Portrayal of knots
Of course it helps a lot to have a language to describe what we are doing,
...
Hence I think that it is important not only to show tying patterns and
idealised flat laid out forms,
but also to show and describe the final form, the form a knot takes under load.
To emphasize, I see a distinction between (the OP's)
doing and
(what is) done--"the final form, the ... knot ... under load" (or even not-all-so-loaded).
And I emphasize (enbold) "flat laid-out forms" to suggest that it might behoove
us to fashion some language to convey such forms verbally, in lieu of
images (where the means of imagery are unavailable, say). I have long
railed against the "flat" form of the Fig.8 eye & end-2-end knots because
they give no indication of the final form's dressing (although presentations
of these knots that use such images might advise proper dressing, with
no further guidance as to what that is!). Getting this far, though, can
be some help, and having language to do this thus has merit. (Derek's
efforts --painful as they were (to some
)-- with an Overs/Unders index
come to mind (poorly, as I think I've even botched his title!).)
Terms such as "SPart" & "collar" & "u-turn" & "(over)wraps) & even "turNip"
are pertinent to
finished knot parts, not really guidance for
doing but
observations of the
done deal. (So, yes, Scott, I have some terms
loosely recognized.)
Some time ago I tried to motivate (myself &) others to
read read readthe extant literature and see how certain terms (e.g. "standing part")
are actually
used; alas, that effort got more speculation & fantasizing
than data-generation (seems I mostly was counting on "others"
--touche'!)
so it remains a task to do. But I think we'll see "S.Part" used in ambiguous
ways --defined as a part not moving, being worked upon with the "working
end", yet generally being that part that (this is my intent w/"SPart")
delivers force into the knot primarily (which, hmmm, begs a question
regarding
binder knots, doesn't it!?). --that, e.g., in tying the
groundline hitch in reverse (which should be easier in the #1243 case
I point to elsewhere) one's "working end" would be(come) my "SPart"
in use. (For my sense of primary load-bearing part, some other term
should be better --"SPart" just a placeholder in lieu of improvement.)
--dl*
====