In search of consistent and coherent terminology

[Dan_Lehman]

NOTE: In my view, there are 4 noteworthy knot book authors who have had significant influence:
1. C Ashley
2. H Asher
3. CL Day
4. G Budworth

I am currently looking at some of the works of Brion Toss (eg The complete riggers apprentice).

Missing from this list are the Swede Hjamlar Ohrvall
and Brit HNG Bushby --who likely can be dismissed
re "influence" until sometime in the future, as his
grand work Notes on Knots has only recently been
put into light by the Mariners' Museum.

(-;

[DerekSmith]

Thank goodness you are not the final arbiter for decision making in the IGKT!

And you appear to be confused by the intent behind this thread.
Its not about what you want.

Hi Mark, I am certain that none of the contributors to this forum have the arrogance to consider themselves to be  "the final arbiter for decision making in the IGKT!", and I agree with your sentiment - 'Thank goodness for that'.

Rather, we are all individuals discussing issues that interest us and posting our opinions, perspectives and conclusions - in doing so, we naturally use the terms 'I' and 'me' to reflect that the comments made are personal and bear no authority than our own personal experience and study, and I respect every contributor's right to post their own opinion, perspective and conclusion on any topic we discuss.

Where an issue has factual aspects, then it is reasonable to expect our logical minds to arrive at some consensus.  However, where a subject is based around contradictory opinions, then again, rational minds should expect that the only consensus is to agree to disagree, and accept that both viewpoints are equally valid.

So, in case you mistook my use of the terms 'I' and 'me' as pure personal arrogance, here again for the record is my opinion on this issue :-

The word 'loop' has many uses and meanings.  I do not accept any attempt to impose the meaning used in Cordage descriptors onto Knot descriptors.  In particular, whatever meaning is ascribed or understood for the term 'loop' used in reference to cordage, for me, will remain independent to the usage of the word 'loop' in defining a knot as a Loop Knot, for which I find the definition from ABoK p13 to be totally adequate :- 

39. A LOOP KNOT, commonly called a Loop, serves about the same purpose as a hitch, but it is tied in hand, which is the chief distinction between the two. After being tied it is placed around an object, such as a hook or a post. Its shape is not dependent on the object that it is fast to, and it may be removed at any time and will still retain its shape.

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

So, in case you mistook my use of the terms 'I' and 'me' as pure personal arrogance, here again for the record is my opinion on this issue

Nothing of the sort - and no 'mistook' occurred.

If had to characterize my impression (if indeed I have one) - is that once a mind is closed to new ideas and concepts - it is difficult to reverse that situation. And thank you for cutting pasting your treatise for the second time - in case I didn't notice it the first time 

Good to see there are some IGKT posters who are following the intent of this thread...which was to examine the current state-of-play (and conceptualization) of various knotting terms. And, to see if there is a light at the end of a very l-o-n-g tunnel to reaching consensus (I think the chance of that may be somewhat similar to North and South Korea unifying).

Looking to pure climbing knot books is unhelpful because those authors rarely (if ever) even examine the various components within knots (they are users of knots first - and theoreticians dead last).

I'll have a look at some works by Ohrvall and HNG Bushby - and see what fruits are on that tree.

[KC]

