Overshot and nomenclature
|
Linda Schultz
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 05:49 AM, hunter.roseholle wrote:
"...and many of them are binominous, as which when they begin to tire in sale, they are quickened with a new name".Love this! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joe P
Hi Everyone
Supplemental weft is 16, letters Tabby is 5 letters, Binder is 6 letters. Why would I want to type 16 letters when I can get the job done in 5 letters.
Young weavers are creating their own (brand) In doing so they have the idea they are going to reinvent weaving terminology, that is fine. I see a problem with this. A 4 shat loom is a slice of cake. When a weaver sets up an 8-shaft loom there are adjustments
that the weaver has to make to get a nice shed based off of the depth of the loom, this is just the tip of the ice burg. At this point the weaver is going to have to know some of the old weaving terms. To read old school weaving books or to get help from weavers
that, that do not have new brand terminology. If you do not want to, just sit and look at the loom. We all have choices.
On this topic I would like weavers to go back and reread the posts sent to the list. Ask for help is given, to read in the next post help was not needed. Weaver has all the answers No
Thank You for help given a lot of double talk.
Keep Weaving
Joe Bear in WI U.S.A.
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Ian Bowers <md@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:16 AM To: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature The discussion is an excellent adult example of ‘artists’ at work.
There is no way a car or a domestic appliance could be constructed (let alone the James Webb telescope) without a common language and system defined, understood and used by all involved.
Perhaps it is time for a mature discussion of those involved to agree just what is what, and maybe agree to use the language of commercial weavers.
Best regards
Ian Bowers (Dr) Managing Director
GEORGE WEIL & SONS LTD, Old Portsmouth Road, Peasmarsh, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1LZ tel: 0 (+44) 1483 565800 Follow George Weil:
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io>
On Behalf Of Jayne F via groups.io
And why should we expect the language of weaving to be any less fluid than the language of English, for instance? Words come and go, meanings can be the opposite within decades if not years. Patrice’s approach is the most logical and practical.
Jayne
From:
weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io>
On Behalf Of P George
After 5 decades as a handweaver, textile industry designer working in both industrial and handloom sectors, and teaching college students at several different schools….I’ve given up on specific terminology when explaining structures to students, production managers, or curators! There are too many excellent historical and modern sources that refer to exactly the same structure on graph paper, that vary by education, cultural or traditional background, or translation between languages.
When explaining overshot, brocade, or any other pattern system that a floating filling (weft) for the pattern to students, I use the term “supplementary weft”, then illustrate with a draft on graph paper or computer simulation (in both black and white for structure, and color for pattern effect).
Then, if the audience is still interested, we’ll discuss examples of common names for variations of the system ie: overshot, summer-and-winter, brocade, fil-coupé, etc, etc, etc.
There were certainly more than a few terminology discussions during the CW seminars in Knoxville last week…all enjoyable!
Patrice
From:
<weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...>
So this post from Gist bothers you?
There’s also the use of “multi-shaft” to mean shaft loom (as opposed to rigid heddle). I’m seeing that more and more. But in the past it’s meant more than 8… which actually never made sense to me. Nomenclature changes and evolves but when it leaves a specific thing like Overshot without its own name, it’s a problem.
marie
Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warren L Dumke
An option that might be borrowed from the world of biological nomenclature and modified might help. That would be the citation of source. In a species name there is a genus, species and
an assortment of letters which are often overlooked. e.g. L. for linneaus. For the example from Linda Schultz, it might be huck cieta or even
huck ceita not
Tidball. Another option would be huck sensu cieta.
As anside, if you believe "scientific" names are fixed the last 20 years would surprise you. As one example many of the plants formerly classified
in the gens Aster are now in one or more of the following genera: Doellingeria, Eurybia, Ionactis, Oclemena, Sericarpus or mostly Sympyotrichum.
