21st Century Bible Hebrew -- uncertainty epistemic

So you might guess that if there’s a certainty epistemic, there’s also an uncertainty epistemic, and you would be right. You saw it in Genesis 1:3-4.

ג וּמִפְּרִ֣י הָעֵץ֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּתוֹךְ־הַגָּן֒ אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֗ים לֹ֤א תֹֽאכְלוּ֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְלֹ֥א תִגְּע֖וּ בּ֑וֹ פֶּ֖ן תְּמֻתֽוּן:

ד וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן:

Chavvah isn’t sure she’ll die. The serpent copies her word as a complement for the aspectless mot, a sort of duplicate conditional that also shows up in Deuteronomy. For now, let’s concentrate on t’mutun, the uncertainty epistemic.

The morphology is imperfect verb, usually in 3^rd person although we have 2^nd person here, with a masculine -un ending or a feminine -in ending.  The latter is found in Samuel and Ruth.

The uncertainty epistemic is used when the “speaker” is not sure of the facts, especially that a commandment will be carried out. In some cases in Deuteronomy, during Mosheh’s address, he uses it while retelling Israelite history, and it gives a sense that he is allowing for the audience not to have been eyewitnesses to what he’s talking about. He’s addressing the generation that is about to enter the Holy Land; the generation that experienced the events died in the wilderness with notable exceptions.

One of the most important examples of uncertainty epistemic is Genesis 18:28ff, where Avraham tries to get Gd to let off the Cities of the Plain and not destroy them. What if there are 50 people who are good, will You destroy the cities then? Gd says “No.” “And what if five of the fifty are lacking?” And the form he uses is yach’srun.

אוּלַי יַחְסְרוּן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם חֲמִשָּׁה הֲתַשְׁחִית בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אֶת־כָּל־הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אַשְׁחִית אִם־אֶמְצָא שָׁם אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה:

Avraham doesn’t know for sure there are 45 good people in the cities; he doesn’t know if there are any. He’s using “lacks five” as an opening wedge to reduce the number. He stops at 10. (There’s a midrash for that.) And then when he gets up the next morning, he sees that the cities have been destroyed. He can see the smoke from where he is, miles to the west of where the cities were. Well, he tried.

Why would Avraham’s lack of knowledge be important to this narrative? Because Gd says:

“If I find in Sdom fifty righteous among the city, then I shall bear with the whole place because of them.”

That is a vow. For the vow to be legal, the positive clause has to come first, which it certainly does. Gd has to carry out that vow.

Peshitta, as the rabbis say, of course He’s going to carry out His vow, just as He’s going to carry out His vow for the descendants of the patriarchs to take over the Holy Land.

Well, but wait a minute. Why is it important that Avraham admits he doesn’t know? The answer is, Torah’s oral narratives transmit the norms and standards of the culture that transmitted it for so many centuries. Lack of knowledge is grounds for getting a vow annulled. The formula in Mishnah is, if you made a vow, it could be annulled by a rabbi if he questioned you and at some point you said “well, if I had known that, I wouldn’t have made the vow.”

But Gd knows how many righteous people there are in the cities – none! So He made the vow based on what He knew!

That’s not true. Gd made the vow based on Avraham’s suggestion, as a favor to His BFF, not on Gd’s personal knowledge. Avraham is admitting he may have been wrong to make the suggestion. He is giving Gd a way out. As it turns out, there aren’t even five righteous people in all of the cities. Kaboom.

Knitting -- Mariusgenser 1

This post is about the famous Mariusgenser, which was invented by Unn Søiland for the Norwegian athletes for the 1952 Oslo games. The original pattern with yarn is sold by Sandnes Garn. The authorized English language version is available at SKD. I tried to buy it there but their app had problems with my credit card. You can go to the site, find the pattern, email the link to them and ask them to send you a Paypal invoice which you can pay by credit card. This pattern is not free on the Sandnes Garn site.

