I believe I have neither stooped to personal attack, and have been polite in my disagreement, and that I have stated my case VERY objectively. I welcome civil discourse - so I'm not sure quite what your point is here Clark.

I don't believe that there is anything inherently controversial about the facts I have brought forward, and indeed, no one has yet come up with any sort of reasoned rebuttal to my case, short of appeals which are inherently fallacious. I think the 'controversial' part you mention is that the information I bring forward does not align with common understanding, so therefore it is a 'controversy' - for some anyhow.

To borrow from Wikipedia, "A controversy is always the result of either ignorance (lack of sufficient true information), misinformation, misunderstandings, half-truths, distortions, bias or prejudice, deliberate lies or fabrications, opposing underlying motives or purposes (sometimes masked or hidden), or a combination of these factors"

I think I have uncovered some areas of misunderstanding, of distortion, and of misinformation in regards to the roof many in N. America call a Gambrel. My motive is to show that the word actually means, and refers to, a quite different roof. Since we build roofs as timber framers, I thought that some clear information on this topic would be valuable to most.

Where I take exception are out-of-hand dismissals of my views, with no supporting reasoning, such as I perceived earlier, and I am not willing to let that stand without challenge. I'm open to altering my views, but it will take good information and reasoning to do that. In want of that, I will stick with my belief in this matter. Fortunately I live in a time where I am unlikely to be burned at the stake for my 'heresy'.

I believe I was crystal clear that I was not making an accusation of any kind - quite the opposite in fact. My point is simply that I'd like to see the discussion continue. CB.

Sounds good to me Clark - may the discussion continue.

Dear All,

Following receipt of Joel's good advice I have revisited my earlier stated opinions but can find nothing that makes me change my mind.

Please consult the gospell according to St. Cecil - English Historic Carpentry - page 145 - Church of St Mary the Virgin, Sheering, Essex ably illustrated by Hewett in fig 129 where he shows a type of roof that he refers to as preceeding the 17th century Gambrel roof. This roof form is also commonly known as a Mansard roof with the two terms being relatively interchangeable. Present day American authors such as Sobon, Benson & Leffingwell all use the term Gambrell to describe a Mansard roof form similar to that illustrated by Hewett and rather interestingly Leffingwell also provides a sketch of a roof form idential to that illustrated by Corkhill which he describes as a hipped roof with gablet.

Sometimes what is not said or mentioned in text can be as important to note as what is said and I note that Yeomans, Harris, Charles and Lowell Cummins make no reference to nor make use of the term Gambrell or Mansard with the latter being surprising since the Fairbanks House (America's oldest) has two 17th and 18th century Mansard / Gambrell roofed extensions.

The present day defacto standard list of terms for use in recording timber-framed buildings is the CBA Handbook No5 by Alcock, Barley, Dixon and Meeson. They clearly illustrate on page 40 the definitions for hipped roof with gablet and Mansard as per my previous advice. Brunskill also illustrates and defines the use of the terms Gambrell and Mansard as follows :- ".... the double pitch or Gambrel roof, which is perhaps more accurately called the Mansard roof in its hipped version"

The terms hipped, half hipped, fully hipped and gablet are all terms that are used so frequently and understood by nearly all timber frame carpenters, building archeologists and historians that any attempts to confuse this well established convention would I think not be well received or accepted by practitioners.

Chris,

Comme d'habitude !

Regards

Ken Hume

Wow. Were in quite the soup here.

CULTURE

Culture is a very hard thing to change. If gambrel has been falsely applied, which given the dictionary examples looks like it has, it doesn't change the fact that culture is a very stubborn animal. A formal change could happen today in all the carpentry texts, but culture would ignore it. History shows that culture trumps academics and even law. Always. At least at first.

For example, slavery was abolished through legislation but culture was way way way behind in its recognition of emancipation.