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Linda Schultz via groups.io <lindaschultz@...>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 12:14 PM To: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature I don't usually find CIETA particularly useful. Perhaps in the field of ancient textiles it can be referred to as a standard. But it doesn't seem to have definitions for most of the nomenclature used among handweavers. For example, it doesn't include "overshot"
or "halvdräll" in its vocabulary (so it wouldn't be of any use in this thread). And even when I've used it for the structures it does define, the definitions are too basic to answer any of the nitty gritty questions which are usually under discussion. For
example, here is the definition for "huck" or "huckaback":
"A self-patterned weave, with a tabby ground with small motifs in offset rows formed by short floats of the warp or weft (or both)." https://cieta.fr Can that be used to tell if what you are looking at should be called "Huck" vs. "Swedish Lace"? I'm not suggesting that you aren't free to refer to it, though, if that is your preference. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for voicing this Linda. And to Sara, I want to preface by saying I respect you and your work. I do, however, want to offer a correction: this is NOT an inclusive group. it never meant to be so and I am not going to recommend it be anything but what it is but I think we can come to an agreement that weaving covers more areas than this group focuses on. Even if you read and study everything you can, you can not learn the entirety of weaving technical data and history, and to assume one could is rather problematic. Weavetech is clear it is a non-beginner shafted loom group. I will talk a bit more about this in relationship with Myra Wood's book. It's one of the first rigid heddle books in circulation that focuses on a single technique written just for the rigid heddle loom. If you purchased every rigid heddle book currently in print, you would have more fingers than books. Let that sink in for a second: imagine getting a loom and having few patterns, few publications, no books of drafts, all of maybe 3 teachers, no mentors...no library to shuffle through and dream over with a cup of tea. You can get to the end of your instruction in a few months and your reading material gets old quick. If you have a problem and your teacher can't answer it, you don't have another to ask. Little Looms is valiantly catching up, but it's still working on getting more meaty articles that go beyond plain weave tea towels and scarf patterns (and we share the publication with all small looms which is a sticking point for some rigid heddle weavers). The assumption is that the rigid heddle is simply an easy beginner loom, but I think the real truth is that it's a loom underutilized. And with decreasing house sizes and the lower disposable income available to future generations- it could very well play an important part in the future of weaving in America, so it's where I choose to dedicate myself despite the general lack of support offered by the established weaving community. What I wish I could get shaft loom weavers to understand is that when you weave a structure on a rigid heddle loom, you no longer can simply follow the warping plan, tie up and lift plan and get your weave (haha, "simply", I know it's not that simple). You have to consider what every warp and pick is doing in the cloth and then you work backward to figure out how to achieve it and what its purpose is. The result is that sometimes you distill a draft to its most elemental parts: overshot is no longer a group of coverlet drafts from early in American history, it's a structure where a pattern thread floats over some warp threads between tabby picks. Huck, Swedish Lace, Atwater-Bronson become umbrellaed under pick-up stick patterns. Some terms are borrowed from shaft loom weaving nomenclature, simply because that is what we have to work with, but I don't think it's a stretch to say some of those terms will shift because different looms can not always use the same word and have it be expected those terms will mean the same exact things on both looms. I am sure there are parts of a floor loom that are related to a part of an earlier loom that adapted in its usage in time, drafts and structures are sure to be the same. The heddle on a rigid heddle is not the same as it is on a floor loom. When a rigid heddle weaver doubles 8/2 to make a tea towel, we still call it plain-weave though it's technically a basketweave. Some of this is actually uninformed because we are all new weavers, but it's also language being created as new techniques are being adapted to a loom without a lot of deep history or mastery. To be frank, our terminology is kind of a mess. There is a lot we need to codify (have you ever written out a complex pattern for a rigid heddle, it's rough!) but it's going to take time. The guild structure can help with this, but instead they just focus on getting rigid heddle weavers to shafted looms as soon as possible. Now the term Crazyshot, I hate it! On that Sara and can find common ground. I feel infantilized enough as a rigid heddle weaver (seriously "Easy Weaving with Little Looms", "Crazyshot"... ugh). But... that said I love Myra and her fortitude to offer something different and exciting fearlessly and unapologetically. I LOVE people are carefully picking each warp thread to create complex patterning instead of deciding it's too hard and slow. As more people adapt 4 shaft patterns to 3 heddles, we might need to rework the wording so there is less overlap, but for now, very few people are doing that and I am not sure if that is the correct path for the rigid heddle to go. Rigid Heddles are not a replacement for table and floor looms. I