No worries. Fifteen minutes with Google Search found a project pamphlet that had a mockup. I compared it to photos of the official pattern and it's very close. This is the situation that turns fashion designers' hair gray. Anybody with some skill and perseverance can mock up their work from photos. (China buys single samples for their knockoffs.)

So I worked out a pattern for my use, which closely resembles the photos on Sandnes Garn and Ravelry but is not the authorized pattern. It took 50 hours to work, mostly because I had trouble figuring out where to start the pattern on the sleeves. The original does not include the Xs in the sleeves, so work more of the sleeve in blue before you start the pattern. A later variation of this pattern is a top-down raglan with a yoke that does include the Xs all the way around.

I used 2 skeins white, 1 skein red, and 10 skeins blue yarn. I picked a very dark blue, probably too dark.

The pattern is 59 rows high. The Marius is normally worked in DK/sport yarn, but I would have to work part of it below the armpits unless I used fingering yarn. Knowing I would have to work part of it below the armpits, I went the whole way to worsted weight for something really warm. I worked 100 rows below the armpits and 45 above.

The design is basically a Setesdal pattern (see last week's post on Dale's DG267 with traditional Norwegian patterns). You work Setesdal bottom up with no steeking; you work the sleeves bottom up and sew them to the top when you're done. You need to cast off for the armpit on the body, but work the sleeves in the round the whole way up with no armpit castoff.

For the sleeve, I cabled on a 52-stitch cuff, worked the rib, and increased to 90 stitches as I worked upwards. At the top of the sleeve, to get the red/blue crenelations to work out right, I had to increase by 2 stitches, which I did in the first round with blue. With a 100-stitch armhole, you can see that you would have to gather the armhole quite a bit to fit it to the sleeve. The extra two stitches in the sleeve minimize that gathering.

When you sew the sleeves on, it's easy to catch in part of the pattern. To avoid this, use blue at the ends of the body pattern and hook your seam into those stitches. For the sleeves, make sure your needle only catches in the binding-off stitches at the top. If you're not sure you can be that precise, do a fourth round of red at the top before binding off.

While we're at it, there's a photo of a scarf here.
https://images.app.goo.gl/xcsoUr9rWU5qTjVB6

This shows mittens with the red at the cuffs. I've seen photos that went the other way.
https://images.app.goo.gl/hEzibxX66adtdDWn9

And a hat.
https://images.app.goo.gl/YndpoqzaUf7JTntF6

And of course socks. Work them toe up. Once you have worked 5 rounds in the ankle, increase to 54 stitches so you can get one X on your shin and one on each side. Now work the pattern and when you get to the red at the top, work your K2/P2 cuff and bind off in rib. The length of the leg will therefore be 64 stitches and how high it gets on your leg will depend on whether you use worsted or fingering weight yarn.

Or else leave out the Xs the way you do on the sleeves. The Xs are 13 stitches high; by leaving them out, you can knit a normal 15-round ankle and have a normal 45 round leg.

And of course you can use worsted weight cotton if you are allergic to wool.

So there is my first real Norwegian sweater. There are lots of Setesdal and Setesdal "lice" patterns at DROPS but the Mariusgenser has a real pedigree. I'll be working another traditional Norwegian pattern in a couple of weeks and I'll post a photo when it's done.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- certainty epistemic

The difference between the evidentiary epistemic and the certainty epistemic is syntax. As I showed last week, the evidentiary epistemic comes at the start of a verse and is followed – somewhere – by a narrative past for the actions that are the evidence.

The certainty epistemic comes after material which would otherwise seem fantastic, except that there is perceptible evidence that it is true. This was all over the creation story, va-y’hi or and so on.

This is the grammatical analog of Olrik’s final localization, which uses the name of some place that is well-known to the audience, and may be visible during the narration. Usually the narrative has fantastic elements that the audience would not believe, except for the association with the known place. It gives the narrator credibility.

The other major set of certainty epistemics is in Exodus, at the end where they are making the tabernacle. Over and over again it says va-yaas X, where X is part of the tabernacle.

