Hello everyone, my name is Andy and I'm new here.

I am not too familiar with timber framing and post and beam designs so I am seeking some help in designing a barn.

My hobby is building farm equipment to scale, and I would like to build a scale barn. The barn I want to build will represent a 36'x56' gambrel barn with stalls and a hay loft. I have mocked up a drawing on Google Sketch up and would like some advise on how to improve it. My main concern with this design is that the two queen posts (I think that's what it is called) just stop at the beam and do not follow through to the ground. I have seen a couple gambrel barns this way but is it safe for this size barn?

Also, what size timber should I be using? I was thinking 8"x8" for the posts, 6"x10" for the beams, 6"x8" rafters, and 3"x6" loft joists and roof purlins.

Please feel free to criticize my design, it will help a lot if you did.

Thank you,
Andy

Welcome Andy.

First off, nicely done for a hobby.

Secondly, there are others around here that are more experienced on this, but I will give it a go.

Yes the queen posts being directly over the ground posts would be stronger. Of course this would change your pitch since you obviously want 12' for stalls. (From what Ive read you want no less for the horses). Or you could change the height of the upper plate.

It also looks like (might be the perspective) that your loft is taller than your ground floor.

The connection at the queen posts (in my opinion) should be changed. That tie should probably drop so the queen posts join with the plate. It also looks that some larger bracing (more run) would be helpful.

I know you are wanting to build a scaled model (thus joinery is probably not an issue) but the connection between the lower pitch, plate, and upper rafter has always got me thinking. I think this might work. Extended tenon through queen to rafter.



Anyway, hopefully some others will chime in. This gambrel stuff has gotten a lot of discussion before.

I think the queen post could work there. I would drop the tie along with Mo, a foot should do it. No need for the king post.

Visit an existing barn and build it just as you see it and to scale, Do this three times and send your results to TTRAG. A great way to document a building and you achieve your goal with some preservation on top.

Tim

Thank you for the reply. You are correct, I am trying to keep 12' stalls. I am quickly finding out that these gambrel roofs are not as simple as they seem. I am trying to keep the 12' stalls while also trying to keep the roof slope around 7-12 and 12-7. This is a challenge for me.

Thanks a ton for that sketch, I can see clearly what you explained. However, how would I attach the upper rafter to that?

And yes, as it is now, the loft is taller than the ground floor. I looked at some post and beam gambrel barns and it looks to me that most lofts are taller (to me anyway) than the ground floor. Again, I am not familiar with this stuff, so I definitely could be wrong.



^^^ Here's a pic of a gambrel that looks like the loft is taller than the ground floor. This is actually a 36' wide horse barn with 12' stalls, but I kind of didn't want to copy someone else work, but I may have to do that. I am not all that crazy about the roof pitch on that one either.

Thanks a lot for the help, much appreciated.

Andy

Thanks for the information Tim. You're going to have to bare with me with some terminology. What is Mo? Then perhaps I will understand your suggestion more clearly.


Thanks,
Andy

Andy, Mo is the second poster on this thread. I was agreeing with his comments.

If you are using 8x8 post make the tie beams 8x10's not 6x8's. You mentioned purlins, I don't see any common purlins in your sketchup. The purlin plate on top of the queen posts could be sized to 8x8's, as well as the tie between the queens. The joist are a bit small for the 11' span. As this is a model you can utilize full length stock with no problem, 56' top plates etc.

What scale would you be using?

Tim

Oh, okay. Sorry I was a little slow to realize that.

Okay, so I have some changes to work on, thanks for the suggestions.

Tim, the scale I am using is 1/64. Yes, a bit small but this is the scale I am used to building in.




^^ That's a Morton shop I built in 1/64 about a year ago.

Thanks for the help fellas, I think I am getting closer to coming up with something that will work.


Andy

Here's a quick sketch of what I came up with. I have not put in the knee braces yet. Let me know what you think.



Thanks,
Andy

below is one we did a few years ago, 36x50. I like a little less in the gambrel, but that's just me.

have fun!

Pete

Pete, that's a very nice barn, I really like that. Is it a horse barn?


Andy

andy,

yes it is a horse barn..If you like, I can forward you a framing section.

Pete

That would be great! I sent you a PM with my email address.


Andy

What does that mean? To which part are you referring?

