Lash-Seize-Whip: Distinction?!

General Discussion
1

Is there a good set of mutually exclusive definitions for “lash”/“seize”/“whip”
(and “lashing”/“seizing”/“whipping”)? E.g., Roger C. Taylor’s Knowing the Ropes
followed by CLDay’s Art of Knotting & Splicing and [u]ABOK[/u]
give:

lashing ::= a binding to hold gear in place
(cld) ::= a binding made of small stuff to secure one object to another
(ABOK) ::= (1) a binding of two or more objects together [(2)&(3) less relevant]

seizing ::= a temporary wrapping of marline or other small stuff around a rope
to keep it from raveling ; ir a wrapping of small stuff arond two ropes
to hold them together
(cld) ::= a small lashing for holding two ropes, or two parts of the same rope,
together [by which he means e.g. end-to-SPart to form eye, not strands]
(ABOK) ::= a lashing of spun yarn, marline, or other small stuff, either with
or without riding turns;
ropes that are bound together or to other objects, more or less permanently,
are said to be seized. [#3351]

whipping ::= a permanent wrapping of sail twine around the end of a pice of rope
to keep it from raveling.
(cld) ::= a small lashing put on the end of a rope to prevent the strands
from fraying and becoming unlaid
(ABOK) ::= a binding in the end of a rope to prevent fraying

At some points, certain distinctions seem clear: bind two rigid objects together,
and you’ve lashed them; bind the end of a rope, and it’s whipping.
But there are the fuzzy boundaries, such as binding an object onto a rope, or a
rope onto something, and even a case where the binding at the end of the rope
might seem more like a seizing. What is it to bind a shackle for a block to a rope?
Another, eh, likely academic case for moot court, is a whipping of a 2-strand
rope where a rope-tuck splice ends with the SPart tucked between the strands,
and so the whipping of the end now acts more like the seizing of two
strands (and similarly for the finish of some short/eye splices in 3-strand rope).

In the definitions above, I don’t like making a distinction based on the cordage
used to make the whatever, which Taylor invokes for “seizing”, and which
colors some other definitions. Nor does a distinction based on presumed duration
(“permanent”/“temporary or semi-permanent”) seem of much help–so what?
Brion Toss (The Complete Rigger’s Apprentice) frees seizing from binding
merely two ropes, which is good.

–dl*

2

Hi Dan,
You have brought up some fine points for new readers to consider and for old hands to argue about.
For me a whipping is always at the end of the line. It may be made and fused in nylon with a zippo or it may be an ABOK whipping added with .100 soft iron wire to a bit of 1.5" plow steel cable. In my view it is applied on a single line with new material or a fire and keeps the “lay” or “braid” intact.
Now the lashing: This is used by scouts and scaffold builders, kite makers and gardeners (and the rest of us) to join:… rigid (poles, canes, timbers and so forth) members held into place with fiberous material. Bolts and fasteners need not apply. Are we in agreement?
Thence to a seizing: Two or three or four or more flexible “ropes” are bound together into a unit where no bulky knot will suffice. It is a lashing in form or a “knot” but not made by fixed knots hosts. Some of the skills used are the same as for lashings. Some lashings look like seizings. So the parting of the terms may be found in the term “rigid componets”?
To me it is a small point in what I do when I am lashing “or seizing” a cleat onto a shroud (a fixed support of a mast or other rigid support)? That may be the turning point. To define our terms.. I want to attach a cleat (for belaying a line) to a fixed line (often of larger and of a size and with little room to move) so I either “lash” or “seize” in the cleat. The number of turns of the small stuff used to make the attachment demand that it (the cord) will be really smaller than the support and since the cleat is wooden or metal then the structure of it counts as “rigid”. So I should “lash in a cleat” but often it is thought of as “clapping a seizing on a cleat”. For my consideration it is still a lashing (that is to say a rigid structure attached by cordage to a cordage structure). I know CWA would turn in his hammock.
I was looking at this post one more time. Then “Temporary” came to my attention. To my vocabulary a “stopping” is temporary. It may be a whipping, a lashing or a seizing. It may only be a round turn and dogged leg. I may stop the end of a line to prevent it from coming asunder, so it is a temporary whipping. I may “stop” two lines to hold them in place or I may stop a line to a rigid memeber (cane, yard or scaffold) until I can put on the proper attachment. Once held in place by the “stopping” the proper cordage will be applied. Whip, Seize or Lash, as suits the task at hand, but often the stopping is present for a moment.

