Hello Peter,
I didn't see an actual question in your post - it appears to be framed as a comment.
I think the whole subject area of descriptive terms to define various knot components is complicated.
Knot terminology is actually quite complex - it certainly isn't unidimensional.
Knot terminology is an evolving subject area.
There are traditional concepts which date much more than 100 years ago...
Ashley published his seminal book in 1944 - and it is a remarkable achievement, particularly
when one considers that it was all done without the aid of a modern computer (unthinkable by today's standards).
There have been a lot of developments since 1944... and some of the concepts evolved by Ashley
and others doe not always explain or keep up with evolving ideas.
Proposing (or introducing) new knotting terminology can be challenging - because the person who does so may draw unwanted negative attention.
If a new concept challenges old traditions, the person who introduces it risks facing vehement opposition and causing outrage.
Quick segway to the aerospace industry...
Werner von Braun was brilliant in his time - and evolved rocket technology that was reliable enough
to get humans to the moon and back. Now we have game-changers like Elon Musk who challenges
old paradigms and old ways of aerospace engineering. The old guard thought Elon was crazy and that
he'd never 'get-off-the-ground'. Well - they were wrong.
Now we live in an era of reusable rockets and costs are being driven down dramatically. We need people
like Elon... people who challenge old ways of doing things, and challenging old paradigms.
Non decorative knotting appears to be a predominantly masculine pursuit - largely because males have a tendency to like 'things'.
... like tools, engines, pumps, aircraft, electrical components, plumbing, etc. Females tend to be more interested in 'people' -
rather than things/objects. Just look at the technical aspect of the IGKT forum - all of the technical 'stuff' is predominantly driven by males.
Men also have a tendency to be less agreeable, competitive, and willing to take higher risks - which is important for our species as a whole.
And so the 'less agreeableness' trait can be challenging - particularly when old traditions are challenged.
The tendency to be disagreeable can lead to clashes of ideology - and this can evolve to attacks on a persons character.
The debate on 'loop knot' versus 'eye knot' immediately springs to mind (loop knot is the traditional term for a class of knots that have a
circular/elliptical component that permits attachments to objects).
There is no universally accepted textbook on knot terminology - some of it is tacit knowledge.
Some of the published knot books that exist contain numerous errors or misinformation.
Many authors parrot their content from others - and you get error creep.
Some concepts are muddled or even confused by 'authoritative' authors (eg Budworth, Ashley, Warner, Asher, Day).
Take for example the notional concept of what a 'loop' is in contrast to a 'turn'.
If you read all the 'authoritative' texts, you may be left scratching your head about what a 'loop' is in contrast to a 'turn'.
Is there a universally agreed definition of a 'loop' - to distinguish and characterize is in contrast to a 'turn'?
And in relation to this is a 'loop knot'... where the word 'loop' exists to delineate a subclass of knots.
A subclass of 'knots' is 'hitches' - and if we look to some traditional authors, it is hard to obtain a definitive characterization of what exactly a 'hitch' is.
And so how do we precisely define what a hitch is?
And other terms such as 'PET' (post eye tiable); 'EEL' (either end loadable), 'BTL' (biaxially through loadable) all evolved in the last 20 years or so.
The term 'Ring loading' is another 'relatively recent' concept which I have challenged in terms of more precise loading directions.
And the term 'Offset' - evolved by Dan Lehman is also 'relatively recent' (ie evolved after Ashley). There is a class of 'end-to-end' joining knots
that have their core 'offset' from the axis of tension. And so this challenges the common use of the term 'flat' or 'one-sided'.
The term 'Bight' is also subject to some variance by authors... eg when the 'legs' of the 'bight' are not parallel. It is difficult to find consensus on the
moment when the 'legs' of the bight overlap, for instance, at this moment a loop is created (with a particular chirality - S or Z). Only a 'loop'
can have chirality - and here you will again find plenty of opposition. Which comes back to 'loop knot' - where the use of the term 'loop' appears to be
a catch-all descriptor for a knot that has a round/circular component that allows attachments.
I prefer the descriptor 'eye knot' - the 'eye' allows attachments - but it has no particular chirality (Analogy; Eye bolt).
I have (over the years) tried to write down some concepts... and I thank many people for this opportunity. In particular
Scott, Xarax, Saverio, D Lehman, tsik_lestat; all have 'pushed the envelope' - opening up new lines of thinking and in some cases,
driving the development of new theories to fit practical examples.
It isn't case of re-inventing the wheel...rather it is a case of finding new wheels to invent.
In my personal view, adhering to the notional concept of avoiding reinventing the wheel is in fact futile!