It's a Mansard roof by the way - the old Dutch word Gambrel refers to a hipped gable roof. I put up a thread a while back on the history of the word 'Gambrel', and described how the term came to be mis-applied. Of course, it's anyone's prerogative to perpetuate that, but then we could also go back to calling 'oranges' correctly too: "noranges". The phrase ' an orange' is an example of "consonant migration", coming originally from 'a norange'.

Mind you, with orange/norange it's pretty easy to see how the change happened - with 'Gambrel' though it's like they took a thing called an 'orange' and started calling it a 'grapefruit'.

Well, so given that habit of speech usually wins out, fat chance of anything changing, so I realize I'm probably just shouting into the wind in terms of "Gambrel" too. Still it's worth trying to get the, er, word out.

Here's a picture from Thomas Corkhill's The Complete Dictionary of Wood (1982):

Chris, I thought of you when that came up.

Hi Chris,

All I can see in Mr. Corkhill's illustration is a hipped roof with gablet. This in no way resembles a gambrel roof.

Is this an extract from an American book ?

Regards

Ken Hume

I refer to the lower/steeper shed rafters as the gambrel portion of the roof and the upper roof section as a gable. My understanding is that as a 'whole', that style roof is referened to as a 'gambrel roof'. My original statement was an effort to identify that I do not prefer a large or extremely steep shed or gambrel rafter set. Everyone seems to have a different sense of what looks appropriate in this style roof .

Thanks,
pete

Ken wrote,

"All I can see in Mr. Corkhill's illustration is a hipped roof with gablet. This in no way resembles a gambrel roof."

Is this an extract from an American book?"

Yes, it is an illustration from an American book, published by Stein and Day, Scarborough House of New York. The Gambrel IS a hipped gable.

Gambrel is a Norman English word, sometimes spelled gamerel, gamrel, gambril and gameral meaning "a crooked or hooked stick". A Gambrel is a stick or piece of timber used to spread open and hang a slaughtered animal by its hind legs. Gambrel is also a term for the joint in the upper part of a horse’s hind leg, the hock. The shape of the spread legs, with a stick between them, looks like the form of the letter 'A'. The Dutch colonized Indonesia and borrowed this roof form from there, naming it 'Gamberil due to the resemblance to the slaughterhouse equipment - the sill crossing between the hips at the base of the 'gablet', as Corkhill calls it, being the part similar to the stick spread between the animal's legs.

Sometime in the mid to late 1800's the term got misapplied, in a tract housing advertisement I believe, to the Mansard roof form, which comes in a 2-side and 4-side variant. I asked a French campanon his terms for both these roof shapes, and he answered 'Mansard' for both. 'Case closed' as far as I'm concerned.

The Mansard may also be called a curb roof in the US is there is a fascia prominent at the fold of the roof planes.

For other American sources on this, you may wish to consult:

Dictionary of Americanisms by John Russel Bartlett, 1848, pg. 166 (also readable online through Google books - look it up): Gambrel, “A hipped roof of a house, so called from the resemblance to the hind leg of a horse which by farriers is termed the gambrel”.

-Dictionary of Architectural and Building Technology 4th Edition (by Henry J.Cowan and Peter R.Smith, published in the US by Spon Press 2004. Library of Congress ISBN 0-415-31234-5) you will find it correctly illustrated (Google has this book available for online reading too -see pg. 134 in the text), to wit: gambrel roof "A sloping roof similar to a HIP ROOF, but with the addition of small gables part-way up the end sloping portions".

So, the illustration provided by Mr. Corkhill is in fact, in every respect, resembling a Gambrel roof. That's is why the word GAMBREL is appended underneath the illustration.

Personally I just prefer to use the term hipped gable in preference to gambrel, which has become confused in popular idiom.

MTF, as far as the two pitches on a Mansard are concerned, the French terms for those are brisis for the lower steeply-pitched roof section, and terrason for the slacker-pitched upper roof section. FWIW, I think the shape of Mansard you built was handsomely proportioned. The shape of the roof can vary quite a lot, as you noted, and I also don't like the ones where the lower pitch dominates, or those designs where the upper pitch is at all steep. I like to layout the Mansard roof using the half-circle method.

I wrote more extensively on the topic of the word 'gambrel' - my postings are currently found on page 3 of the General forum section, under the title "Gambrel roof design".

Chris,

Can you explain the "half circle" method or lead me to the post in the earlier thread on this topic. I poked around there but could not find "half circle" described.

One method that gives good proportion for a "mansard" is what I call "inverted layout." ...with the lower slope at two-to-one (rise-to-run) and the upper slope is its inverse: one-to-two.