have done a few drafts from Anne Dixon and though rewarding, it's not the faint of heart and it's not really be best expression of the loom. But, more than commonly assumed, you can get an endless and exciting variety of textiles on a rigid heddle and so many are waiting to be unearthed. Summer and Winter, for example, adapts miraculously and gives the rigid heddle weaver the power of any number of shafts they could ever want with one simple threading to remember and a fairly easy lift sequence. It's very slow work, as I am sure anyone who puts a lot of time and effort in diving deep into unexplored weaving techniques understands. And of course, once someone tests, adapts and formalizes and teaches a technique, they want to take a bit of ownership and give it a name that is descriptive and speaks to who they are...so we have Crazyshot. so be it. :) Don't love it, will never fail to support it. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tien Chiu
Carly wrote: > The assumption is that the rigid heddle is simply an easy beginner loom, but I think the real truth is that it's a loom underutilized. I agree wholeheartedly with this, and also with everything Carly's said after that about the intriguing possibilities and intellectual challenges in complex rigid heddle weaving. I'm not a rigid heddle weaver, but I spent an entire afternoon talking to Liz Gipson and it opened up new vistas on the rigid heddle loom - how it "thinks" radically differently from a shaft loom and how the design possibilities on a rigid heddle simply occupy a different space in the universe of possibilities than a shaft loom. As a jacquard weaver, I found it particularly interesting to get a glimpse of how a rigid heddle loom "thinks" - because when I started weaving on a jacquard loom I had to completely reconceive how I thought about designing handwoven cloth. Talking to Liz made it clear that designing for rigid heddle looms required a similar intellectual evolution. I am verrrrry interested in seeing where this highly nontraditional approach takes weavers in the future. While the large space of potential interlacements of threads doesn't change, the space of interlacements that are actually POSSIBLE with a given set of equipment (and finite time) is considerably smaller. The rigid heddle loom allows exploration of a different segment of that space, and I think that's fascinating. I wish I had the time and the energy to explore this further personally, because, as Carly writes, > And with decreasing house sizes and the lower disposable income available to future generations- it could very well play an important part in the future of weaving in America I'd love to see more people exploring and teaching in the rigid heddle space. I also hope to see rigid heddle weavers welcomed into Complex Weavers someday, or to see them start their own organization if CW won't do it. Tien |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HI, everyone,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I mostly lurk although several of you know me well. The discussion about nomenclature has now also crossed over to my day job. I teach medical students, residents, and fellows the evolution of nomenclature for diseases in the chest. The more advanced one becomes the more important it is to know the historical terms that are wrong as well as right in understanding the literature. I would be interested in working on a lexicon project for weaving and other fiber arts. Thank you for all chiming in on this interesting thread. Francine Jacobson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
suki248
About book titles, I do not know the author of Crazyshot, or the publisher. I am the author of a number of knitting books. The publisher in every case chose the title of the book. It was never my choice. This MAY be the case for this book.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Charlene Schurch Charlene On Jul 23, 2022, at 10:54 PM, Carly Jayne <Cjayne@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:51 PM, Francine Jacobson wrote:
The more advanced one becomes the more important it is to know the historical terms that are wrong as well as right in understanding the literature.Exactly. A couple of useful resources for deciphering weaving and textile/fabric terms: Valk, Gene Elizabeth. Old Looms Glossary (Gloversville, NY: Weefhuis Studio, 2006). ISBN1424302064. This is particularly good for deciphering descriptions in early- to mid-19th century works, especially when they're written in English. Valk also indicates which words (e.g., "overshot") first appear in the 20th century, and which words appeared before 1900. Wingate, Isabel B. Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles, 6th ed. (New York: Fairchild Publications, 1979). ISBN-13 9780870051982. Considered by many to be the OED of textiles, and a required purchase by many fashion and textiles programs. Buy it used--Amazon wants far too much for a brand-new copy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marguerite Kaufman
A few years ago Cat Bordi was working on a weaving book with cute names for various structures, now we have another book out with cute names. I believe I read that he cute names were meant to replace long names with just too many letters. Now today I see that rigid heddle weaving is so different that we need a different nomenclature. I weave on multishaft looms and rigid heddle looms and fail to see the radical difference that would create a need for a whole new lexicon. There are many kinds of looms, but in the end the result of using a loom is to make cloth (or something resembling cloth) and the cloth that is made has a structure. Yes, there is already a confusion of names for different structures, but I fail to see why adding to that confusion benefits the weaving community.
