If we stick fairly closely to existing nomenclature ...
... then IMO we are forever frustrated in clarity of discussion,
engulfed in confusion.
"this is what we usually mean".
What this thread has yet lacked although it has been asked for are citations,
quotations, of how various knotting terms
are actually used -- in which
one would see that "bight", e.g., never has much sense that is its essence
in geography; and that "loop", e.g., is used in a couple of ways -- as is
"bight" (= "mid-rope" & "(highly) elliptical loop").
One last point, whereas a hitch may be misnamed it is still a term used for an attachment and to use it to describe the likes of a bowline would be a radical departure from generally accepted practice.
There have been cases of exactly
"bowline hitch", where apparently the
motivation was that the eye knot then was
tied around something versus
just being formed for potential use.
A becket hitch attaches a rope to a loop - but not normally in the same rope (I've never seen it used to make a sling).
But how odd to have a
BH tying to an eye-splice of a dockline tossed
to you, but when making exactly the same joint with a that docline
and its own end you have to look for another name!? But here, again,
my point was to see the U-part
qua object, as it is a fairly common
and in a practical sense one can see that the
knotting is done then
by the other part to this objectified U-form. (There can be fuzzy boundaries
where the U deforms or where one might care to extend the involvement
of the U's material with some further tying, and that of course begs the
question of its being just a
tied-to form; same sort of blurring of the
boundary exists if the case of the
Crabber's Eye where one starts by
tying to an otherwise uninvolved part but on setting the knot the once
straight ("uninvolved") part is deformed into more of a U shape.) But
we must accept fuzzy boundaries, I think; those that get crossed a lot
might best be dealt with definitionally, otherwise, just shrug.
It might be more sensible to call it a becket bend but like a fisherman's bend changing the name of something that has been misnamed for so long (and is in so much literature) is another futile academic exercise.
Here, the irony is that a
Sheet bend if anything was a knot hitching
("bending") a line to an object (to a clew) -- and not the rope-2-rope joint
now seen as its essence (though I note that ca. 1870 Tyrrell Biddle only
gave the latter sense!?). But as per Cyrus Day, I think that the Ashley-ian
push to have "bend" mean "end-2-end joint" is just that: one man's wish,
contrary extant use. So, to call things "misnamed" is to take a dubious side.
I'm all for names matching classification, though not so gung-ho to insist on
such names being used in normal parlance --i.e., in the structure name (as
opposed to being used when discussing classification: to be comfortable
with saying "the
Fisherman's Bend is a hitch"). This will be easier to do
in this particular case if we can figure out a good term to replace the Ashley
use of "bend" -- "end-2-end joint" is cumbersome (& cutesy, with '-2-', which
has English presumption ("two" for "to"), though also correct count (two ends)).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I wrote previously without consulting Ashley. And I do still want to pull out
quotations from the usual textual discussions uses of the terms about which
we're struggling to put into better form. -- not just to quote books'
definitions , as I think we'll see that their definitions often are just
echoes of others', and that their
uses show a different sense. But
I now see that Ashley's Glossary pretty well matches the senses I've given
above re "bight" & "eye" -- to wit:
EYE: a spliced, seized, or knotted loop.
LOOP KNOT: a closed and knotted bight. An eye splice is a multi-strand loop knot.
[Interestingly, "loop" itself isn't in ABOK's Glossary.
He early (p.13) gives the usual & somewhat impractical end-bight-SPart definition,
and also for "bight" the curved definition; then defines "loop"s as "open", "closed",
and --what other books define for "loop"-- also "turn" where ends cross. terrific, eh?]
Consider Ashley's use of "bight" in #1017 (
Angler's Loop :
Take a long end ...
and form a bight, ..." : by the between-end-&-SPart definition, there is nothing
to form --it's thus, at the start--; by the slightly-curved-like-a-maritime-bight definition,
there is
little to form (and such a formation is dubious both in value & stability)!
This, I think, is what one will find in all cases, arguably, aside from those speaking
about using the rope without ends. Ashley's discussion for knots #1040, 1043/4
uses or can be seen to use (is well consistent with...) the
like-a-loop/eye bight sense;
that of #1038 stands in some contrast, as "middle a cord" would by my meaning
become "form a bight", and "turn down a bight" has some feel of the mild curve;
#1060 is consistent with definitions contrary to what I advocate. Note that there
is an ambiguity in this case of speaking of
drawing a bight through ... : this
can be understood as first getting a bight (which is just some maybe slightly curved
part of cordage available) and then ... , or as getting some rope part and
then drawing
that into a bight; I favor the latter sense, which then leaves "bight"
attached to the result.
Consider this description for the Cat's Paw (#1891):
grasp two bights and hold
them well apart. Twist three full turns ... and then clap the bights together.To me, this speaks of U-shaped things, not mere parts (maybe slightly curved)
of a line (for which the twisting would make no good sense).
And this U-part sense is evident/necessary for #1894, a sling shortener.
.:. So, while we could attempt to
take a vote in quantifying usage from
some selected sources, rather, I'm trying to show distinct (and inconsistent)
senses from extant usage, and pushing to draw --from that-- better-defined old
terms and maybe some new ones as well.
The conflicts exist already, so there
is no escaping that. In some cases, it might be that we can establish a new
term with a clear meaning and thereby step well clear of such conflict; but
even when adopting a narrower meaning for an old term I think we can
work to establish the new sense fairly successfully.
(And, until we share definitions, we cannot see "eye to eye" !
-- it might be "eye to loop" or "bight to loop" ... )
--dl*
====