Hi Don,

I think that Chris is playing with symatics and you are quite correct that the fundamental feature of a Gambrel roof is that it has 2 roof pitches the lower part of the roof attached to the eaves being steeper than the upper part joining to the ridge.

Mr Corkhill's illustration is of a hipped roof with gablet and is not either a gambrel or mansard roof.

Regards

Ken Hume

This is what I was referring to... it's basically half an octagon and does very much resemble a half circle as Chris mentioned. Whatever you want to call this roof style, this "inverted" method gives nice proportions, I think...

"Hi Don,

I think that Chris is playing with symatics and you are quite correct that the fundamental feature of a Gambrel roof is that it has 2 roof pitches the lower part of the roof attached to the eaves being steeper than the upper part joining to the ridge.

Mr Corkhill's illustration is of a hipped roof with gablet and is not either a gambrel or mansard roof."

That's 'semantics', and I don't believe I'm playing with them. New information is often greeted with hostility, and your comments illustrate that. Facts are facts, and if you want to continue the process of calling an orange an 'apple', as is the case with the word 'gambrel', go right ahead. I'm more interested in getting at the truth of the matter, and not wanting to perpetuate an old mistake. I respect tradition, but not thoughtlessly. Just because something had been called the wrong thing for over 100 years doesn't make it any closer to being right.

Mr. Corkhill illustrates a gambrel, a hipped gable roof. He does not illustrate a Mansard. Not sure where you got that from - did you read the post? Did you look at the sources and their illustrations? My assertions are the result of research and consideration, you seem to have nothing to offer in return other than a refusal to admit the information.

It would have been decent, since you mention me by name in your post, if you had addressed your comments to me directly, instead "Dear Don, "I think Chris has it all wrong...". If we were in a room together, would you behave that way?

I'm not overly annoyed at your remarks, and I also won't let them just slide. I stand by my convictions. If you have reasoned argument to offer, or good historical evidence that contradicts my view, then please bring that forward. Otherwise, simply claiming that x is x because you say so is hardly convincing.

OurBarns1 wrote:

"Chris,

Can you explain the "half circle" method or lead me to the post in the earlier thread on this topic. I poked around there but could not find "half circle" described."

Sure. I should clarify first though that there are several methods for drawing the Mansard (most of which I found in James Newland's Carpenter's Assistant), and these methods devolve into two basic approaches:

1. Treat the lower pitched portions as one giant A-frame, then divide the height of that A-frame, truncate it in other words, and construct a slack-pitched roof across the opening.

2. Take the span of the roof, and construct a half circle upon it. Then the circle is divided by various methods to produce the points at which the lower and upper roof meet.

I've played around with these methods, and the one that I liked the results from best goes as follows:

1. Establish roof span:



2. Draw the half circle, centered on span at floor height:



3. Divide each half of the span into thirds:



4. At the marks 1/3 from each end of the span, extend perpendiculars to the half circle arc:



5. Connect the dots and the roof shape is developed:



This is a general approach only - the particulars of your application may demand slight adjustments.

As example, here's the cross section of the building I did, and you can see that the fold in the roof has been moved slightly down from the half-circle:


This drop came about as a result of wanting to keep the upper roof pitches at a certain amount, identical to the each pitches, and some fiddling with framing details at the fold area. I Hope this information proves useful. I think the result it gives is somewhat close to the 1:2, 2:1 method described earlier by another post.

Thanks Chris,

I think Housewright's original question about proportion of these roofs has been answered:

http://www.tfguild.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=16234&page=3#Post16234

Proportion is all about balance, it seems. My two-to-one and then one-to-two "inverted" approach is one way to achieve balance, as is your half circle method... either way seems to produce a half octagon: 4 even-length segments (displayed as 4 roof slopes).

I'm always interested in proportion and balance or "the golden mean" (which you wrote about on your blog)... That's what makes a building.


Names are another matter. I think we all agree Gambrel is pretty well established in the trade--at least in the USA. Changing it is like renaming the claw hammer to "naildriver."

There are as many different hammer types out there as there are roof styles. You know, ball-peen, drilling, brick-layer's, etc... anyway, might be one of those things where it's just called one thing in French but another in English ???

It's been interesting to read the old definitions, however. Most of us have a thirst for knowledge.

But I might petition for an outright change if my family name was "Gambrel." :-)

Oh I know I'm just banging my head against a wall here, but what the heck!

Dear All,

We have a moderator appointed to oversee this Forum topic and thread and I would now like to request that the moderator does just that.