Some years ago at a Complex Weavers Seminar in Washington DC and then in Reno in 2018 as part of the Seminars there were discusions about nomenclature. At that time suggestions were made about attempting to create a dictionary of terms, such that terms could be cross referenced and maybe an attempt to set a preferred term for a structure. I, too, would be interested in working on lexicon project for weaving. Marguerite |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Carly,
I am not referring to just one book, term or reference, but generally to the need to use the most common adult term for what we put on this list. That does not mean disrespect for any type of equipment - I just sold another 8 shaft countermarche loom today to a weaver who up to now has only a rigid heddle loom - he came, spent the day in the shop and we transferred his knowledge to the new loom and he left for Kansas City after easily adjusting to the demo loom in the store. At no time did we discuss the trendy vocabulary and videos going around on rh loom, but used solid weaving vocabulary, talked about loom engineering, physics, and other technical aspects of assembling and warping his new loom purchase. He took a very nice book, accessories and some singles linen along - my main concern right now is that new weavers lacking experience and exposure are making up words that down the line only cause confusion among weavers when there already was a perfectly good term for what they just "invented". This applies to any part of weaving, any type of loom, any type of fabric. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joe P
Hi Francine
You teach medical students. You deal with text books. A weaving book all so is a text book can be a basic text or an advanced text, in reading the text sometimes in the text will be a star like this * or a small number that will correspond to a foot note. That
will give a definition to a part of the text so the reader of the text has full understanding of the text.
If this is not the case in the way the text book is written.
Text books, have a glossary in the back of the text book that will explain terms so the reader has completed understand of the text. I am one of those that have
to collect I like old weaving books and some go back to the early 1800's and the weaving terminology has not changed great deal at all in that time frame to today.
When I leaned to weave, I learned from text and weaving terms, questioning weavers, no you tube videos. I enjoy to watch you tub weaving videos. I see the red flags.
If I learned how to weave just from watching, you tube. I would take all said as truth I would never see a red flag, I would think all is fact. have to add there are great you tube videos I have learned from bad you tube videos There is a wide gap between
text and see what I can do. That gap needs to be closed. I can't see one more lexicon closing the gap.
Keep weaving
Joe Bear in WI U.S.A.
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Francine Jacobson <fjacobson@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 10:51 PM To: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature HI, everyone,
I mostly lurk although several of you know me well. The discussion about nomenclature has now also crossed over to my day job. I teach medical students, residents, and fellows the evolution of nomenclature for diseases in the chest. The more
advanced one becomes the more important it is to know the historical terms that are wrong as well as right in understanding the literature.
I would be interested in working on a lexicon project for weaving and other fiber arts.
Thank you for all chiming in on this interesting thread.
Francine Jacobson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joe P
Hi Carly
I enjoyed your post a great deal I read it more than once. There was not one thing in your post to be sorry about, I don't feel you have been on a soap box, at the cost of tomatoes I don't think you have too much to worry about. :>)
My weaving education from a 2-shaft loom to a 12-shaft loom and everything I have had to learn in between I have done for me because I wanted to.
I will never be a part or support anything that I know is wrong because that makes me part of the continuation of the problem. I am always willing to be part of
the solution.