3 half-circles around tree branch (or other 'host mount' as a generic term )as a Round Turn seems logical to me:
i think the basic unit of non-straight line parts is a half-circle in knotting or rigging
A single half-circle/bight is a slip to other side linearly, but reverse direction (so is like pivot of rigid 1st class lever that inherits both legs of loading and UNIQUELY can change force flow as a direction )
>>Arc of 1st half-circle  becomes 3rd Equal Opposite point to measure by, but pits forces to other side of arc.
A 2nd half-circle , BIG CHANGE , now have 2half-circles as equal and opposites to compete
>>the 3rd half-circle increases effect with more friction area
>>but really I think 3rd half-circle locks in the alignment of the pull on the 2nd half-circle(?)
.
So I think a Round Turn ,  should be 3 half-circles.
2 more is Double Round Turn
2 more is Coil(?)
.
I like calling Round Turn RT, have long thought of as Real Turn!
And a Turn as totally different, a purposeful pass of force to other side (rather than against self with 2half-circles).
A Turn alone, holds but also allows more linear pull to other side, but in opposite direction.
>>compared to a single bolt between 2 wood 2x4's to simply pin together would hold but allow force across to other crosswise to linear/rotational pivot as rigid devices compared to flexible device rope (that have shown pass similarly only linearly on pivot as defining characteristic it seems)
>>edit:so in rigid devices single force point hold changes axis, not direction
Then the 2nd bolt gives a competing force that is not force pass BIG CHANGE, boards not only hold but now can't hinge
>>To this model that is like the 2nd half-circle completing, so not as much force pass this way.
Then 3rd half-circle to hold 'fair' is my basic model and naming logic.
I can't find anything that breaks these rules.
Rigid and flexible supports single pin or Turn as added force point seem to give rotational or linear force pass.
BUT, 2nd pin or half-circle correctly asserted is total game changer in both worlds, I think a BIG CHANGE  in raw mechanics of the force works.
.
In geometry a half-circle can be called radian pi.
I think that is what all this centers around.
Straight parts and these rope force radians, and follow such naming and knot grooming to myself.
A Turn functionally to me is much different than rest, a purposeful pass of loading /if not shared loading.
It is more like man as ballast against loadings himself, less frictions of tree support with 1 half-circle , Turn over limb to hold up car engine block
vs. A 2nd half-circle, then 3rd as keeper and return even feels like system competing more against self in ballast and a whole lot less against man as final end pont on control/ballast leg of system.
>>More help to man especially if impacts than seems can be explained by simply more frictions I think.
Amount of half-circles/radians seem more important than total friction path(support limb diameter) of non-crossing , continuous half-circle sections of rope as a larger express able unit.

[Dan_Lehman]

Chapter 11 page 185 from 'ABoK' (published 1944)
Ashley makes the following remarks:
A loop knot is a closed bight that is tied either in the end or the central part of a rope.
A loop knot is a rigid knot that is tied in hand and placed over an object such as a peg, post, pile, hook, or the lug of an archers bow.

A hitch is a knot that secures a knot to an object and is made fast directly around an object.

A loop proper is an unknotted closed bight.

For me, Ashley puts forward the ideal set of descriptors.
I believe to use any other lexicon, it would be first necessary
to produce a case [that] faults the Ashley statements.

Derek

Derek, I think I'm the main/first to blame for "eye knot".
My thinking was that "loop" --used as shorthand for "loop
knot"-- is too overloaded with meanings ("overloading" a
concept gleaned from programming languages, and the
resultant challenge to language compilers to derive the
correct overloading to apply --a hacking through sometimes
arcane visibility rules of prior definitions and their scope(s) !).

SOooo, I saw the unequivocal "eye splice" as a model : is this
construct EVER referred to by another name?  --"loop splice"
I think would engender notions of round slings to the general
rope-using populace.

As for that bit about "closed" or not, of a "bight" --itself a word
coming readymade with contradictory uses of meaning "between
or without ends, said of cordage" and "a loop in cordage"--,
I find it a generally unhelpful discrimination; to me, their difference
is more one of shape : elongated are "bights", and the round things
found working in knots --sometimes making a central nip-- "loops".
.:.  Thus, I wanted to stand clear of confusion by employing
a new term "eye knot", borrowing a time-tested use of the "eye"
qualifier from splicing, a related cordage activity!

And then I went on to find confusion re "bend" --echoing Cyrus Day's
reaction to Ashley's strong definition of it--, and invented a typo-cutesy
"end-2-end knot" term (where "2" connotes 2ness AND connection-TOness
 "2" & "to" too!   ).  Though abbreviations of these two (English)
terms starts overloading "E", alas : 'e-2-e', 'e2e', 'EK' ... .