Chris, perhaps it would help us to know why this whole matter is so important to you. We're not talking about folks ignoring scientific discovery, we're talking about a name for a roof. I think we all salute your passion for the craft, and you're a good teacher, but why is it so vital to change this "misappropriation?"

Language is a science, and it seems you've been arguing, correlating and supporting your point from strictly scientific angles. But culture (the trade) is what we're ultimately talking about, I think. Language is the voice of culture, that as we've said, ebbs and flows. Words change.

I don't mean to trivialize the matter w/ a simple analogy , but potato chips are called crisps in the UK...just different names for the same thing. Different because of CULTURE.

Anyway, It is an interesting thing you've brought here. I for one am glad you share your research. Keep it up!

Chris,

I see your point that common practice does not establish truth. However, in the case of language, I think common practice does establish meaning to some degree.

In this particular case, I would posit that if I were to gather all carpenters in the state of Georgia together in a room and say "draw a gambrel roof", the vast majority would draw the two pitched roof the original poster is modeling.


Do you feel the same about other terms that have changed -- like wainscot? If we changed the meaning 300 years ago is the "new" meaning right yet? 500 years?

all in good fun...

Talk about a hijacked thread..... lol



Andy

Ken, comments appreciated, and as you note in the literature, there is some confusion of terms with the word 'Gambrel'. I would put it to you that a lot of what passes for 'scholarship' is in fact copying the work of others verbatim, passing on the received wisdom, so to speak. I have certainly seen the word Gambrel in many architectural dictionaries, in the modern North American sense and usage, i.e., as a word for a Mansard roof. Mistakes are easier to simply repeat - far easier than doing original research.

I'm well familiar with Hewett's works, owning both English Historic Carpentry and English Cathedral and Monastic Carpentry, as well as having read his Carpentry, An Essex Study: 1200~1700. I am familiar with the passage which you quote, as I have read Hewett's works quite closely and learned much from them. I have also discovered a few inconsistencies in his works, and only wish he was alive to answer some questions that have come up for me. I communicated with his publisher late last year and it was to my regret to learn that he had passed on.

That is to say, Hewett is not the Oracle on all things carpentry. He was an academic, not a guy who built with his hands, so his perspective is necessarily one step removed from the source. Academics examining the various trades uncover much truth, but they also, though their actual lack of intimacy with the materials of those trades, perpetuate a few mistakes as well. Every academic book I have on building has some errors due to this cause.

I think that referencing what Hewett said, or any other author, consists in little more than 'appeals to authority', which as we both know are fallacies. Hey, I do that appeal myself.

My point about the word 'Gambrel- is to look at the fact that of it's very meaning, of a stick forcing a slaughtered animal's legs apart or hock of a horse's leg, as a visual form, cannot be reconciled with what we are terming a Gambrel - it can however be reconciled with what we call a hipped gable. And, given that early American dictionaries were describing a gambrel as a hipped gable and ascribing the definition to the meaning of the word in Dutch, well, this makes the case, for me at least. Add to that the colonization of Indonesia by the Dutch, the prevalence of the hipped gable roof form there, which they borrowed, and you have another strong supporting element.

Also, I note in Building Early America, the Gambrel was termed in Virginia a 'Dutch' roof. Further, a hipped gable is sometimes called a 'Dutch Gable'. There's a fair bit of confusion in the terminology, we have to admit. It would be nice, I think, to tease out the truth and develop clear definitions for roof shapes.

Anyhow, be that as it may, I am thinking that we are building professionals here with an abiding interest in these traditional forms of building. Am I right? If the building professional chooses to repeat the mis-use of a word, then the layman will of course accept that. If the building professional has come across new information that alters his perspective, then he has some authority and power to effect change, it seems to me. Maybe I exaggerate or am over-optimistic in this regard. For example, if I come to understand the factors that lead to ice-damming in a roof, perhaps then I can clarify a client's suppositions about this matter, and provide them with accurate information with which to deal with the issue. Often they will listen to me, for after all, I study this stuff all the time, live and breath it, yada-yada. I could equally have done no research whatsoever on this matter, pretend to be an expert anyhow, and simply repeat what old Bob down the road said. This does the client a disservice, I'm sure you would all agree.

