One of the great debates of all times

[SteveC]

Following your logic a Leatherman should be called Leathermultitool and only be used on Leather items... 

Not sure how you get that   

Leatherman is named after Tim Leatherman 

   back at you   

[SirVicaLot]

Not sure how you get that   

Leatherman is named after Tim Leatherman 

   back at you   

  Maybe keep thinking..

[SteveC]

[SirVicaLot]

Didn't think so. My post was intentionally ridiculous to show the flawed logic in your comment. Just because a product is called "Swiss Army Knife" doesn't mean it can't be a multi tool and has to be a knife. The same way a product that is named "Leatherman" doesn't have to be a guy working with leather or a tool that is only made for leather working.

But it is ok. It is not the first time I see you commenting in a dismissive way in topics that are related to Victorinox products or the people that use them. From now on I will just ignore them. 

[Syncop8r]

Leatherman is a brand name, as are Gerber, SOG, Victorinox and Wenger.

"Swiss Army Knife" is a type of tool, not a brand name.

[ElevenBlade]

Wikipedia lists SAKs on their multi-tool page. 
Their categories are Pocketknife, Folding (balisong style) and, other. 

I actually think that's a good way to classify them -

the first type in the form of a pocketknife- with multiple tools

the second type is in the form of a balisong - with multiple tools.  The central tool is often pliers in this case, but is sometimes scissors

the third includes hammers with additional tools and all the rest. 

So for the second type of multitool - one can mentally remove the focus from the pliers as a basis.... also (as I had previously argued) one can mentally remove focus from the plier handles... instead if one considers it simply in the form of a balisong, then the leathermans, the SOGs the Gerbers the Micras, the Splices.... all qualify.  Yes a Gerber doesnt open like a balisong perhaps the shape still qualifies it as such. 

[Huntsman]

Yeah - Not bad EB - Thanks

Key misconception around the place, for me, is that a multitool must have pliers - Which of course it does not have to - Nor a knife for that matter - Eg bladeless (multi)tools

So that classification - Which guess focuses on the physical and opening aspects - works quite well

And the SAK is clearly in the pocket knife category of MTs.

[SteveC]

Didn't think so. My post was intentionally ridiculous to show the flawed logic in your comment. Just because a product is called "Swiss Army Knife" doesn't mean it can't be a multi tool and has to be a knife. The same way a product that is named "Leatherman" doesn't have to be a guy working with leather or a tool that is only made for leather working.

But it is ok. It is not the first time I see you commenting in a dismissive way in topics that are related to Victorinox products or the people that use them. From now on I will just ignore them. 

Okay Sir Vic that sounds like a good plan .


After this post:

can't disagree!
Also agreed!
To take it to the extreme, imagine an XAVT with no blades....
(Image removed from quote.)
It would still be thicker than a swisschamp, and I dare anyone to call it not-a-SAK 

I merely suggested that a  SAK with no blades and all tools should be called a SAMT.     

[Sos24]

In reality I think this is one of those interesting debates that will never have a right answer. 

Although to insert my $.02, I would have to lean on a SAK being more a knife than it being a multitool.  I base this off the fact that camp or scout knife, with the same basic toolset as some SAKs, is considered a knife.  An electricians knife, a sailors knife, etc all have tools, but are all considered knives. 

Or maybe tango44 is on to something when he said

A SAK is the mother of all multitiools!
Enough said!
 

And the plier based multitools are the father.

[gregozedobe]

In reality I think this is one of those interesting debates that will never have a right answer. 

Sometimes there is no single "right" answer, and looking for one is where the trouble occurs.

A frequent problem is that some people firmly believe that their personal OPINION is somehow "the" correct and only fact  - spoiler alert, opinions are often not actual facts.

Then when they try to claim their opinion is an objective "truth", but someone else holds a quite different opinion, then there can be a clash as both parties seem to forget that they are trying to enforce their opinion on someone else. Sometimes on-line discussions can get quite heated due to the limited bandwith and time delays, whereas a similar discussion held face to face could be rather more civil.

ETTO and all that - have a look at the quote in my signature block ....