There is a solution to the problem. That is for weavers that have the education of making videos to make simple weaving videos with all of the proper weaving terminology, and post them to you tube. Not many have the time. I am old and retired 68 I can buy all
of what is needed cameras and lighting and all of it I have some time. I lack the know-how of making the videos. Young weavers meet and become friends and go shopping and to weaving events. I am old school I don't fit the need if I could make videos. I am
the age of grand pa. Weaving teachers can't teach for free it is their income. Students in college learning weaving and making weaving videos for extra credit. Now how many of the weaver on the list that have college degrees are still in contact with their
weaving proffers. A visit, a little lunch planting some seeds. There is a gamble here, we weavers take a lot of gambles every time we want to learn something new, in weaving, we get it done.
Now I am sure there is a weaving professor or two or more on this list I just might have planted a seed or two, I can hope.
If nothing is done, I feel the problem will get wort as time goes by. Ant that the truth.
Keep Weaving
Joe Bear in WI U.S.A.
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Carly Jayne <Cjayne@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 9:54 PM To: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature Thanks for voicing this Linda. And to Sara, I want to preface by saying I respect you and your work. I do, however, want to offer a correction: this is NOT an inclusive group. it never meant to be so and I am not going to recommend
it be anything but what it is but I think we can come to an agreement that weaving covers more areas than this group focuses on. Even if you read and study everything you can, you can not learn the entirety of weaving technical data and history, and to assume
one could is rather problematic. Weavetech is clear it is a non-beginner shafted loom group. I will talk a bit more about this in relationship with Myra Wood's book. It's one of the first rigid heddle books in circulation that focuses on a single technique written just for the rigid heddle loom. If you purchased every rigid heddle book currently in print, you would have more fingers than books. Let that sink in for a second: imagine getting a loom and having few patterns, few publications, no books of drafts, all of maybe 3 teachers, no mentors...no library to shuffle through and dream over with a cup of tea. You can get to the end of your instruction in a few months and your reading material gets old quick. If you have a problem and your teacher can't answer it, you don't have another to ask. Little Looms is valiantly catching up, but it's still working on getting more meaty articles that go beyond plain weave tea towels and scarf patterns (and we share the publication with all small looms which is a sticking point for some rigid heddle weavers). The assumption is that the rigid heddle is simply an easy beginner loom, but I think the real truth is that it's a loom underutilized. And with decreasing house sizes and the lower disposable income available to future generations-
it could very well play an important part in the future of weaving in America, so it's where I choose to dedicate myself despite the general lack of support offered by the established weaving community. What I wish I could get shaft loom weavers to understand
is that when you weave a structure on a rigid heddle loom, you no longer can simply follow the warping plan, tie up and lift plan and get your weave (haha, "simply", I know it's not that simple). You have to consider what every warp and pick is doing in the
cloth and then you work backward to figure out how to achieve it and what its purpose is. The result is that sometimes you distill a draft to its most elemental parts: overshot is no longer a group of coverlet drafts from early in American history, it's a
structure where a pattern thread floats over some warp threads between tabby picks. Huck, Swedish Lace, Atwater-Bronson become umbrellaed under pick-up stick patterns. Some terms are borrowed from shaft loom weaving nomenclature, simply because that is what
we have to work with, but I don't think it's a stretch to say some of those terms will shift because different looms can not always use the same word and have it be expected those terms will mean the same exact things on both looms. I am sure there are parts
of a floor loom that are related to a part of an earlier loom that adapted in its usage in time, drafts and structures are sure to be the same. The heddle on a rigid heddle is not the same as it is on a floor loom. When a rigid heddle weaver doubles 8/2 to
make a tea towel, we still call it plain-weave though it's technically a basketweave. Some of this is actually uninformed because we are all new weavers, but it's also language being created as new techniques are being adapted to a loom without a lot of deep
