And, in short, they are good to show how my thinking
has lately changed :: that now I am favoring looking at
the nipped part’s angle rather than direction through
the central nipping loop. !? --as a reasonable (?)
distinction (rather than merely possible one) for bowlines.
That in the one (first-shown) case this angle (readily) makes
the nipping loop orient towards non-helix, crossing-part pressure,
in contrast to the (2nd shown, “anti-”) other which invites
helical separation of the loop --though knots of this kind
should be (insofar as they want to be bowlines) dressed
and set so as to resist such opening of the loop.
And my verbally sketched hilarious & bowlines paint
the point well, both having such an angled nipped part,
yet delivering that part from opposite directions --really
op. dir. and not just op. sides!
"anti-" already connotes too harsh and wrong notions.
On balance, I favor its complete removal, lest it sully the already
unclear waters with [b]seriously misguided[/b] notions.
Who is misguided here?
The terms ‘cyclone’ and ‘anti cyclone’ are routinely used in my part of the world - which refer to the relative direction of spin/rotation.
Anti is a prefix in common use in the English language.
Now you’re quoting my utterances back to me! Yes,
this was just the use that brought out my introduction
of the term. Re “abuse”, IMO it is your taking it purely
qua “against” for anything, rather than my intended
pure “opp. side from
#1010” focused denotation!
(E.g., suppose that the
myrtle had been itself of
the “anti-b.” side, like the
Eskimo bwl. : yes, by
your
thinking the actual
M. would then be “anti-M” but
that focuses on the very “original” knot itself irrespective
of how it is oriented; whereas I, who see
bowlines as
all with a central nipping
loop [<–see, I’m redressing
my past sins!], cite it as a violation of the point, which
is “anti-b.” is a
genus indicator irrespective of there
even being any “non-anti” corresponding knot : the “anti”
refers to a particular side of working-end entry,
period.
I would say that your continued use of the term 'turNip' and/or 'nipping turn' is an [i]abuse[/i].
I thought the notional view of a turn Vs a loop had been settled?
Should we describe a ‘round-turn-and-2-half-hitches’ as ‘a round loop-and-2-half-hitches’?
TOUCHE’! Ouch, I’ve been doing this for quite some time.
I’ll like to blame another for getting “nipping turn” out into
parlance for my cutesie “turNip” word-fusion,
but, yes, originally and rightly/aptly it is a “nipping
loop” about
which we should talk --that, fitting the defined “loop” of many
books (neverminding the overloading of “loop” to be either
an eyeknot or a bight (I can’t even bring myself to say “the
rug is made of many bights…”!).
Although if you consult ABoK #32 & 40 you will find
good challenge to the above, and also the defined (in
the glossary) “turn” which denotes a full circle/360degrees.
.:. Knotting nomenclature is a challenge both in cleaning
up and in setting (a) straight (course) !!
When is a turn a turn and when is a loop a loop?
At some point, we have to stop and agree on terminology - and this is something I have pointed out several times over the past few years. It appears that elements within the IGKT still cannot agree on a standardized knotting terminology.
It’s a tough task not even well started, IMO. Although
we’ve pointed out some of the troubles, to a small (reading)
audience. IMO, for specific technical discussions, it will
be necessary simply to try to avoid problematic terms
and to otherwise specifically define one’s own terms, how
one is using/meaning terms. (I don’t hold hope that common
parlance will have the precision that possibly we might define
for technical talk.)
I would also comment that your 11th hour change of mind with the use of the term 'anti' is a bit late in the day. Why wait until now (at the very last minute) to waive the red flag?
I raised as described --recent turn (loopy?) of mind on
the consideration of [i]hilarious bowline & ...[/i], of *angle*
vs. *direction* --though there are fuzzy in-betweens
or rather neutral (perpendicular to axis of tension)
directions of the nipped parts.
And then a stepping back to ask of the point/purpose
of making some such distinction --gotta be a better
reason than merely "because we can" & "it makes
a divide (in quantity per division) for easier reference".
My initial thinking was the per-direction was a weak
guide to resisting the opening helix; now, I'm thinking
maybe it's *angle* rather than *which-side* as the
better indicator, though noting that compromises
and does-it-better/-worse can occur regardless
(along with the in-between, perpendicular angles
challenging the new classification). --and esp. in the
knots that delay tucking through the nipping loop;
when the working end goes elsewhere [i]and then...[/i]
is tucked through.
(Though having maybe 3, 4, or more classifications
might be a good thing : some will favor ignoring the
further-from-1010 cases as being "bowlines", but
they'll at least be attached at arm's length with
a known relation --whatever one calls them, then.)
–dl*