Regards

Ken Hume

Behave

Chris and Ken:

This is a fantastic opportunity for civil discourse. You have differing opinions, and interested observers. I have read many posts by both of you and respect both you and your opinions. I have not yet seen either of you stoop to personal attacks, and would be quite surprised to see that. It's OK to disagree if you do it politely. State your cases objectively, and impersonally. I'd like to learn more about the topic, even if it's controversial. CB.

Chris,

I am not a philologist, but I do know that languages change and a good example of that would be when a word picks up a new or altered meaning and is used in that "new" context for over a hundred years and is commonly accepted. There must be countless examples of words having a shift in meaning over the last 150 years. While these original meanings are interesting, I think any effort spent correcting people who are using a commonly accepted definition may be akin to tilting at windmills.

Well, of course, languages do change over time, and I'm well aware of that. And yes, effort spent correcting people who are using a commonly accepted definition may be akin to tilting at windmills. Maybe not.

That said, the use of 'gambrel' is not however a commonly accepted definition outside of vernacular practice. The 2004 Dictionary of Architectural and Building Terms I linked to earlier obviously is not on board with 'common acceptance'.

Further, what you are offering there, the fact that the word has come to be "commonly accepted" (so therefore it shouldn't/can't be changed) is an "appeal to popularity" which is a logical fallacy. Simply because 1) most people approve of X, does not lead to 2.) X is therefore true. That was Ken's position it seemed, or at least my interpretation of it. Yours too Gabel?

Another way of looking at what you're saying is that because the practice of using the word 'Gambrel' is now commonplace, that makes it correct/moral/justified. If so, this forms an "appeal to common practice" and is also a logical fallacy. You're saying, in short, that since "most people do X, therefore X is correct". Most builders use a nail gun, so that is the correct way to frame a house, I suppose?

Finally, one might interpret your statement in terms of 'appeal to belief', another fallacy. Perhaps you are saying "most people believe that X is true, therefore X is true".

These sorts of reasoning, either 'appeal to popularity', or 'appeal to common practice' or 'appeal to belief' are quite common and might be an effective persuasive device, but not on me, not today anyhow. Since most people tend to conform to the view of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get them to accept it. Similar claims in this regard would include, "the world is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "doctors agree that Pall Mall cigarettes are refreshing", "humans can't survive speeds over 25 miles per hour", "Our society has always ridden horses. It would be foolish to start driving cars", and "We've been calling that form of roof a 'Gambrel' for more than 100 years, so therefore that roof is a gambrel and nothing can change that".

I happen to agree, as I said above, with the observation that language changes, and that also includes the possibility that words that have changed might also be able to change again. If you accept the fact of language change, then I can't see how you can object to my efforts to 'engineer' change. Or are you saying that we've had quite enough change now, and that you're planning to cling to the current meaning, thank you very much?

That is my hope with this particular word - change it. I thought if I showed how it had been borrowed wrongly in the first place, that the core meaning of the word meant something quite different than what it is now used for, how the word was defined in the past (1848) in a dictionary, and how authoritative sources now still keep to the correct definition, then maybe a bunch of people who appear to care about 'tradition' (whatever that means), people who might care about the meaning of something in 1850, might see the point. It's not simply some quaint historical curiosity I'm bringing up, nor is it simply some difference in usage between French and English. The word 'gambrel' is of Dutch origin after all.

Some people I've seen, when confronted with information that contradicts something they have come to accept, or have been using without thought, react to the news by covering their ears and loudly singing "la-la-la-la-la" to drown out the information.

So, I'm happy to be in the company of Don Quixote then, and will continue my tilting at windmills - I prefer it to accepting something that is clearly wrong.

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

Now it is time for each of you to face Cecil's holy resting place, tip your heads respectfully, and say 'thanks'.

Do we have any interesting topics left?

Ken,

thanks for the clarification about Hewett - I didn't know that, and it alters my perspective in a positive manner. I wonder why he made no mention of his background as a practical carpenter in his books?

AAK, this thread hijack was all me, so my apologies. I hope I did provide some useful help with my post on a drawing method for the roof proportioning.

In brevity,

Chris

Ken, that's okay. I have gotten the necessary information I was looking for thanks to some other members. So you fellas have fun with this gambrel topic!

Chris-- No problem with the hijacking. You did help me out, and I have had all my concerns addressed so you guys feel free to discuss this more if you want. I just thought it was funny how this topic has generated such discussion.


Andy