[ElevenBlade]

Sometimes there is no single "right" answer, and looking for one is where the trouble occurs.

A frequent problem is that some people firmly believe that their personal OPINION is somehow "the" correct and only fact  - spoiler alert, opinions are often not actual facts.

Then when they try to claim their opinion is an objective "truth", but someone else holds a quite different opinion, then there can be a clash as both parties seem to forget that they are trying to enforce their opinion on someone else. Sometimes on-line discussions can get quite heated due to the limited bandwith and time delays, whereas a similar discussion held face to face could be rather more civil.

ETTO and all that - have a look at the quote in my signature block ....

I would have to respectfully disagree here.

I would submit that this is absolutely not matter of opinion. and that there is objective truth. 

What we're discussing here is a matter of taxonomy.  There are rules for taxonomy - In the case of living creatures...  every living organism fits within it.  Everything from dogs, to birds, to oak trees, to humans.
The taxonomy goes Kingdom -> Phylum -> Class -> Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species.   We're all familiar with Genus and Species in usual converations. 

We're talking about a taxonomy of tools. and the designation "Multitool" falls somewhere in the middle.  Somewhere between "(Hand)Tools" and "slipjoint pocketknife".

Based on the rules of increasing specificity, I suspect that SAK would have to fall below Multitool.. because the equivalent line on the same level (perhaps Order or Family) would have to be  "Dedicated tool".  a SAK would have to fall under Multitool, and then below that subclassified into a Pocketknife or a Knife based MT, or whatever we agree on.

This is objective and not a matter of opinion, (though the underlying condition is that the rules are agreed upon).

Bell pepper is a fruit, Eggplant is a fruit,  This is a fact,  It's not a matter of opinion... even though some people believe that pepper is a vegetable and use it as such.

Now, you can make your friends very angry if you put bell pepper and eggplant in their fruit salad.  So there's objectivity, and there's pragmatism, but there is no place for personal opinion in deciding upon taxonomy. 

So back to SAKs.  They must be classified as a multitool, because they can not be classified anywhere else.  Unless anyone can come up with a taxonomy where it would fit somewhere else, and that would encompass every tool out there.  (and Other is not an acceptable category)

Now one may hold the opinion that a SAK is not a good Multitool, or that bell pepper is a terrible fruit. Thats an opinion that anyone can have. But objective things are either true or not.

[SteveC]

Since the only knives the Swiss Army have used and  been issued have been the various Soldier models, should all the other models be classified and called something else ?   

Swiss Multitool knife perhaps     SMK's 

And BTW I agree that SAK's are Multitools.

[gregozedobe]

I would have to respectfully disagree here.
...... (though the underlying condition is that the rules are agreed upon).

And I must respectfully disagree with your opinion.     But I am enjoying the discussion, so have at it ....

AFAIK the rules for this particular discussion have NOT been agreed on, so until then this discussion can never be resolved to a single "objective" truth (and I have my doubts even if it were possible to agree on a set of comprehensive rules - see below). 

From what I've seen so far, I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait for a harmonious consensus on "the rules for classifying SAKs & MultiTools" to appear.

If I look closely at your example of the taxonomy of living creatures, I see that some areas are frequently subject to endless "discussions" between the lumpers and the splitters, so there is no single, objective, "truth", merely a (temporary ? ) consensus amongst the currently most influential classifiers (in other words, they all hold the same opinion about something and have agreed to accept it - for the time being at least). 

Also the objective "truth" of a particular classification or group of classifications is often subject to quite a radical revision as new information becomes available (eg previously unknown DNA links), so even with general agreement there is no immutable, fixed-for-life, objective "truth" in any particular taxanomic classification.

For me an objective "truth" is something much less disputable, perhaps something like:
"When I compare lead with water, lead has always appeared to be more dense, but having said that I make no claims about anyone else's experiences"

[ElevenBlade]

And I must respectfully disagree with your opinion.     But I am enjoying the discussion, so have at it ....

AFAIK the rules for this particular discussion have NOT been agreed on, so until then this discussion can never be resolved to a single "objective" truth (and I have my doubts even if it were possible to agree on a set of comprehensive rules - see below). 

