Peter typed:

Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Peter typed:

I don't think it's careless at all. My "Standard College Dictionary" gives
as the third definition of sponson "An air tank built into the sides of a
canoe to improve stability and prevent sinking." The air tanks under the
seats of the dinghies I sailed were "built into the sides of those boats to
improve stability and prevent sinking" and on that basis I asserted that
they acted as internal sponsons.


There can
be NO SUCH THING as an "internal sponson".

That doesn't seem to be the view of my dictionary, nor is it the view of
Klepper, Folbot, or Feathercraft, which all refer to the air chambers
located inside the hulls of their boats as sponsons.


My apologies, Peter, but... The only references available to me right
now are online. However, the view of your dictionary seems to be
outvoted, six to one (either that, or, as I believe is more likely,
you are stretching "built into the sides" to mean "built from side to
side"). Three of the six references below show no reasonable
application to canoes or kayaks.

In that case we are either all incorrectly using the word "sponson" since
we are all talking about something related to kayaks/canoes, or those three
references are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Of the three which mention canoes,
one says "on the gunwale", one says "along each side", and one says
"along a canoe". Although none specifically says so, I s'pose the air
chamber could be on the INSIDE of the hull, but "along", "along each
side", and "on the gunwhale" can in no way be stretched to mean "under
the thwart". Furthermore, two of these three references also mention
"stability", which can only be achieved by external sponsons.

Only if you assume that the stability referred to is when there is no water
inside the boat. But the whole point of the flotation chambers in most
boats is for support in the event the boat gets swamped and it is in that
circumstance that they can offer both improved stability and resistance to
sinking.

So as I see it, three of your references are irrelevant since they include
no definition that pertains to kayaks or similar boats,

Huh? Suppose you find a definition of "hull" that refers to ships,
barges, dinghies, and canoes. Will you then conclude that the
definition is irrelevant to any discussion of *kayaks*? I mean, jeez,
Merriam-Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) definition
of "tire" mentions an automobile wheel. Does the lack of mention of a
bicycle mean that the definition is irrelevant in the context of a
bicycle? The definitions say what the object IS; the examples of
where it might appear are merely *examples*. And what a sponson IS,
according to the definitions, is a protuberance from a hull. And if
it protrudes, it is not internal, which was my original point.

and the other three
are ambiguous as to whether the flotation is inside or outside the hull -
the important factor appears to be that it is located near the side of the
vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or stern. This is the
important functional characteristic since flotation placed near the sides
will keep the swamped boat from rolling over much more effectively than
flotation in other locations. In this they agree with my Funk & Wagnall's
dictionary which used the phrase "built into the sides of the canoe."

This is starting to get a bit silly, but look: EVERY definition of
"sponson" has, as primary definition, "a protuberance from the hull".
EVERY one. Tim Ingram's sponsons lash to the outside of the hull.
Thus they are removble protuberances. Thus they fit the primary
definition, by (Funk & Wagnall's brings us up to 8) all dictionaries
consulted. And every definition that mentions canoes says, in some
way, "along" the hull (not athwart the vessel like yer underseat
floatation chambers). Look at
http://www.castlecraft.com/sportspal_double-end.htm and you will see a
photograph of "sponsons" that are clearly attached to the OUTSIDE of
the hull, along the length of the hull.

Yet you continue, in the paragraph above, to go on at great length
about "floatation". Yes. YES. YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!! You are
absolutely correct! "Floatation" is all the good things you say it
is. But this discussion is not about "floatation", per se; it is
about "sponsons", in general, and about detachable inflatable
"sponsons", in particular. When you write a long paragraph, as the
one above, truly and correctly extolling the virtues of "floatation",
I can only agree, but when you use this paean to floatation as a
defense of "sponsons", it is incorrect, and confuses the issue.

I'm baffled, Peter, utterly baffled. Why do you persist in trying to
distort the meaning of this word? Just look at an illustration of a
seaplane hull (the example cited in the secondary meaning, in most
definitions), and you will see how the circular cross-section of the
hull is squared off in the chines just above the waterline. These are
sponsons, "along the hull", on the outside of the hull, to provide
stability.

The folding-boat manufacturers have evidently misappropriated this
word (in the whitewater canoe and kayak world, we refer to these
internal things as either "air bags" or as "floatation"). But because
folding-boat manufacturers misuse nautical terminology in their narrow
context is no reason for us to misuse it in any wider context. I
mean, in none of the eight definitions thus far adduced has there been
a single reference to any ***internal*** floatation chamber or bag.

All I am trying to do is get you to understand that you ruin any
attempt to honestly debate the utility of sponsons (Ingram's
inflatable ones or any others) when you use the word "sponson" to
describe something else. You even admit that "...it is located near
the side of the vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or
stern. This is the important functional characteristic...", which
clearly precludes the inclusion of yer underseat floatation chambers,
which is all I was trying to say in the first place.

[snip] If
you are referring to the folding kayak manufacturers, then please explain
to the citizens of either Charleston or Vancouver that they do not speak
English (the citizens of Rosenheim would presumably be willing to agree
that it's not their primary language,
[snip]

My mistake. I thought two of 'em were German. Charleston (SC?) and
Vancouver (BC?) are two seaport towns, so one would have hoped that
their residents would get nautical terminology right.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================