Considering the restrictions on use of the certainty epistemic, the Exodus cluster has implications for Jewish or at least Israelite history. There is no cultural support for using a certainty epistemic about the tabernacle unless the physical tabernacle coexists with the grammar of the narrative.

If the tabernacle did not exist when the wording of the narrative became fixed, BH would use a narrative past. There’s a perfect example in Numbers 32:31. The verb anah mostly shows up as an evidentiary epistemic, but this verse is an exception.

לא וַיַּֽעֲנ֧וּ בְנֵי־גָ֛ד וּבְנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֧ר יְהוָֹ֛ה אֶל־עֲבָדֶ֖יךָ כֵּ֥ן נַֽעֲשֶֽׂה:

The B’ney Gad and B’ney R’uven answered saying: what the Lord has spoken to your servants, thus we shall do.

The scenario is that two tribes of the Israelites have requested to take up their turf on the east of the Yarden. Mosheh is mad because it could discourage the others, so va-yaanu the tribal leaders that they will help on the west side of the river. This language shows that the audience had no cultural customs associated with this help. It happened and that’s all. If the narrator had tried to use an evidentiary epistemic here, the audience would have said “prove it.”

In both kinds of epistemic, the narrator does not need to provide supporting evidence beyond what is in the text. Whatever is in the clause with the narrative past, because it had historical or cultural results, is sufficient evidence to support the preceding evidentiary epistemic. And of course, the perceptible evidence is sufficient to warrant the certainty epistemic. Arguments that there never was a tabernacle, that it was a fairy tale made up as a backstory to the temple in Jerusalem, fall apart due to the grammar. There is also another reason.

Olrik’s principles state that people transmitting an oral tradition do not create cultural backstories. This means that the First Temple did not need justification, beyond what Kings states: Shlomo was carrying out what his father had projected. It was a royal project, similar to other royal projects throughout the region, like the pyramids and the Babylonian Gardens. It was an emblem of the victory over the Pelishtim, who had been reduced to the “Creti and Pleti” of David’s personal bodyguard.

But it was not a template from which Jews developed the parts of Torah about building the tabernacle. The tabernacle and its activities were the template for temple operations.

By the way, in case I didn't say this already, Dr. John Cook knew nothing about Olrik's principles. Olrik died about 1921; Dr. Cook's dissertation was approved in 2002. I read Olrik in 2003 or 2004 and the dissertation in 2014. Dr. Cook may have read Olrik by now, but his dissertation was based on prior linguistic papers. When two trains of thought parallel each other independently, it seems to me we're looking at a fact about how humans shape their communications through content and grammar to convince others that they are telling the truth.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- evidentiary epistemic

The next class of modal morphology ought to be familiar to you by now: the epistemic. An epistemic is about the speaker’s investment in the truth of what is said. That gets us around confusion with epistemology which is the study of how we know what we know.

There are two versions in BH, the evidentiary/certainty, and the uncertainty.

They are both based on the imperfect.

The evidentiary epistemic is always followed by a clause using narrative past which is the evidence for the epistemic. There can be more than one verse between the epistemic and the evidence; one example is Genesis 14:1-8.

א וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ אַמְרָפֶ֣ל מֶֽלֶךְ־שִׁנְעָ֔ר אַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר כְּדָרְלָעֹ֨מֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֔ם וְתִדְעָ֖ל מֶ֥לֶךְ גּוֹיִֽם:

ב עָשׂ֣וּ מִלְחָמָ֗ה אֶת־בֶּ֨רַע֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֔ם וְאֶת־בִּרְשַׁ֖ע מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֑ה שִׁנְאָ֣ב ׀ מֶ֣לֶךְ אַדְמָ֗ה וְשֶׁמְאֵ֨בֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִי֔ם [צְבוֹיִ֔ם] וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִיא־צֹֽעַר:

ג כָּל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ חָֽבְר֔וּ אֶל־עֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּ֑ים ה֖וּא יָ֥ם הַמֶּֽלַח:

