"Eye-knots", or "loops", or...- "Eye-to-eye" knots, or "bends", or...

[X11]

[ In my mind ] ropes are, by definition, extended objects - but knots are local formations of those objects. Ropes can be very long - but knots are more or less compact “nubs”, tied on a relatively small area / short segment of them. A knotted rope is a however long object, with one or more knots tied on one or more points/areas of it. I usually think of “a knot” as having “ends” that are not very distant the one from each other. So, one knot tied on a long rope is not as extended as the rope ! That is why I do not like the term “eye-knots”, for the “loop knots” and/or the “loops”. A “loop” can be an extended formation of a rope, with a knot ( the “loop knot” ) at one point/area of it, and a bight with two short or long legs. Now, the word “eye-knot” can mean either this “loop”, the “loop knot” and the two legs of the bight taken together, or only the “loop knot”. In the former case, we can have extended “eye-knots” with long legs, that is, extended knots…(? ? ? ) In the later, we can not speak of eyeknot-to-eyeknot compound knots, because, in such a joining of two ropes, it is the bight of the one loop that is linked to the bight of the other loop - the “loop knots” themselves are not in any contact to each other.
Having said that, I do not mean that the words “loop” and “loop knots” are perfect either… Perhaps we should establish another term, to describe what a “loop knot” is : an entanglement of two segments of a line with the help of one mid-line knot, tied on one or both of them ( the “loop knot” or whatever other word one would use), when those two segments of the line share one end ( i.e., one end of the one segment is also the one end of the other segment ).

The term “eye-knot” is not so bad - but the term “eye-to-eye” knot is - and this “eye-2-eye” neologism is even worse ! ( I do not know if people that speak English as their mother language distinguish the “to” from the “two” ? I suspect that the initial difference is always there, but it is diminishing from one generation to the next … Has "night "became “nite” already ? )
What is an “eye-to-eye” knot ? A “bend” ? But then, where are the “eyes” that are linked together ? A “bend” can be two very convoluted segments of two lines joined together, where we can not see two “eyes” - or we can see more than two “eyes”. There are some simple bends where the “eye-to-eye knot” term is descriptive, indeed, but, for most “bends”, it is a supposedly descriptive term that offers no comprehensible image.
On the other hand, the term “bend” has a merit : It underlines the fact that, for two lines to be joined together ( without the use of fasteners, glue, etc.), each one of them should be bent, to a more or less degree - because friction is enhanced on the curved, bent segments of the rope, and ropes (that are not already topologically linked) can only joined with the help of friction. This is a comprehensible image of two convoluted segments of lines joined together the word “bend” is able to convey.
I suppose that, in the course of history, there were many words in the English language to denote the knots that join two lines. Perhaps one of them would be much more descriptive for what nowadays is called “bend” - than this “eye-to-eye knot” term.

[Dan_Lehman]

Let’s take some corrective perspective here.

“eyeknot” (or “eye knot” --my usage has both, undecided)
is advanced as a replacement for “loopknot”, “loop knot”,
and “loop” where “loop” is intended to mean what the
other terms mean. And this replacement is hoped to avoid
the ambiguities arising from “loop”, which has too many
other senses --a shape of material often used in the
forming of a knot (e.g., “nipping loop”), or a structure
of material (e.g., a “round sling”, aka “loop”). There is
“eye splice” without ambiguity, ergo I advocate “eye knot”.

“eye-to-eye” has come from one source, the OP;
and in some posts, “end-2-end” I think was wanted.
“end-2-end” nicely mixes the English pronunciations for
“to”/“two” in an ambiguity that finds correct purchase
for either : it IS the joining of TwO ends, one TO the other
–so, it is “two” and “to”, too. [I had to!]

“bend” is a term I want to see restored to historical use,
that of joining cordage to an item --e.g., “bend the hawser
to the anchor” (ergo, “anchor bend”); bend the sheet to the
clew of the sail (ergo “sheet bend”). Ashley famously advocated
a different, novel use which confounds this; his goal of some
discrimination in terms might have merit, but this particular
selection I find problematic thus done, and so I abandon it
(citing Day’s regard of it as unwarranted).

“twin ” is something coined perhaps by C.L.Day
(for the structure with bowline knots, which Ashley shows
but does not so name), and seems a good enough term for
the joining of ends by means of eye knots --here, now,
as X1 is I think pointing to : i.e., to the “nub” employed.

“eye-2-eye” runs some risk of visual similarity to the “end-2-end”
–only differing with one ‘e’ vs. ‘n’ to be recognized–, and as the
likely less-needed/-used term, might be eschewed in favor of
say “interlocked eyes”; or that might be for some knotted joint
in distinction to “eye-through-eye” (maybe “eyed tied” ! ).

It is a challenge to shape the terminology in the case of what
one wants to denote by “eye knot” or “loop knot” or “loop”
in terms as X1 considers of just the nub or that AND the
“eye/loop” extension as well. !? Especially in light of some
idea I have of defining these common structures/knots such
that an actual “eye” is irrelevant --yes, the irony weighs on me!
My point, though, is to recognize that at the point of the nub
–which is really all that is knotted– it can matter little whether
the limbs (searching for a term also in need) that would go
to forming such an eye/loop are actually connected : rather,
one could see the defining import simply that these two parts
substantially (a matter of angle of incidence) oppose the force
on the SPart. Note that at 120deg angle between these “eye”
legs, there is that equally between them and the SPart, so all
forces are equal, and then … is it “eye knot” as traditionally
thought?!