3

Hi Dan and Roy,

Here is another thought for you both, from one school of hard knocks (i.e. personal experience):

A seizing is twine or other small stuff used to bind two or more lines together, or to bind one solid object to a line, exclusively so as to resist a lengthwise pull on any line or so as to resist lengthwise movement of the solid object rather than a rotational shift by forming multiple turns with that small stuff and, where necessary, finished with closed frapping turns in an orthogonal direction to the binding turns;

A lashing is twine or a small diameter line, used to bind two or three rigid objects together so as to maintain their position relative to each other including, but not exclusively, lengthwise using multiple turns of the twine or line around the objects and, where necessary, finished with closed frapping turns between the rigid objects in an orthogonal direction to the frapping turns;

A whipping is neither a seizing nor a lashing, being a means of preventing the end of a line from fraying (raveling, unraveling or cow-tailing). and neither permanent nor temporary, because the line itself is too temporary to make such a distinction;

Does that fit every case? As far as I recall it fits every case I had to deal with, until now… Of course, now we need to know what a frapping is, what a closed frapping is, how many is multiple and what constitutes the answer for something like a rose lashing, which may bind a line to a spar, in which case surely it should be a rose seizing? Also, what about attaching a bulls-eye (fairlead or whatever) through a sail so that the bunts and clews run free? Is that a seizing or a lashing?

Dan, I think the above covers your concerns about seizing the tails of a splice or seizing a shackle on to a line - I would be interested to hear your views. Roy, your point about clapping on a seizing is also a good one - I think it allowed the sailors of yore not to get too tangled in discussions of this kind. You saw it, you knew what it was, and there was no need to distinguish - do you agree? What do fishermen, needleworkers, tatters, braiders and others think? Is there a need for a distinction? Climbers seldom make anything other than figure eight loops, because everything else is not to be trusted (that’s just the impression I get - no slight intended!), so perhaps this discussion is not important to them - anyone?

A final thought for Dan and Roy, what is the term you would suggest for woolding and gammoning? Are they just a giant lashing? Things to think about, but probably not this late at night - now I’ll be worrying about calling something by the wrong name and incurring the wrath of the bosun, who ignores most of my finer points and wants what he wants when he wants it and it better be done right! Happy days!

SquareRigger

4

To Roy, what is it when you put a whipping–so with this term I’ll mean
simply “use the exact technique used at rope end, …”–on say the tapered end
of an eye/short splice, or say on a laid rope at a point where the end of another
line is tucked through its lay (so, this would be to arrest any creep
of the tuck point–e.g., on one of those rope-tucked/compresssion splices?
–or to mark the middle of rockclimbing rope? (Beware: a tight even
say a #1253 will stiffen the rope for about an inch!!) ? Hard to call most of these
cases “seizing”, for you’re working on a unit (esp. in last case), not a plurality.

As for a seizing being “exclusively so as to resist a lengthwise pull,” what
then is it otherwise? --for your restriction on lashing is to rigid objects (and I’d
say that some large shrouds though of cordage are such–rigid! --and ratlines are

<???> to them).

The distinction by binding material seems not at all very useful.
The distinction by structure seems problematic; i.e., exactly a French whipping
could be used qua seizing, IMO. Conceivably, that too clever by half (IMO!) Sailmaker’s
Whipping has frapping turns (whose benefit I question), so a structure like that
in many things called “seizings”.
So that lead me to a distinction by what is bound might be most useful.
Though strictly that could eliminate expressions such as “she used a Round Seizing
to whip the hawser” (as it wouldn’t be a seizing). As for my example of a whipping
of two strands working much like a seizing, well, okay, so be it–a fuzzy case
here and there, maybe (dual duties for the binding).
As for cases mixing rigid & soft objects, I’ve mused over deciding the binding type
by whichever object seems dominant–cordage moving the cleat about, then
it’s a seizing; cordage anchored to stiff shroud, a lashing.

(As for “ravel” vs. “unravel”, that’s a royal mess (like “sanction”).)

–dl*

5

As a creative crafts person, speaking a different language as native language, I observe.

But I do notice that whatever we decide, people keep calling the things the way they have always done.
Mostly different in every next village and considered wrong by our specialists.

It is good to try to work out a proper name and teach it from now on. But do not think we can change what others call the things.

Willeke

6

I keep thinking I should not logon so late at night but it seems that there is a good quote; “A rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweetly.”