As for "faulting", our nomenclature deliberations need
to see decisions based on how well the chosen nomenclature
works to whatever purpose.  I can see that for some technical
discussion amongst *knotters* there might best be a pretty
tightly scripted, rigorously applied nomenclature; but for
common parlance, well, even should we believe that something
works wonders there is the practicality of making changes
--but some battles should be fought (killing "half a double
fisherman's" where "strangle knot" is waiting for use!),
others dismissed with a "<sigh>".

I also moved to seeing what might be the most commonly
cited "hitch" --viz., 2 half hitches-- as NOT a hitch
but a "knotted structure" called a "noose", which entails a
clove hitch (tied to the structure's SPart).  Now,  this
brings challenges to it from those wanting to see not only
*structure* but performance in anything so named "noose";
but to that I argue that such distinction is too material- &
force-dependent, which I didn't want of knotting classifications!

Ashley's likening of an eye knot (by another name) to a hitch
doesn't bring happy resonances in me; for some things, one
could also attach --seems to be his operative point?-- with
a stopper knot (given appropriate physical reception), but ... .

And all that said,
you'll likely struggle to ever hear me speak/think "bight"
and not "loop" if the topic is those things in carpets !
Well, maybe if the focus is on their making; but not to
say "we're walking on a bunch of bights, now" et cetera. 


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

per KC:

3 half-circles around tree branch (or other 'host mount' as a generic term )as a Round Turn seems logical to me:
i think the basic unit of non-straight line parts is a half-circle in knotting or rigging
A single half-circle/bight is a slip to other side linearly, but reverse direction (so is like pivot of rigid 1st class lever that inherits both legs of loading and UNIQUELY can change force flow as a direction )
>>Arc of 1st half-circle  becomes 3rd Equal Opposite point to measure by, but pits forces to other side of arc.

Thanks KC - very interesting.
I have to admit that on occasion I find it difficult to follow your logic through to the end - but, I am trying!
I was trying to source definitions from influential knot book authors rather than tender personal opinions.
Once you start to advance personal theories - there are some who hold very rigid knotting structural and component conceptualizations - and if you deviate from that paradigm - you run the risk of causing anxiety and possibly outrage.

But, I can say that Xarax had thought about these matters quite some time ago and suggested we conceptualize a turn as the following:
[ ] U turn = 180 degrees (which accords with your half-circle)
[ ] Turn = 360 degrees (which accords with your 2 half-circles)
[ ] Round turn = 540 degrees (which accords with your 3 half-circles)

It is implied that a 'turn' occurs around an object (which is external to the rope material). Knot book authors are not clear if a 'turn' can occur around its own rope material within a knot - or whether a turn can only occur around an object that is 'external'. And so this is an area that is open to technical debate.

A 2nd half-circle , BIG CHANGE , now have 2half-circles as equal and opposites to compete
>>the 3rd half-circle increases effect with more friction area
>>but really I think 3rd half-circle locks in the alignment of the pull on the 2nd half-circle(?)

The 'capstan effect' occurs.

[DerekSmith]

@Dan,

What a truly wonderful response.  I will frame it, and title it 'The Nodeologists Dilemma' because you have eloquently captured the exasperatingly (wonderfully) complex nature of knots.

I alluded to this in an earlier post when I made the claim that all loopknots were bends - it was met with the anticipated scorn... (perhaps I should have gone for broke and claimed them to be Loop-bends !!)

I understand and accept your desire to develop a clear lexicon for use at the 'Knot Botherer' level of our field.  I also fully accept the argument that an 'Eye splice' is an eye-splice not a loop-splice, based, if nothing else, on historical usage.  However, I believe that there is a justification for the use of a wider term for all fixed external loaded loops, especially where some are large, or circular, or any other conformance where the term 'eye' applicable to the eye-splice would not be wholly appropriate.

From this then came the terminology that I feel comfortable with, is both descriptively appropriate and historically relevant in that it does not clash with popular usage,  as follows:-

"A loopknot is a knot which incorporates a fixed external loaded loop.  A subset of Loopknots is that of Eyeknots which typically have small loops with both legs emerging parallel from the knot body. "

Clearly the classification of Eyeknots is quite subjective, so I prefer not to use it in any cases other than when referring to the Eye splice (which of course, technically are not knots).