You cast a question that nOne has ever asked --or can you cite some
Fail. YOU have spoken like that:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1150.msg7863#msg7863
4. timber hitch
For improved security, strength (my surmise), and staying in place, make a round turn (or 2)
of end around the S.Part before dogging the end back around itself--kind of a friction-hitch working.
With the powers vested in me at birth, I disavow myself ... . 
You're talking about adding 2 x 360 degrees of turn, not 2 x 540 degrees.
Here's another experienced knot tier (Inkanyezi) who speaks like that:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1379.msg9736#msg9736
...I added a round turn under the half hitch...
He's talking about adding 360 degrees of turn, not 540 degrees.
Touche'! --good find.
But, I can assure you that my
thinking is contrary to your
interpretation, or your break-down of items. On Ink, well, that
indeed fits precisely your sense.
But he is but one guy whom I'll jokingly dismiss as non-English-native
(nevermind he handles it better than most...), and ... his book is yet
to arrive.
Point: you have still the entire archive* of angling-knots literature using
"turns" synonymous with "wraps" and nary a peep of "round turn" to
try to explain away or run contrary to!
(*my conjecture w/o knowledge of the contrary).
And there is some bit of imprecise
skipping of fine points of counting
in all of this : i.e., that, unlike your urging, folks who would speak of
making "two turns", say, would mean "round turn" as 540deg in effect,
and not (same verbal equivalence, yes) 360 as some strict rule might
say; and, in fact, the result after joining the tail to the SPart will of course
pull things beyond the
strictly interpreted 180deg, which would leave them
parallel and separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the object
around which the line is (round)turning. Go past this to "3 turns" and
you won't have even any apparent equivalence --they will mean an added
360 per their "turn", even though they'll acknowledge 180 (which one
might see more nearly 270) for the first.
.:. No one says "make 3
turns" to mean what Ashley defines/illustrates
as a
round turn --but in your hard interpretation that 3x180 is just so.
And "Round Turn & 2 HH" isn't going to become "Turn + Round Turn & ...",
but I take your reasoning about the implicit "turn"; however, if one were to
build upon such reasoning, problems would arise (e.g., "
round turn and turn
around SPart" : are you then possibly building a Cow or version of Rolling h.?
--the latter requiring your implicit "turn", the former being more strict).
You logic & math aren't bad,
just the wrong tools (if used alone, untempered) for
addressing this language.
And I don't see some (re-)definition of such common simple
terms as solving confusion very well, in contrast to the less
elegant use of some hard digits to quantify meaning.
"several turns" is going to be understood, naturally, as you
would want
"several round turns" to be --it would be spitting
into the wind to try to make it otherwise (though success in
the immediate region of few-turns hitches might invite some
hope).
--dl*
====
Poll