This is an important distinction which perhaps even Dan L. may not fully appreciate. “Eye” is a term which is broader in scope than “Loop” (This is a good thing). I could elaborate more on this now, but, as I’m in process of putting meat on some conceptual bones would prefer to do so later. Eye see less mis/uninformed controversy adopting this term than for other knot forms being discussed, and so suggest this could/should be the first item to be ratified and thereby get something hard on the books.
I’d rather wait to learn more of this eye-opening perspective,
and have some idea of where it might lead (skeletons in the
closet being bad things). So, your meaty insight is eagerly
awaited (and I’ll not as long as we’ve awaited Agent_Smith
to return to testing activity).
Hey guys…Just wanted to get my 2 cents in on this naming thing. In my opinion, Latin is kind of a Greek dialect. Having been a student of Greek for 2 years, and Latin for 1, the amount of root words that are the same or similar is astounding. Most medical terms, many of which people say are Latin, come straight from the Greek language. In this context, joining a Greek conjugation to a Latin root would not be considered outlandish or improper. However, in the interest of keeping knotting simple and understandable for the masses now and those to come, we should strive for simplicity and clarity. Therefore if one wants to name the study of knots, “Knotology” would be my choice. Whoever hears it will understand what it means. Ask a sailor from 100 years ago what they would have called it, and the likely response would be, “It’s me job!” I vote for “Knotology” for clearness, understandability, and ease of translation into other languages. My second choice would be “Knotty Science” ;D
Therefore, if my proposed definition of “N.Knot” is acceptable (in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms), then “N.Knottiness” would seem to be the best choice for your first axis.
“Piercingness” is the noun form of “pierce,” which means:
“to penetrate into or run through (something), as a sharp, pointed dagger, object, or instrument does.”
“to make (a hole, opening, etc.) by or as by boring or perforating.”
“to make a way or path into or through”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piercing)
In addition, dictionary.reference.com distinguishes between “pierce” and “penetrate” in this way:
“PIERCE, PENETRATE suggest the action of one object passing through another or making a way through and into another. The terms are used both concretely and figuratively. To PIERCE is to perforate quickly, as by stabbing; it suggests the use of a sharp, pointed instrument which is impelled by force: ‘to pierce the flesh with a knife’ ; ‘a scream pierces one’s ears.’ PENETRATE suggests a slow or difficult movement: ‘No ordinary bullet can penetrate an elephant’s hide’ ; ‘to penetrate the depths of one’s ignorance.’” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piercing)
Based on these definitions, “pierce” might be a better choice than “penetrate” for your second axis.
Concerning the varying degrees of these parameters, perhaps we should simply start with expressions such as “a low degree of N.Knottiness” and “x has a higher degree of N.Knottiness than y does” and so on, with the understanding that adjustments will need to be made along the way.
Guess we would be talking about the noun rather than the verb…in Greek would be “desimo” for general bindings. Greek language gets very specific for the use of bindings like bibliodesima for book bindings and such…better not to get into linguistics…but keep it simple…We don’t need a complicated word for knots…
I’m a newbie here (reckon I’ve got at least 6 months’ to use that excuse) and most of this is way over my head. But that’s never stopped me chipping in on other forums.
Mixing our Greek with our Latin: There is, of course, some precedent for this: TeleVision. And if Greek can be mixed with Latin, then English can be mixed with Latin. Which leads us safely to Knotology.
Having said that, I do not wish to tread on the toes of someone (the paper-strip origamists) who have already coined the word Knotology. We may feel we have far more right to the word, and we are much bigger than them, but we should show graciousness in our might.
Which leads me, personally, towards Nodology. Besides, it sounds more “important” than mere “Knotology”.