history or mastery. To be frank, our terminology is kind of a mess. There is a lot we need to codify (have you ever written out a complex pattern for a rigid heddle, it's rough!) but it's going to take time. The guild structure can help with this, but instead
they just focus on getting rigid heddle weavers to shafted looms as soon as possible. Now the term Crazyshot, I hate it! On that Sara and can find common ground. I feel infantilized enough as a rigid heddle weaver (seriously "Easy Weaving with Little Looms", "Crazyshot"... ugh). But... that said I love Myra and
her fortitude to offer something different and exciting fearlessly and unapologetically. I LOVE people are carefully picking each warp thread to create complex patterning instead of deciding it's too hard and slow. As more people adapt 4 shaft patterns to
3 heddles, we might need to rework the wording so there is less overlap, but for now, very few people are doing that and I am not sure if that is the correct path for the rigid heddle to go. Rigid Heddles are not a replacement for table and floor looms. I
have done a few drafts from Anne Dixon and though rewarding, it's not the faint of heart and it's not really be best expression of the loom. But, more than commonly assumed, you can get an endless and exciting variety of textiles on a rigid heddle and so many
are waiting to be unearthed. Summer and Winter, for example, adapts miraculously and gives the rigid heddle weaver the power of any number of shafts they could ever want with one simple threading to remember and a fairly easy lift sequence. It's very slow
work, as I am sure anyone who puts a lot of time and effort in diving deep into unexplored weaving techniques understands. And of course, once someone tests, adapts and formalizes and teaches a technique, they want to take a bit of ownership and give it a
name that is descriptive and speaks to who they are...so we have Crazyshot. so be it. :) Don't love it, will never fail to support it. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
Very interesting post, Carly! Denise your post also raised an interesting perspective.
To speak to the general subject - I don't see the point in going through the trouble of making yet another weaving dictionary that people won't read. There is no "correct" or "standard" terminology you will get universal agreement on anyways. And the problem isn't that terms haven't been fully defined, it's that people vary in their desire to look for information, and where and how they look for it. What you can control, as a communicator, is to reference and/or define the terms you use. But you can't control whether or not people go looking for the right terms. And you can't control whether or not someone uses terms correctly, but has just made different choices from you (that doesn't make them wrong or ignorant). I try to be aware of any differences in terminology, and provide definitions and where they came from (or who uses them). My goal isn't to be "right". It's to make sure whoever I'm talking to understands. Yes, I try to be as accurate and specific as possible in my use of terms. But anybody who has read the various weaving references has discovered that all you can do in some cases is choose between several valid options. Here's an example of something I posted to the Complex Weavers Double Weave Study Group (slightly edited) when we were talking about lampas: "Here are my notes on the terminology per Schlein (Lampas monograph), van der Hoogt (The Complete Book of Drafting for Handweavers), Barrett and Smith (Double Two-Tie Unit Weaves), Blumenthal (Weaver's Thick and Thin). Please note that for the most part Warp 1 interlaces with Weft 1 (and Warp 2 interlaces with Weft 2). Warp: Warp 1 (medium/heavy yarns):
Weft:
primary - Schlein main/ground - van der Hoogt pattern - Barrett and Smith main/foundation - Blumenthal Warp 2 (medium/fine yarns): secondary - Schlein secondary/binder - van der Hoogt tie-down - Barrett and Smith secondary - Blumenthal Weft 1 (medium/fine yarns): primary - Schlein main - van der Hoogt tie-down - Barrett and Smith main - Blumenthal Weft 2 (medium/heavy yarns): secondary - Schlein secondary/pattern - van der Hoogt pattern - Barrett and Smith secondary - Blumenthal" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
From Denise Kovnat:
"I just wanted to note that, regardless of where we stand on certain terms, the assumption (or is it arrogance?) of this discussion is that we all speak English. A few other terms from other languages have crept in, out of respect for the origin of certain techniques, but for the most part, this is all about weaving terminology in English. Thinking broadly, we ought to consider the hundreds of other cultures that weave with equal expertise and use none of our terms. Consider, too, that weaving has been central to human culture for tens of thousands of years, long before modern English developed. We know that, throughout the history of our craft, highly sophisticated techniques made their way from tribe to tribe, civilization to civilization, with both the words and the techniques morphing as they traveled.