ד שְׁתֵּ֤ים עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה עָֽבְד֖וּ אֶת־כְּדָרְלָעֹ֑מֶר וּשְׁלשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה מָרָֽדוּ:

ה וּבְאַרְבַּע֩ עֶשְׂרֵ֨ה שָׁנָ֜ה בָּ֣א כְדָרְלָעֹ֗מֶר וְהַמְּלָכִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתּ֔וֹ וַיַּכּ֤וּ אֶת־רְפָאִים֙ בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת קַרְנַ֔יִם וְאֶת־הַזּוּזִ֖ים בְּהָ֑ם וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֵימִ֔ים בְּשָׁוֵ֖ה קִרְיָתָֽיִם: ו וְאֶת־הַֽחֹרִ֖י בְּהַֽרֲרָ֣ם שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֚ד אֵ֣יל פָּארָ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַמִּדְבָּֽר:

ז וַ֠יָּשֻׁ֠בוּ וַיָּבֹ֜אוּ אֶל־עֵ֤ין מִשְׁפָּט֙ הִ֣וא קָדֵ֔שׁ וַיַּכּ֕וּ אֶת־כָּל־שְׂדֵ֖ה הָֽעֲמָֽלֵקִ֑י וְגַם֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱמֹרִ֔י הַיּשֵׁ֖ב בְּחַֽצֲצֹ֥ן תָּמָֽר:

ח וַיֵּצֵ֨א מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֜ם וּמֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֗ה וּמֶ֤לֶךְ אַדְמָה֙ וּמֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִי֔ם [צְבוֹיִ֔ם] וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִוא־צֹ֑עַר וַיַּֽעַרְכ֤וּ אִתָּם֙ מִלְחָמָ֔ה בְּעֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים:

Everything in verses 2-7 are the backstory of why the kings of the Cities of the Plain went out to war.

One of the most important things about the evidentiary epistemic is that it is the grammatical equivalent of Olrik’s origin localization, a place name used to identify where an important cultural or historical event took place.At some point in the culture's history, and possibly for a long time, this place is visible to the audience and that is the evidence of the truth of what the narrator is saying.

The evidentiary epistemic uses cultural knowledge or the current state of affairs as the evidence and it is always the only evidence needed because everybody knows about it. Without that knowledge, the speaker can’t use the epistemic.

Va-y’hi at the start of a narrative is a special case of this. It gives the timing of an event, based on known historical events. That’s what happens here in Genesis 14. It shows up the same way in other places in Torah. But at the end of a stretch of text, it has a different use.

Knitting -- Dale

I thought I had found an article saying that Dalegarn had published their patterns for free; it gave links to a site that had them. Are you drooling?

Only thing. The article was from 2010. You know how fast links rot. Same here.

Well, I couldn't let it go. I found the home web site.
https://dalegarn.no/

It's in Norwegian.

Never say die. There's a box in the middle of the top of the page that says "ga til katalog". That last word ought to mean something to you.

As a matter of fact, you should really click on the top left box most sites seem to have, to get the menu. One line is "Kataloger". Guess what that means! So click on it.

It's still in Norwegian. There are filter boxes down the left side. For pullovers, click Genser; it will also get you button-front sweaters. Then go down and find the box that has two words, one of which is Filter (the other word means "search") and click it.

You still get way too much to absorb -- 4 pages worth -- so I'm just going to tell you how to find the chart for the pattern(s) you like.  So one of the top ones says Olympic Passion. Click that. It's catalog DG345.

Now go to the bottom of the page. You'll see photos of the pretty people wearing their gensers that match the catalog cover photo. Click on the lady or rather, so you can get back if you mess up, open it in a new tab.

There are two buttons. The left one says "ned last" which is Norwegian for "download". You get an 8 page PDF that you can download to disk for later printing. Sure, the pattern is in Norwegian. But all you need are the charts, so you can paste them into your spreadsheet and make sure they fit the stitch counts you need. You also need the photo cos sometimes the sleeve pattern is different from the front/back pattern. Everything else is irrelevant.