Should it be Nodology or Nodeology? My Latin is not up to making the decision, but I’d suggest we look at similar words, where a noun with a long final vowel and ending in the letter “e” is converted to an “~ology”. We should, however, bear in mind that many 'ologies appear to have been formed not from an english noun ending in an “e”, but from an earlier Latin root - in our particular case, nod~ rather than node. Here’s a list of words ending in “~ology”. Okay, “Ideology”, “Theology” and “Arch(a)eology” are common examples of such a word, but their “e” is pronounced - would we want the e" in “Nodeology” to be pronounced? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Precedent isn’t everything, but in the absence of a good reason to the contrary I’d argue we should follow precedent. My vote (not that I’m suggesting that this is a democracy, and if it is, my vote should be under-weighted) would therefore be for Nodology
I fully understand (I think!) Derek’s point about “this is a language for the knot geeks” or words to that effect. I recognise that such a language has different needs from the language used by “normal” people. Nevertheless, it would be nice if it can share as much with normal English as possible. As regards the dot notation - I’m guessing, Derek, you are a big fan of Object-Oriented programming? My favourite language is Ruby But even Excel can produce unexpected benefits; a while ago I translated a pile of pension legislation into an Excel app. One of the things that surprised me was that the discipline of writing the Excel formulas etc exposed ambiguities and weaknesses in the legislation, the understanding of the legislation, and the application of the legislation. I suspect the same is likely to prove true of progress towards encoding the knotting process. Even if the resulting code/lexicon is not used much, the exercise of creating it will prove to have been usefully illuminating. I suspect the only tangible value (though I concede it could be a significant value) of an improved written language of knots would be as an aid in computerising the knotting process. I suspect Derek and Dave and co are way ahead of me on this.
Finally, one of the things that has amazed (and perhaps disappointed) me on the IGKT forum generally is that people use language to describe knots when a photo or two would be a hundred times more meaningful. It takes time and effort to arrange a knot neatly, clearly showing cross-over points etc, to photograph it and then to load up the photo, but it is so much more intelligible to a human than is any written description.
Nicely phrased and intelligible. I also take Derek’s point about the little yellow car (Noddy and big ears fame) where one could conceivably interpret that as Noddology, but I found that a bit of a stretch. Your point about “nodeeology” is a good one when it comes to pronunciation. Nodology does seem more in line with our overall “nod” to the ancients and to the more modern, whereas “Nodeology” seems to come to a point (node = point) that may not be as readily understood. Just a perspective, after all, and why worry? We should just agree and move forward.
It’s interesting that people who do origami have adopted the word “knotology,” but I guess origami sometimes involves tying knots in paper…
One thing we’ve realized is that “nodology” and “nodeology” and “knotology” all focus on knots, and they ignore other types of bindings such as splices and so on. Therefore, it would be good to find a more comprehensive term which essentially has the meaning of “binding-ology.” Derek came up with “nectology,” and according to Sharky it should perhaps be “desimology.” Thoughts?
The lexicon discussion has moved to a wiki that Derek created (go to http://nodeology.pbworks.com and click the “Lexicon of Nodeology” link, then click “Bindings Terms” and explore the links). There’s a growing list of definitions for the parts of a knot and actions on a knot and types of knots and other types of bindings, so take a look and add some feedback to help improve the lexicon. Thanks!
Okay, I’m off there now. I assume this is effectively a closed thread.
Oh, I found out more about “knotology” simply by googling the word. Here’s one site I reached. There’s actually some rather beautiful stuff there. Especially if, like me, you’re interested in Islamic tiling, the Golden Ratio and Penrose tiles.
But who would have thought that a Latin for for binding would contain the word string? Surely Latin is not the origin of the word?
One on-line translater gave these options for binding:
redimio, adstringo, necto, evinxi, evictum, evincio, connecto
Alternatively,
adstringo : (persons) bind, oblige, (+ refl.) commit oneself to
adstringo : to tight, compress, compact /
adstringo : to draw together, tighten, bind. I like this
constringo constrixi constrictum : to bind, confine, restrain.
construo construxi constructum : to construct, build, arrange.
One last thought though. I believe it was Humpty Dumpty who once said,
“A word means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, and no less.”
Frankly, if an institution as august as the International Guild of Knot Tyers states that the word “Nodology” (or "Nodeology if we must) means the science and study of knots, including splices, then who on earth will argue?
Yes, I dabble in OOP (Delphi) but Dave is way beyond my standard - he has put all the ‘working’ extras to KnotMaker.
I take particular note of your comment re ‘finding the ambiguities’ once you start to lay down clear definitions. Exactly this has happened with the proposed name of the field. I kicked in with ‘Knotology’ - Nodology anad Nodeology (hopefully pronounced (No - de - ology), only to realise that knots are but a part of the field we aspire to describe.
I realised that I had started us off in the wrong place - we needed a term for the whole field of bindings, of which ‘Knots’ is but a sub section.
