on both the ends inwards (or towards the host).
Hmmm, the "forces on both
ends inwards"
seems to slip in a practicality belying my definition;
the ends have no resistance (but mass/inertia),
and I'd not go so far as you do, here.
But it does put *binder* qua class in a challenging light!
Which I should remark shows my classification
having a *formal*/IvoryTower view : one needs
the defined
loading, really, to establish the
entity; devoid of load, it's ... *a*-defined (the "a"
vs "un" as in "amoral"/"immoral", so ... vs. "undefined").
And yet we could reasonably place these both kinds
under the one heading of "hitches". Am I Right?
Some might, but I like my thoughts of the circle
w/"X" in it indicating the tangle, and however
many ends emerging, to be given a loading profile
per class. And my hitch & binder classes have the
necessary object, and different loading profiles.
But I just want to know, like I asked before,
if I could safely call the 'initial structures' of, say,
a series of stitches when suturing a laceration,
as "hitches" (without blatantly offending someone, maybe😅)
You could possibly call them "bends" or "bights"
and many would be none the wiser!
But would "a series of knots" work?
"throws" is used in the multi-square knotting,
yes?)
Say we have a series of square knots (does this have a name?),
a simple series of halfknots of alternating [handedness] in succession,
formed around a host solid.
Would one call the first knot (layer) a hitch
and the rest of the securing knots (overhand knots) on top of it 'knots';
Or would one consider the whole thing as a single unit
and place it under 'hitches'? or 'binding knots' as a separate category
as Dan_Lehman would probably do?
Per my loading-profile basis,
the first throw is a binder, were that all :
the "overhand" crossing and unloaded tails.
Completing a
squaREef knot as a next step
opens our can of worms : at this point (ends
unloaded), I'd call it a binder,
but sans object (removed, say) AND LOADED
as a round sling, it's an end-2-end knot (a knot
with 2 pieces (1-2 & A-B) with end-1 loaded
vs. end-A, the others slack.
And further with the "throws" ... , egadz, one
does face definitional chaos. (Put
overhand
stoppers in the tails ultimately, and THOSE
I'm happy to see as separate, "back-up" knots.
But one can construct problematic cases with
these or their like, too.)
What, really, hinges/matters on this definition?
--dl*
====
ps : Re "bight", it's recently occurred to me that
it might be pushed to take primarily, openly,
the U-shaped-construct sense,
and we'll hope for a better term for the sense
of "without using cordage ends"; what of this
might remain in some knot names, eh, just
shrug. (And escaping all English terms --i.e.,
having a mixture of language sources-- for
some terms would be good.
("TIB"=>"SULE" >>> " sans utiliser les extre'mite's ", say ? )
)