Make sure you go to page 3 and click on DG280 which are Olympic patterns. Or the anniversary catalog, DG189. Or DG381 for some patterns so fancy you'll swear they are woven.

Now. For DG267 they threw me a curve. The "last ned" button also says Katalog. The other button means "order yarn here". You can click on that; the top menu has the word "strikkepakker" on it. That means "kits". Click on that and you don't get the kit for DG267, you get pages and pages of kits. Go ahead, click on it, and then click on anything in the top row. Page down and you will see things with numbers after or below them, the prices of the things in the kit. Last there is a box that says "last ned oppskrift". That means "download pattern." This is the House of Yarn site, which carries products from other vendors than Dale, so see, I just gave you a whole world of needlecraft patterns to make your life miserable.

Back to DG267. It turned out that the catalog has the actual charts in it. They are gorgeous. One is a type of pattern I'm going to write about when I finish making one.

Now aren't you glad I don't give up easily? And if you see something that is too delicious to pass up, and it's not a charted design, well, you can use Google Translate and realize there's no such thing as a good machine translation even after 40 years of trying, or you can try one of these sites.
https://spellingtuesday.com/knitting/learn-norwegian-for-knitters/

The next one goes in the wrong direction but you can always use your page search function in your browser to find the word you need. You also ought to be able to use the Print function and turn it into a PDF, which you will be able to search. I've done it tons of times.
http://www.strikkeoppskrift.com/engelske-ord-og-uttrykk

Another great Nordic site is Sandnes Garn, which I will mention in a future post. Here is its site for free patterns for women. You can change the filters at the left to see other free products, just don't uncheck "utgatte hefter", that means "free patterns".
https://www.sandnesgarn.no/hefter/filter/dame_/klassiker_norske_ikoner/utgatte_hefter_gratis

Do not plan to buy kits from Dale or Sandnes. To make sure it gets to you, you need to pay for tracking the shipment, and you need to pay customs. By the time you've done that, the price has doubled. It's the same all over the world. An Australian site that has what may be the world's last two units of DMC Cebelia will calculate it for you. When you buy gansey yarn, you must get it from U.S. sites like Woolly Thistle, Kirtland's or Churchmouse Yarn and Tea; the price shown on a UK website will not include tracking or customs.

I found a web page that referred to worldwide networks for buying Sandnes and Dale products.  However, the Dale yarn site has huge discounts because the products it listed are no longer available.

The site listed for Sandnes yarn is closed. I checked out a possible Canada retailer; their site does not list Sandnes Garn as something they sell.

So download the patterns, but you will have to make them with somebody else's yarns. Of which there are plenty in the US.

p.s. I didn't tell any of this to the person who wrote the article. I tried to write to her but her email address isn't valid any more. So this is our little secret, OK?

p.p.s. Please don't tempt your significant other to put curses on me for posting both the Dale and DROPS links. Make an extra effort not to spend all your time and money on new gensers.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- deontic modality

I talked about imperatives last time to lead into the subject of modality, grammar that reflects what the “speaker” thinks or believes. I’ll start with deontic modality because it’s the easiest to explain, being more familiar to you than any other kind.

Deontic means the world isn’t the way I want it.

Imperatives are part of deontic modality and try to change the world to the way the “speaker” wants it. As I said, in BH it doesn’t always work. Sometimes the person issuing the imperative doesn’t have the authority: Avimelekh’s imperatives never work out. Sometimes they are issued to unreliable people.

The other class of deontic in Biblical Hebrew is the volitive. Volitives envision the possibility of personally doing what will fix the world.

The volitive is a 1^st singular or plural verb in the imperfect aspect, plus an –ah ending. One of the first examples you find is Genesis 19:20 in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot tells the angel “I wish to flee to Tsoar,” imaltah. (It also uses the humble na.)

הִנֵּה־נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:

It’s contrary to fact because the angel has just told Lot to flee to the mountains.

The King James Version says “let me escape there.” That misses the point. Lot is simply expressing a wish, not issuing some kind of jussive. The Septuagint has the bald statement, “I am going to flee to Tsoar.” Very rude. Especially to an angel who, after all, is speaking for Gd.

