About which you should be clear, now; HOWEVER,
you would be wise to consider how well the term suits
general presentation --it would take a direct presentation,
at least. In other words, I’m clear on it and X. is and … ,
but that doesn’t mean that it is without potential trouble
if put to the general populace. And, I noted already the
“overloading” of it, as both “anti-” and “bowl,” are in
my thinking halves of anOTHER “bowl.” word. I acknowledge
this overloading --which, mind, comes also with “loop” and
why I use “eye knot”, a novel term w/o confusion from
anOTHER meaning, but just confounding a bit maybe from
its rank newness in the literature (finding companionship
in “eye splice”, I hope).
So, I wrote to clarify for you; I respect that such understanding
nevertheless might not compel one to use such terminology
overall. (SOMEtimes, the structural aspects are a blur, too:
i.e., the “opening into helix” aspect, which seems more likely
for anti-bwls, can also happen in the good ol’ #1010 (and into
capsizing to a “pile-hitch noose” or helical eye knot);
and some anti-bwls can be pretty good on preserving the
roundness of the turNip.
.:. One might sit back an reflect on how helpful the
distinction is on one’s own particular set of knots presented!?
(In other forums --here, w/knotters–, we need handles to focus
our meaning on something, and fashion terms on the fly for such
with-the-initiated chatter. What goes out to other forums might
need editing/revising/adjusting/refining.)
I also acknowledge your reasoning on the collar structure and how it manoeuvers around the SPart or an eye leg. What is needed is some clear content that is presentable in a document that can be easily understood by the general (lay) public (and with accompanying high quality photos to illustrate the concepts).Pardon in that I've skipped this, in time deficit. I could see "bight" as maybe a helpful descriptor? One can "loop" or "bight" with a tail, in binding/securing/ stabilizing the [i]turNip[/i] --[i]myrtile[/i] loops, and #1010 bights, and [i]EBDB[/i] does both (and [i]EBSB[/i] goes off the deep end, Yo.-Yo.-ing! ;D )
Second, what you call SPart, is a WRONG term, because anything before the Tail End is Standing Part !NO, I protest!! In fact, as I allowed earlier re the dubious *acronym* aspect to "S.Part/SPart", one might see this Dan-term as making a departure from the commonly given definition (and implications) of "standing part" --which commonly connotes a [u]inactive[/u] part of the knot [u]during the tying process[/u] (but maybe ignoring this on some *backwards*-tied knots (where shortness enables tying end-outwards, so to speak --e.g., snood to long-line of a trawl)).
What I’ve wanted was a term for the
bears full force into the nub, until U-turn (or …)".
.:. So, in that sense, one can see X. wrong about their
equality --right about the old term, wrong about the new.
IMO–, and I think most will agree, the complete knot is
in need of denotation of parts --and maybe more often
& importantly, than is the inchoate knot.
(ANd maybe “standing part” better suits its old sense,
and “S.Part” should find another term. I’ve used the
shorthand, though, as so often it is the former --or. to
X’s critique, the leading part of that-- that ultimately
becomes what I see as the latter. (I have read in Ashley
“the lead” but don’t fully grasp what he means by that,
and think it too isn’t quite what I am seeking.)
