"You can't argue that, because my left foot is 'across' my original direction of travel when the right closes to it, that the original step 2 was across the line of travel."

It's not. However, if I recall correctly the reference was to crossing the LOD, not crossing the line of travel. Since the line of travel is DW, both the first and the second step will quite obviously cross the line of dance.

"So at no time during step 2 is my left foot across my original direction of travel."

Perhaps, perhaps not. One thing to consider is that if there is going to be a turn in the direction of progression during the first half of a natural, to change from the original from DW so that step four can move down LOD, then some force directed towards the center of the room will need to be found. That force would probably come from placing the second step slighly outside the actual path of the body during the second and third steps, so that the body weight can arrive just a cm or two short of that foot and permit a push in this new direction. Fail to do that, and step four would move to DW (as it does on many).

But what is harder to predict is if step 2 will be placed across the original line of travel, or if the line of travel will be modified during step two's rise so that it will pass just short of directly over step two, permitting us to arrest the component of movement towards the wall and send step 4 directly down LOD.

I used the expression "across the line of travel" because that's exactly what i meant. And Alex Moore's diagrams in the book show unambiguously that the step is across the line of travel (i.e. the foot backing DC since the line of travel is DW))

"I used the expression "across the line of travel" because that's exactly what i meant. And Alex Moore's diagrams in the book show unambiguously that the step is across the line of travel (i.e. the foot backing DC since the line of travel is DW))"

It sounds like you are reading "across" as if it were "sideways to" referring to the alignment of the foot rather than its position. That would be an interesting interpretation, however we can see from the "Illustraion of the Term Across the Line of Dance", page 39 in my book, that it's now that is meant. This is a pair of diagrams showing a quarter turn where the second step is placed down the original line of dance from the first, vs. a natural turn where it is placed across the LOD from the first.

As for placement across the line of travel (rather than LOD), while I think this has to happen slighlty for a 3/8 turn figure, I don't see any indication that it has been maginfied enough to be visible in the drawings, or mentioned in the text - but maybe you can find something I haven't.

oops, "it's now that is meant" should be " it's NOT what is meant"

Anonymous. Steven Hillier on his video. Has a line drawn on the floor on a diaginal to show exactly where his feet are at the beginning and the end. And also says why he thinks it is wrong to do as the book by Alex Moore. says . Before you make a comment on that a person misunderstands something that is spoken in plain English. I suggest you find a copy of the tape or keep your remarks to yourself or at least look before you speak.

Anonymous - you can play with words as much as you like. Where do you think the word "across" comes from? "a cross".
I meant the book says the foot is placed at right angles (that's 90degrees in case you think i'm referring to right and wrong angles)to the direction of travel - the foot backing DC as i explained. You know very well which diagram in the book i'm referring to because you have the book.
This is not the way modern dancing is performed. As Don implies, even Steven Hillier doesn't advocate slavish adherence to a book written in the 1930's at a time when leg action essentially didn't exist and 'lowering' referred to putting the heel on the floor and no more.

"Anonymous - you can play with words as much as you like. Where do you think the word "across" comes from? "a cross".
I meant the book says the foot is placed at right angles (that's 90degrees in case you think i'm referring to right and wrong angles)to the direction of travel - the foot backing DC as i explained."

Phil, it is not I who am inventing new meaning, but you.

If you find a copy of "ballroom dancing" by Alex Moore, there will be a pair of diagrams somewhere around page 39 which clearly explain the concept of stepping across the line of dance, and clearly illustrate that this refers to the POSITION of the foot and not its ORIENTATION.

It is true that the step in the book is documented as being oriented sideways to the travel, however it is not "across the line of dance" which specifies that, instead, that is specified when it says "Backing DC" as the alignement of the second step.

The issue here is not in the dancing - but rather that the book is using two instructions to request two different (but complementary details), and you are confusing which instruction requests which detail.

"Across line of dance" refers to POSITION, not ALIGNMENT. Get the book out and read page 39.

You know very well which diagram in the book i'm referring to because you have the book.
This is not the way modern dancing is performed. As Don implies, even Steven Hillier doesn't advocate slavish adherence to a book written in the 1930's at a time when leg action essentially didn't exist and 'lowering' referred to putting the heel on the floor and no more.

"Anonymous. Steven Hillier on his video. Has a line drawn on the floor on a diaginal to show exactly where his feet are at the beginning and the end."

That would be the line of PROGRESSION, which for a figure moving DW like the natural turn is at an angle across the line of DANCE.

The book asks you to cross the line of dance, not the line of progression. To pretend otherwise is to ignore what the words on the page actually are.

Technically you will have to cross the line of progression with the second step, but by a fraction of the width of your foot, so it's not worth worrying about.

Anonymous. The line drawn across the floor is on the diagnal and is about two inches wide.
The direction or position of the second step is determined by the first. Who knows you might even be facing in another direction.

"Anonymous. The line drawn across the floor is on the diagnal"

That is the line of progression, not the line of dance. I don't see any instruction to cross the line of progression, I only see an instruction to cross the line of dance.

"and is about two inches wide."

Interesting assumption...

"The direction or position of the second step is determined by the first."

Yes. A 3/8 natural turn continues with the direction unchanged during the first step, so the second step will land as indicated across the line of dance. However, a quarter turn diverts the progression sideways over the first step, so the second step lands down the line of dance from the first.