I used Translation Guide to translate ‘binding’ to Latin and was rewarded with
I then used the same service to translate the terms back to English (which is often the killer) and found that Necto returned – to tie up, bind, fasten, to fasten together
So, dropping the ‘o’ and adding ‘ology’ arrived at Nectology which I take to be the field of binding, fastening and tying
NB Connectology also had a logical association but was a little bit too Leggo-esque / Potter-esque to take forward.
This is very much our first pass at attacking the challenge, and we are going to see glaring issues both in the field as it now stands and in the developing field as we explore it, exactly as you have pointed out. The key will be not to be precious about anything, but to be bold and constructive in the creation of usable terminology. It is going to be a very big field, and we will probably only be able to work on small parts of the overall field as expertise / interest in those areas comes available.
So - trouble right at the ‘Get-Go’ and we need a binding type name and I am now putting up ‘Nectology’ as an Aunt Sally for thoughts and comments.
Wow, flying back and forth between writing the post and watching the bolognese sauce cook and I completely missed the cross post - talk about a case of Synchronicity ! !
It seems that we might be viewing the problem backwards…we are trying to decide what to call this based on the definition of what it entails…perhaps we should be trying to settle on a definition in the context of what we do, and then naming it. Let’s take the field of “safety science” for example. We could go on forever trying to explain the word, “accident”. What they have done is to write their own definition of accident: An unplanned event that causes more than $25 damage or loss of more than 4 man hours. “Accident” is a pretty ambiguous term in itself, but with the accompanying definition, becomes very specific and clear. So let’s try building a definition of what we do as far as knotting, binding, splicing, and etc… then give it a name.
I think cap’n Billy, that we are doing already as you suggest.
We started with a name, started to develop the context and saw that the name did not fit the context that was developing and so have gone back and reviewed the name - we have just done it quite quickly, and at this rate we might yet even do it again before we are done. Although we need at some point to start to nail the terminology down, doing it too soon - before it starts to feel right and answer the questions without creating ambiguities - would be a negative step. This is still very embrionic, to try to ‘nail’ it too soon could create problems instead of staying fluid as long as possible.
After all, we have a few more weeks yet before Barries prediction comes into force.
(LOL) and right you are…are going to include crochet, knitting and so forth in the definition? I guess what I am asking is what does the IGKT want to encompass?
With all due respect, that is not for the IGKT to decide… (other than that we are (mostly) members of the IGKT and in that respect we are the IGKT)
It is for the creators (and users) of this lexicon to decide, and yes, crochet, knitting, weaving, plaiting, splicing, even laying up rope are all part of the field of ‘bindings’ and have a place here. How fully we develop each of these sub fields will probably depend on the contribution of interested users in those fields (Indeed, some fields may be defined yet remain essentially empty because none of us here know enough about the field to be able to make a fist at creating a lexicon for it).
We are simply utilising the IGKT forum to discuss the matter. If later on it becomes useful and the IGKT wish to endorse it - so well and good, but at the moment, the Humpty Numpties that are using the KT&C board are deciding ‘what the words mean’.
Continuing; “Eye” better describes that fixed closed opening part of a knot which engages an object, and which can vary in size and form whether under tension (working) or not.
Any historical references to Eye having a particular size (absolute or otherwise) should be considered as secondary to it’s central application of object engagement.
Although Ring loading has a nice “ring” to it, it implies a round or circular structure, and therefor is too restrictive by definition.
As for Eye “Form”, I’ll cite the Alpine Butterfleye, which can have 3 discreet Eye forms depending on the amount of torsion present within the knot. I’ll have more a little later. Must watch the end of Canada U.S. Olympic hockey game, then go for a quick hike up Grouse Mtn. and then drink some beer.
So, to continue from where I left off in my previous post, those 3 distinct forms the Alpine Butterfly’s Eye can take are 1) that of a Bight (eye Legs running parallel into the nub), 2) an obtuse Loop (Elbow?) with eye legs crossed, and lastly, 3) a second Elbow version with eye legs crossing in the opposite manner to the previous.
All of these forms are special examples of closed openings having different torsion signatures relative to the knot as a whole. Torsion is an essential component of these knotting forms and serves well to differentiate and define them (more on this later). The term EYE includes all torsion properties of a closed opening.
To conclude, EYE best describes that class of knots having a closed structure of fixed size which serves to engage/encompass an object.
