The following comments are potentially off-topic but are in direct response to Dan Lehman at reply #10...
per Dan Lehman at reply #10 in relation to #1057 and #1058:
Hardly such an oversight, IMO. Rather, he simply wasn't
playing the game you're so hard at in narrowly/strictly
per-your-own-definition identifying *bowlines*; and in
these, he felt some merit.
An interesting comment that I just noticed... possibly either a cryptic reply or an exercise in obfuscation?
You might do better to just write in clear and unambiguous language if you believe #1057 and/or #1058 to be deserving of the title 'Bowline'.
The language is perspicuous, but you insist on a perverted reading.
YOU are all gung-ho about YOUR notion of "bowline"; Ashley, I surmise,
was less so --and he offered that these cited knots "had a better claim"
to "bowline" --for which HE does NOT give a set of criteria. YOU impose
yours, and then call Ashley mistaken : heckuva way to run a contest!
Unless my eyes are deceiving me, there is no nipping loop in either of these structures which means they are automatically disqualified from being 'Bowlines'.
By us; but this is now, and that was then & Ashley's unknown thoughts.
And the term nipping loop has a special meaning...which includes the following properties:
[ ] TIB
[ ] loaded at both ends
[ ] has a specific chirality
[ ] takes the form of a helical loop (if it is to be regarded as being a primary / first order Bowline - and not something else - such as a virtual Bowline).
Who voted on "TIB" --you & X. ?! I can understand that being
a desideratum for "bowlines" --even for this component--, but
it's not (yet) mine; so I accept the "cloverhand" & fig.8 mid-flype
structures; as I struggle re the "back-side" (was "anti-") bowline
structures where the arguable *loop* so leans out towards *helix*
which IMO is not so *nipping*/compressing-within as is wanted
--a circumstance actual, in-real-rope #1010 BWLs can achieve, even!!
(One can also presume that TIB is a sine qua non for mid-line
eye knots, but then what to do with non-TIB ones, which might
well be preferred for some reason and put in in the more tedious
tying, but serving well thereafter --likely sans any tie-it-in-a-hurry
situation where TIB plays trumps!?)
"loaded at both ends" will prove to be at times more *seemly*
than physically *actual*. As I've noted, if the mid-span part
between mirroring "nipping loops" is drawn out, it can exist
as an eye --w/o tension, thereby revealing something about
the apparent "nipping loop" (per your criterion) structures feeding it!
And if you believe that #1057 and #1058 are in fact deserving of the title 'Bowline' - this would open up the field for many other structures to also be reclassified as Bowlines - and would give rise to a whole new hypothesis underlying what a 'Bowline' is.
Yes, quite. *I* do NOT; what Ashley had in mind is another question.
--dl*
====
