Message text written by John Carmichael >But Patrick, according to your definition, wouldn't my brass support structure which holds up the north end of the cable, as well as the counterweight, be considered to be part of the gnomon? Or should I call this part of my sundials " the gnomon support"? By "mechanical" are you refering to the movable hinge of the gnomon support structure of my dials? <
You certainly seem to have started something with this discussion! :-) No, I wouldn't say that your gnomon tensioner is strictly a part of the gnomon. I would certainly refer to it as a gnomon support though. [By way of justification you could say that if you allowed the support structure at one end to be considered as a part of the gnomon you might as well say that the dial plate (which also supports the gnomon) was another part of it... ] I may have confused you re use of the word 'mechanical'. I hadn't intended to imply anything moveable or specifically connected with your dials. I was merely trying to express a difference between something which definitely was a 'physical entity' as opposed to something which may be physical but which also could be just a concept - like the concept of the centre of a cable being the style. In all of these responses I have tried to suggest a spelling or terminology that is applicable and to my thinking prefeable, today. On the matter of spelling I personally think that in today's situation and in dialling, 'Style' is preferable to 'Stile' but that is certainly not to say that there are other legitimate spellings. As has already been pointed out, in older times spelling was very variable and you can find many examples of alternative spellings (and not just in dialling) in the writings of 300-400 years ago - often even in the same sentence. Indeed I think this is how the different spellings of people's names arose. Some diallists today like to use the older terms and spellings and indeed to use the earlier (often graphical) forms of dial construction rather than use computers. There's nothing wrong with either approach at all. On top of that there are modern regional differences - like the use of words like 'dialing' in the USA rather than the 'dialling' in the UK. So I really think you use whatever spelling you think your audience (or customers) understand and may prefer - or, in your case, perhaps whatever suits your marketing 'image'! On the matter of terminology I think that a similar situation applies. Once again (and as Fer has rightly pointed out) in early literature you can find expressions for aspects of dialling that are hard to understand today. The use of the word 'analemma' is an excellent example. However if you want to go back and use the older meanings of these words then you will have a much bigger job on your hands getting others to understand than ever you will with an alternative spelling! Anyone who has tried to understand a graphical construction or explanation from the 1600s will know just how much terminology has changed! [Try reading William Bourne's description of the problems of using the 'Cross Staffe' written in 1574!]. You usually have to read the text several times! I am not at all surprised that one can find the terms 'Style' and 'Gnomon' used interchangeably in early literature - after all the Greeks and Romans did so! I just think it useful to distinguish between them today so that we can more easily understand what is meant. In line with this approach I think of the 'Gnomon' as a physical entity and the 'Style' as that part of the gnomon which is, at any time, responsible for a particular time measurement. It wasn't always so but I think it is useful today to think so especially as today we are more than ever interested in precision. I hope all this helps - and that it isn't too contentious! Patrick
