GOSS9@telefonica.net June 21, 2006, 1:56 p.m. (Message 45602)
Re: Double triangles (was Divided by a common language)
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.