It's possible I over-reacted a bit. I tend to get somewhat frustrated when I see that my posts are misinterpreted, and when I feel that replies missed the point, or don't add to the discussion. Sorry.

I'm not familiar with Brugmann's book—but I'll keep a look-out for it. How did you find it? My first thought is that if the book is an English translation of—say— a German text, there are likely to be many areas where the names may be clumsy and hard to put into English. Of course, that can happen in any translation, especially in a realm where names are made-up on the spot to suit the desire or purpose.

The name "cable bead" is basically synonymous with "reticella" or "filigrana" bead. I have used BOTH of the Italian names in the past. However, I think Americans are somewhat loathe to use "foreign" names for beads..., and sometimes I compromise and use or invent an English term. All of these names refer to preformed elements that are striped spirally twisted canes. There is some implication that reticella canes have superficial stripes, whereas filigrana canes have imbedded or submerged stripes. So these words are not precisely interchangeable. Plus, they were not devised to describe beads, but rather types of glass vessels. So there is possibly an adjustment due to the change in context.

Over the past twenty-five years (like my colleague Peter Francis, and others), I have called for standardized names and terms quite a few times—and I have promoted an understanding of names and processes to help people understand why these issues are significant. it seems like every week I start over for a new audience.... The last time I tried to do that here, I was more-or-less blown off and told I was "an egghead" who was wasting his time—and that my opinion wasn't any more valid and helpful than anyone else's opinion. Stuff like that makes progress difficult.

I hope to see you in Tucson, if not before then.

Jamey