Another example in plural is in the Aqedah story, Genesis 22:5:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם:

Avraham says “we wish to go…we wish to return.”

I was on the track of what the volitive meant when I read Dr. Cook’s dissertation. He confirmed my opinion so obviously I was looking at a thing, instead of making it up as I went along.

Don’t mix up the volitive with the -ah sequential ending, which I discussed some time back with natatah. Volitives are based on imperfect aspect; natatah on perfect aspect. Here’s another example of the -ah sequential in Exodus 12:43-45.

מג וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָֹה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן זֹ֖את חֻקַּ֣ת הַפָּ֑סַח כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָ֖ר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ: מד וְכָל־עֶ֥בֶד אִ֖ישׁ מִקְנַת־כָּ֑סֶף וּמַלְתָּ֣ה אֹת֔וֹ אָ֖ז יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ:

מה תּוֹשָׁ֥ב וְשָׂכִ֖יר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ:

The Lord said to Mosheh and Aharon, this is the law of the Pesach, every non-Jew does not eat it.

Every eved, a man acquired with money: then circumcising him, after that he can eat from it.

A [ger] toshav or hireling shall not eat it.

The ish, “man”, point is important. Those exclusive services contracts are restricted to men of legal age to consent, and if they are not Jewish by birth, they also have to consent to circumcision, becoming at least nominally Jewish. But you can’t perform the circumcision until you have paid him the value of the contract.

I put in verse 45 so you could see all the alternatives; a ger toshav has not agreed to circumcision; a non-Jew is ineligible for inclusion in the Pesach sacrifice; a hireling may have room with you but even if he has board with you, if he’s not circumcised, he can’t be included in the Pesach sacrifice. These three classes of people are not counted when you decide whether your “family” includes enough men to a) get at least an olive’s bulk of the sacrifice AND b) eat it before midnight.

Knitting -- toe up socks again

So the thing with toe up socks is getting the toe right. You can cast onto your DP needles and distribute them the normal way, leaving a hole at the toe that you sew up later.

But the first three videos I looked at try to prevent that with a really weird cast-on and here is the best demonstration I've seen yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4hhxKrylOs

You can do this with normal circular needles. Forget about that magic loop stuff, that's really just circular needles as opposed to DPs. I have tried doing this with DPs and found myself pulling off half the cast-ons. The tether of circular needles prevents that.

At first it's hard to see how she grasps the yarn. If you use the Youtube settings and put it on half speed, you can see that the tail from the slip knot does have to be rather long, because you will put your thumb in that to cast on to your upper needle while your "working yarn" casts on to the lower needle.

The second point is USE A LIGHT TENSION when you cast on. Some of you use a tension which will break most fingering yarns and some heavier yarns. Stop that. If your tension is too high, you won't be able to knit those cast-on stitches.

The third thing is that I worked the toe inside out the first time I tried. After you do the cast-on, look at both sides. One will have a tiny ditch and the other will have a tiny ridge. Make sure that when you knit that first stabilizing round, you have the DITCH facing you. If you don't, the tiny ridge will be facing out when you finish. It's not fatal, it's just not how it's supposed to look. Here's a photo of the toe. I put it on top of a sock I knitted years ago that fits me. With a 12-stitch cast-on, they look like exactly the same size.

The video does what I said, KF/B for increases at the toe. Then it uses a gusset, and then it does German short rows for the heel.

The written pattern is here.
https://verypink.com/2019/05/15/toe-up-gusset-socks/

There is a price tag on the pattern, but if you have knit socks before you can wing it once you watch the video because she tells you all the steps, she simply doesn't tell you what the stitch counts are.

What I found out by experimenting is, that the stitch counts that work in Carol Anderson's Iowa Cruise Socks pamphlet work here. In worsted weight, I would use the #5 counts; in DK/sport, the #6 counts, and in fingering weight the #7 counts.