Nowadays, of course, global communications require a common language so that everybody understands each another. For instance, English is the dominant language for scientists today but, prior to that, it was German. Should English be the lingua franca for weavers of all cultures? Or are we working to define our terms for just those who speak English?
Only some thoughts and questions, not really arriving at any conclusion.... My one conviction is that language in general is fluid and organic and ever-growing, never frozen in amber, and that's the beauty of it! Samuel Johnson, brilliant as he was, was nevertheless shooting at a moving target ;o)" That's a good question. This is my perspective. I prefer weaving terms, particularly the names for weave structures, that are informative. But they are few and far between. So here are a couple of examples (all translations are using Google translate)... "Hin und wieder" in German means "now and again" in English. It refers to a point twill threading and treadling, and the name actually gives you a clue as to the threading/treadling/weave structures. We use the German to refer to the group of structures, which means that the name is informative for German speakers, but uninformative for English Speakers. "Jin" is the Chinese term for a weave structure first used in China for patterned polychrome silks. "Jin" means "gold" in Chinese. So the term is uninformative for both Chinese (other than through convention) and English speakers. There is an informative English name to refer to the weave structure - "warp-faced compound tabby" - which is used by English counterparts of Chinese archeologists (I don't know to what extent this is true, but I find many references to it in academic and weaving books). "Warp-faced compound tabby" translates to something quite different in Chinese. So what is the right answer? Definitely "jin" and "hin und wieder" should be used by Chinese and German speakers (rather than the Chinese translation for "warp-faced compound tabby"). But can we make a case for using the informative English terms, rather than the uninformative German and Chinese (doubly uninformative, since the Chinese translation also does not give a clue about the structure) terms? Certainly many of the standard weaving references already use warp-faced compound tabby, so moving towards "jin" means that there will be a period of confusion. We can probably all agree that "turned taqueté" can be discarded (although it is slightly informative, as many weavers know what "taqueté" is, so "turned" makes sense). I don't have the answer. I just have my preference. I suspect there are many people who like the mystery and the sense of accomplishment you get from learning the "secret handshake" (i.e. learning what all the special words mean), as a way to keep it exclusive. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
I should also note, though, that I think Denise was speaking more to a global responsibility to be more inclusive of weavers, especially from non-Western cultures. And I don't know how the battle between "informative" and "inclusivity" plays out, even within myself. In the current global environment, perhaps it should be "inclusivity".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have found this link as another good glossary on textile terms. Written by Feng Zhao, deputy director of Chinese Silk Museum and archeologist. One of the other sometimes confusing layers of textiles thrown into the mix is the museum curator language which strives to describe the interlacement of the fabric disregarding loom type used. I’ve learned to step back and listening to someone and understand what field they are speaking from. It has helped a lot to think beyond a loom point of view. Deb Mc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Actually, if you were to compare those sources, using the full context of
their descriptions, the information would be comprehensible to a reader. (Just finished a presentation using most of them) With lampas, there are two warps and two wefts with differing functions - the grid you show keeps those yarns and functions in the proper relationship in spite of differing words. The way that Weavetech has worked in the past is that if someone was confused by your choice of terms, they would simply ask for a bit of clarification and things would proceed. This group has always been International in scope - many distinguished weavers in other lands are/were members though their primary language is not English. The published language on the list is English. Techniques from anywhere in the world are open for discussion. I would say this is a place for informed inclusivity. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 09:00 AM, Sara von Tresckow wrote:
Actually, if you were to compare those sources, using the full context ofExactly. Definition/description and/or reference makes it unnecessary to figure out which one is "correct". I would say this is a place for informed inclusivity."Informed inclusivity" would have made this topic unnecessary. Someone would have pointed out that halvdräll can be considered a form of overshot (references have already been given in thread), and no further discussion would have been needed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 05:50 AM, Linda Schultz wrote: [edited for space]