Consider : is the sheepshank a knot? What is its
nub? The in-between-knotted-parts (so simple, these : just
a nipping loop around a bight!) lengths can be long/short.
We’ve the same issue in twin eyes structures!

Of course, there are myriad applications for which one in fact
needs an actaul eye, and so the “knot” will be in effect one
that produces that. I only mean to point out that insofar as
we might be examining the knot in terms of behavoir and
effects of tension, curvature, friction, and so on, the connection
of the could-be eye legs is of no consequence --only that
they sustain tension (within a certain range).

(A paradigm example of where one might have this sort of
eye-lacking “eyeknot” is --and I don’t know if this is likely–
where some tow line is brought to a barge, say, and tied
to a starboard cleat/anchor, and a short, stout (matching)
line from the barge’s port anchor is drawn out to tie into this
tow line to form a … bowline --only, as you see here, there
is no real “eye” (except as the rigid material of the barge can
be seen to close the connection between distinct cordage legs).
Take a closed-off, “cookie-cutter” view of the knot, and it is
everything one expects of a bowline !)

–dl*

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:2

this replacement is hoped to avoid the ambiguities arising from “loop”, which has too many other senses

I agree, but … I can see the “eye” and the “knot”, but with the “eyeknot” or the “eye knot”… there is a new ambiguity : does this “eyeknot” or “eye knot” contains the knot s nub ( the compact part of the knot) and the two legs of the bight as well, and/or the whole bight, or not ? Or it is simply a three limbs knot ? But then, where is the “eye” ? So, if it contains the whole bight, it is a knot that can be as long as the legs of the bight, so it can be a non-local, extended object… My understanding of what a “knot” “is”, however vague and still quite naive, relates the object “knot” to a local, compact formation of a rope. The rope is extended, the knot is not - it is local. That is my difficulty with this proposal…

@Dan_Lehman post:2

nicely mixes the English pronunciations for “to”/“two” in an ambiguity that finds correct purchase for either : it IS the joining of TwO ends, one TO the other–so, it is “two” and “to”, too. [I had to!]

You, too, might had to sell 2 me the “correct”/“corrected” pronunciation of the words two and to, ( or simply the current one… I do not know since when the two pronunciations became “mixed” - because I am sure that they were not so at the origins of the Germanic languages…) - but I am not purchasing this !
I detest the ambiguity of pronunciations, like the nite/night and the like “words in the wild”, "and the ambiguity of the spellings ( this TwO = TO, left me with one less eye ! :))

@Dan_Lehman post:2

“eye-to-eye” has come from one source, the OP; and in some posts, “end-2-end” I think was wanted.

My fault, sorry - “end-to-end” is much better, indeed - although there still one ambiguity there : A “bend” can connect two segments of a rope that are not ends of two different lines : one or both of them can belong to mid-line segments, of one or two lines. A “bend” is a two limbs knot, as a “loop” knot is a three limbs knot. However, if theer are no genuine ends, the image of an “end-to-end” knot remains problematic, at least.
( I was born ages before the age of SMS - when, if one wrote 2 instead of two, he was asked to be involved in the production of paper, not in the reading and writing of texts on paper… So, I do not see anything “nice” in the to = 2 ingenious invention, either it is a best seller at the streets, or not !

@Dan_Lehman post:2

“twin ” …seems a good enough term for the joining of ends by means of eye knots

That is better - but then why not just “linked eyeknots” ? The “twin” can have different connotations ( double line, or side-by-side ).

@Dan_Lehman post:2

the point of the nub–which is really all that is knotted

That was my difficulty with the term “eyeknot” or “eye knot”…Either the “eyeknot” is only the knotted part of the rope, that does not contain the bight / the eye, so it is " no-eye knot", or it is the whole package, legs and/or bight included - i.e., an extended area of the rope that can not be a knot, so it is an “eye not-knot”.

@Dan_Lehman post:2

Consider : is the sheepshank a knot? What is its nub?

To my view, it is a compound knot. It has two “nubs”, the two nipping loops, that are connected by means of (shared) inter-penetrating standing parts.
I tend to think of “a knot” as a tangled segment of rope(s) that, if tightened and compactified, it can reach a stage where it can not be tightened and compactified any more - a final stage of minimum rope length.

( My knowledge of the knotting litterature as well as of the English language is rudimentary, at best - I had only dared to type some “wild” thoughts, I did not mean to advocate anything on those issues ! ).

[X11]

@X1 post:3

just “linked eyeknots”

Perhaps we can use the neologism " eye-to-eye knots" for “bends” that incorporate the (topologically linked) pair of bights, as shown in the attached picture. I guess that this linkage/“knot” of double lines would be even stronger than the simple bight-to-bight rope system J.P. tested the other day, because the first curves are much wider, and there are many points of contact -while the tensile forces reaching to those points are also equalized/balanced. But then, if this system would be stronger, how could the (many) “end-to-end” knots / “bends” that include it as a part of their mechanism, would be weaker ? Because that is what J.P conjecture states : The eyeknot-to-eyeknot “bends”( that incorporate the -probably- weaker simple bight-to-bight linkage ) are stronger than the “end-to-end” bends ( many of whom incorporate the -probably- stronger eye-to-eye more complex linkage/“knot”, shown at the attached pictures).

---