So first I used some leftover yarn in fingering weight on size 3 DP needles. You can just about make two socks from one skein of Cotton Fine yarn.
Cast on: 8 stitches to each needle.
Increase to foot width, a total of 56 stitches. Do a knit round between every increase round.
Length to gusset: 40 rounds. On the last round, split the instep stitches between two needles and put all the sole stitches on one needle.
Gusset: KF/B in the first stitch; put a marker between the two halves. Knit across the instep, KF/B into the last stitch and put a marker between the two halves.
Put all the sole stitches onto one needle and split the instep stitches onto two needles.
From here on out you will knit the gusset stitches up to the marker, KF/B in the stitch before the marker, knit across, KF/B in the stitch after the marker, and knit back around, then do a plain round.
When there are 12 stitches outside of each marker, you're ready to turn the heel.
German short rows to turn the heel: 4 "funny double stitches" (minute 16 of the video) on each heel needle. This is the same thing as Carol's turning a heel in 8 rows but uses a different technique.
Work one round after finishing the German short rows to pick up all the "funny double stitches".
Then keep knitting and move all the instep stitches onto one needle while moving all the sole/heel stitches onto two needles. There should be 14 stitches on each heel needle.
On the side where your working yarn is, put the 12 gusset stitches onto a separate needle.
On the other side, move the 12 gusset stitches ONTO the heel needle using a 5th DP.
Now you are going to work the heel flap.
Knit across both heel needles and K2TOG the 14th stitch on the second heel needle with the first gusset stitch that is on that same needle. Put this stitch onto the heel needle.
Turn, purl back, and when you get to the other gusset stitches, P2TOG the 14th heel stitch with the first gusset stitch from your 4th DP needle. The result of the P2TOG goes on the heel needle..
Make sure you always have 14 stitches on each of the heel needles, and work back and forth while the number of gusset stitches decreases because of the TOG.
When you have worked up all the gusset stitches, you will be on the heel needle where you were purling. Slip the last instep stitch to this needle, bring the yarn to the front, slip the stitch back, turn, and knit across.
When you get to the other side of the instep, bring the yarn to the front, slip the instep stitch purlwise, put the yarn to the back, and slip the stitch back to the instep needle. These last two steps will keep you from having big holes where the heel flap joins the instep.
You should have 56 stitches again.
Work 20 rounds of the ankle.
Work K2/P2 rib for the leg.
Or work it smooth with lace insets.
Or divide in the middle of the back and work Fair Isle or Argyle or a couple of other patterns I will be posting about later. When you get to the top, work K2/P2 rib for the cuff, and sew up the back seam.

I emailed to Carol about her stitch counts and she said, "now you've taken the mystery out of things".
Except for two things.

The video's instructions work fine in worsted weight, but it uses M1 for the gusset stitches. That leaves holes if you are working with fingering weight like Cotton Fine. That's why I have you wrap stitches when you finish the heel flap. Carol's pattern doesn't need that.

The other mystery, of course, is kneesocks.
Most of us will need increases when we knit the calves of our kneesocks; I will need more than some of you. Do this.
Measure your calf at its widest point, multiply by stitches per inch, subtract out your 56 ankle stitches, and you know how many stitches you have to add. If it doesn't come out a multiple of 4, plan to do more stitches in the calf.
Measure your shin and multiply by your stitches per inch. That's how many rounds you will knit to the knee.
Use your spreadsheet if you have to, but make sure the increases are smooth up to the widest part of the calf. You may need to work another 25 rounds without increasing to get the sock up to your knee.
You will need most of a skein of Cotton Fine to work just one kneesock. Work the sock up to the ankle.
Following your chart, work 2 KF/B increases on each side of the sock. Once you've fitted the sock to the widest part of your calf, stop increasing.
When you finish the shin, decrease 8 stitches evenly around.
Do a k2/p2 rib cuff and bind off in rib.
If this seems too complicated, I agree. These kneesocks will fall down just like the ones some of us wore in high school. Those are two good reasons not to knit your own kneesocks. But you might want to try it anyway just for the experience.