strathspey@strathspey.org:45602

GOSS9@telefonica.net

Re: Double triangles (was Divided by a common language)

June 21, 2006, 1:56 p.m. (Message 45602, in reply to message 45601)

Not quite so, since there are no triangles in the first place, since 
the corners to not touch hands with each other I would go for "double 
angles" two for the man, and two for the woman.

Aside, the figure is an error in the first place. It was so defined by 
the RSCDS in a revival of a dance taken from notes. Unfortunately, no 
one either had access to, or had checked Wilson´s description of the 
figure, which simply describes the track of a single couple, from 
starting place moving anticlockwise around the outside of the two 
corners, forming for both the pattern of the star of David on the floor.