I'm wondering whether that wouldn't be a better starting point for beginners, even though it is more difficult, one understands then what is going on "in the background" when one moves onto the "thumb methods".
Or maybe it's because that I don't have any previous knitting experience that I found it interesting?
I only learnt to knit 18 months ago, and learnt to crotchet 2 months ago. I learnt nalbind about a year ago. Knowing one didn't really help learning the others. I tried loads of ways of nalbindning I literaly tied myself in knots, I have heard of people learning their first stitch
off this site , [on the bottom of the page is a link to some videos] personally I think they must some kind of genius, it is by far the most complex tradition in a language with no common ground.
The primative stitches like coptic [-/- F1B1] and buttonhole [-/-O f1] don't work on the thumb, and I found I got much tighter quicker stitches with danish [o/uo] and york [uu/ooo] if it wasn't worked on the thumb. The scandinavian stitches with the twists I have to work on a thumb, but these stitches make much thicker fabric than the primative stitches that are found further south. Saying that I found some finnish stiches but they appear to be worked off the thumb. Babelfish really chews up finnish. Also looking at acheoology finds of needles, the flat broad blunt needles are found in scandinavian, the york needles are narrower and a bit longer and pointy, the egyptian styli with eye holes were even sharper. Having made needles of the both shapes, the york needles are better worked off the thumb and the scandinavian needles work better with the thumb method. I think the thumb catch method may of only been restricted to scandinavia.