"That's a good question. This is my perspective. I prefer weaving terms, particularly the names for weave structures, that are informative. But they are few and far between. So here are a couple of examples (all translations are using Google translate)... "Hin und wieder" in German means "now and again" in English. It refers to a point twill threading and treadling, and the name actually gives you a clue as to the threading/treadling/weave structures. We use the German to refer to the group of structures, which means that the name is informative for German speakers, but uninformative for English Speakers.... I don't have the answer. I just have my preference. I suspect there are many people who like the mystery and the sense of accomplishment you get from learning the "secret handshake" (i.e. learning what all the special words mean), as a way to keep it exclusive." Most etymologists and editors will agree: Don't use Google Translate for anything aside from getting a general sense of content. It's rubbish. Hin und wieder does not mean "now and again": if the words are taken separately, it translates to "there and again," but putting several words together can change the translation that Google Translate coughs up, because it isn't really able to grasp idioms. Google Translate also can't self-correct for language shift. Hin und wieder is an archaic, idiomatic phrase that roughly translates to the English phrase, "back and forth." How did I find this out? Research. Asking people who are fluent in Yiddish and Plattdeutsch, both of which have retained many of the characteristics of the German that was used prior to standardization in the 19th century. And testing the "directions" (for that is what the phrase is) on the loom by weaving a lot of twills. Point twill, treadled as threaded. If you look at 18th and 19th century draft and pattern "books" (manuscripts), you frequently find hin written under tie-ups. It's a nice, tidy abbreviation: the tie-up gives the number of shafts and treadles, and how the treadles are to be tied: a single word gives the threading and the treadling. Hin is found throughout the manuscripts created by German weavers, who wrote in German. It (along with a lot of other German) is also throughout the manuscripts created by American weavers who were fluent in English. Now, about that "secret handshake." Do you know why it existed? Why the "arcane knowledge" of weaving was passed down through the guild structure, from master to apprentice for hundreds of years? Because weaving knowledge had monetary value.Weaving was something that was done, mostly by men, for money, and protecting the knowledge meant that weavers were protecting their livelihoods. There were/are no protections against anyone taking a draft and turning it into cloth, and then selling that cloth, so the keys to producing good cloth--especially complex fabrics on multishaft looms--were guarded as jealously as Apple guards the code for its next OS update, or Coco-Cola guards the formula for Coke. For American weavers, writing weaving instructions and details in the Plattdeutsch and weaving notation they had learned as beginning weavers, and then teaching their own assistants, ensured that they could show designs to potential customers without fear that the designs would be taken away and reproduced by someone else. When handweaving moved from commerce to hobby in the early 20th century, weaving knowledge lost most of its value--some was passed along by people such as Mary Meigs Atwater, Marguerite Porter Davison, and Helene Bress; some died with the weavers who knew it; and some was left behind for later weavers and textile historians to rediscover. Weaving knowledge still has monetary value. As members of the weaving community, we participate in this "secret handshake" every time we, rightly, agree to a teacher's request to not photocopy the handouts from a class, or photograph a textile or sample that will be appearing in an upcoming magazine, journal, or book. We are acknowledging the right of an author or teacher to make money from their work, and strengthening the bonds of our community because "friends don't steal from friends." Dawn Jacobson |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:40 AM, Dawn Jacobson wrote:
Hin und wieder does not mean "now and again": if the words are taken separately, it translates to "there and again," but putting several words together can change the translation that Google Translate coughs up, because it isn't really able to grasp idioms. Google Translate also can't self-correct for language shift. Hin und wieder is an archaic, idiomatic phrase that roughly translates to the English phrase, "back and forth."Thank you. I understand that Google Translate will be rough. My intent, which you just confirmed, was to show that these are words which have meaning and provide a clue about the weave structure ("back and forth" is even more useful than "now and again"), rather than the name of a place or person (for example). I understand why the "secret handshake" in the past. I also understand copyright protection. I don't understand how that is relevant to this discussion, though. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
