On Jan 23, 2005, at 12:01, Jean Nathan wrote:
If double stitch is two half stitches, surely half stitch should be called
'stitch' or 'single stitch'.
Maybe it *should*, but it *ain't* - it's "half" in every language I've come accross... It seems that all the logic has been applied to the execution of the various stitches, not to their naming :) OTOH, the (older) Brit naming system doesn't seem very logical, either; if a "half" stitch requires two movements (C+T), then 2+1 (C+T+C) shouldn't add up to "whole"... Except, of course, in "creative accounting", so beloved by the mega firms <g>
the log books for the UK Lace Guild Torchon
assessments (I'm currently using the 2000 version for the advanced), uses
the terms half stitch, half stitch and twist, cloth stitch and cloth stitch
and twist.
Hst+T being the honeycomb/roseground (and, 6 yrs down the road, I still think of it as CTT, not CT+T <g>)... It's the cloth+T (and no "whole" at all!) that caught my attention...
Mostly because that's the one I've been - like Cato for the destruction of Carthage - pushing for, with monotonous regularity... :)
Irrespective of *names* (and, as a linguist by training, I have a very healthy respect for words), it makes a *lot* of difference how you think of stitches, when you're drawing diagrams... If you think that your stitch is a 4-motion one (CTCT/TCTC), then the number of cross-hatches (indicating *additional* twists) is different than if you think of the stitch as being a 3-motion one (CTC). And, God forbid, you're trying to draw a BCC (Belgian Colour Code) diagram, it's sheer madness, with the colour switches... While it all could be "taken care of" via a single colour and the appropriate number of cross-hatches ...
Give me simple, any time :)
-- Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