It's just the same if I go to the doctor with some ailment - let's say a snake bit me - and repeat to them some gem of vernacular wisdom, such as, "I heard that sucking on a snake bite to remove the poison is a good idea". Well, that doctor, I hope, would set me straight on that matter (it's not a good idea), and I would listen to them because they are the expert. Doesn't mean they are right 100% of the time, but they are quite likely going to know more about it than I will. I think the same goes for laypeople and building professionals. What WE call something DOES matter.

I could repeat these examples with new discoveries in archaeology, history, material science, surveys of the universe by improved telescopes, etc. When new information comes along that shows a past idea to be false, then it seems to me that an open minded person accepts that and moves forward with that information.

OurBarns1 wrote,

"Chris, perhaps it would help us to know why this whole matter is so important to you. We're not talking about folks ignoring scientific discovery, we're talking about a name for a roof. I think we all salute your passion for the craft, and you're a good teacher, but why is it so vital to change this "misappropriation?"

Language is a science, and it seems you've been arguing, correlating and supporting your point from strictly scientific angles. But culture (the trade) is what we're ultimately talking about, I think. Language is the voice of culture, that as we've said, ebbs and flows. Words change."

What you say is largely true, and yes, in the bigger picture, wrestling over the term for a roof shape amounts to a hill of beans. BUT, since I have come to learn some new things about the word 'Gambrel' and learn that it refers to something other than what I had thought previously, so when I see people discussing a roof they are referring to as a Gambrel, and I want to participate in that discussion, I'm not going to simply swallow that inconvenient fact, to borrow a phrase from a certain recent documentary with Al Gore, and go along with the flow of conversation. Just 'cause y'all are calling it a Gambrel doesn't mean I should or will. And while language is a cultural artifact, and words change, words DO have meanings, they are not simply arbitrary markers. I honor the meanings of words and their origins, as much as I honor history - both teach so much, and give a dimension of depth to our culture.

You are right that it is often the case that culture changes slowly, however I am not so sure that is the case with words, which can come in and out of fashion in very short periods indeed. And if gambrel has by some weird turn of events come into popular use to describe a Mansard, then it can just as quickly fall out of use - or be pushed off a cliff altogether.

You know as well as I do that if a tv show personality started referring to that roof as a "piggyback roof", the odds are in a short period of time, many would imitate that. And would you all simply accept that? "Oh, well gee, everyone is calling it a piggyback roof, so I guess I will too." I think some might protest.

Anyhow, I've said my piece on the matter, and haven't been convinced that my perspective is in error thus far, so I'll just continue calling that roof a Mansard. It's not a life-or-death issue obviously, but sticking to what I believe is an important moral choice for me. I care about carpentry and want to be a positive influence in the world of carpentry, both by what I build and what I write. Both are artifacts of integrity for me. I hope you all can understand that.

Dear AAK,

My sincere apologies for this hijacking. I tried to keep my replies brief for this very reason but brevity is obviously not some people's strong point.

Don,

Potato chips are French fries !

Chris,

You are quite wrong about Cecil Hewett. I was fortunate to meet him at Cressing Temple, Essex before his sad departure from this world. He was a very practical carpenter and indeed a very good model maker. He was a historic buildings conservation officer and not an academic. We all make mistakes and Cecil was no Saint in this respect, however the body of knowledge that he assembled and published during his lifetime is still beyond compare.

I am indeed pleased to hear that you have now said your piece on this matter, frankly you have overstated your case and said way too much and I can appreciate why AAK is probably more than just a little annoyed.

Regards

Ken Hume

See, it all goes back to the French. So I will cast my vote and whenever gambrel comes up in conversation I can now say "oh, a two sided mansard".

What was AAk's original question? And has it been answered.

Tim