From what I've seen so far, I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait for a harmonious consensus on "the rules for classifying SAKs & MultiTools" to appear.

If I look closely at your example of the taxonomy of living creatures, I see that some areas are frequently subject to endless "discussions" between the lumpers and the splitters, so there is no single, objective, "truth", merely a (temporary ? ) consensus amongst the currently most influential classifiers (in other words, they all hold the same opinion about something and have agreed to accept it - for the time being at least). 

Also the objective "truth" of a particular classification or group of classifications is often subject to quite a radical revision as new information becomes available (eg previously unknown DNA links), so even with general agreement there is no immutable, fixed-for-life, objective "truth" in any particular taxanomic classification.

For me an objective "truth" is something much less disputable, perhaps something like:
"When I compare lead with water, lead has always appeared to be more dense, but having said that I make no claims about anyone else's experiences"

 

Your first point is valid - the rules have not been agreed upon.  Though in looking at the various rules that have been offered, it seems that everyone's falls short (myself included without question).  Therefore the rules would have to be even more general than what any of us has considered.  In the interim I had tried to come up with weighted criteria - wherein something needs a few major criteria, and/or several minor criteria to qualify.  That too didn't address all cases when I put it to scrutiny.

This is what made me think of the multi-level taxonomy, rather than a list of criteria. The way we classify things in nature - living things, stars, planets, rocks. have different classifications, and we are able to do so with pretty good agreement.  Yes, scientists absolutely disagree with taxonomy - but when you get down to expert level the devil is in the details.  Taxonomy is "good enough" to be useful in science to the undergrad level, and even your average biologist can function within this classification in as much as it is useful to them. 

More strikingly, You can do hard-core chemistry without ever questioning if the atoms you're manipulating actually exist - or if atoms are just a mathematical model that we know how to manipulate "on paper" based on rules so that we can combine whatever chemicals to the endpoint that we want.  Expert particle physicists may tell you that atoms dont exist, that the atom is just a mathematical construct that explains why things happen as they do. In other words - is a Multitool an actual object, or is it an idea of or type of an object?  Again, we don't need to agree on that, as scientists don't agree if an atom is a mathematical model or a particle but they all do what they need to do with whatever atom they are working with.    What you're getting at is Scientific Realism, and what I would argue is we can get "good enough" without achieving "Truth" with a capital T when it comes to classifying multitools.   

The next thing that you are getting at is expert opinion, where we could employ the Delphi Method.  To that, I would submit that none of us are qualified for that, even though we are far more qualified than someone who doesn't frequent this site.  Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like there are too many of us that know similar things for this to be effective. 

So getting back to the topic at hand.  Even though we will be unable to come up with a classification that will stand the test of time (just as Technium may have become the 7th Kingdom of life-forms), I would argue that we can come up with a good-enough classification.  But for that to happen, it would have to be reasonably complex. And in the case of SAKs and Multitools, I can't envision how Multitools would be anywhere but as a larger set above the level of SAK.  To say a SAK is a type of pocketknife... then the definition of pocketknife would have to be so broad as to have to include some bicycle or guitar repair tools.  To me, that classification just seems .... misplaced. 

[Huntsman]

Oh this is fun and illuminating!!

And well done for keeping it informed and civil my MT.o friends

Do you think Oxford University would accept me for a Ph.D in Multitool Classification and Taxonomy - I guess I could throw in a little MT History - to make it a bit more worthwhile!      

[ElevenBlade]

Oh this is fun and illuminating!!

And well done for keeping it informed and civil my MT.o friends

Do you think Oxford University would accept me for a Ph.D in Multitool Classification and Taxonomy - I guess I could throw in a little MT History - to make it a bit more worthwhile!      

The universities in the UK have the absolute best degree programs.  Or programmes ...     You can get your Multitool classification Ph.D., whilst I get my Whiskey Ph.D.... Or Whisky if I'm in Scotland...  as it were. 

 

[ElevenBlade]

(double posted... sorry)

Nothing to see here... move right along... thank you...

[Syncop8r]

Bell pepper is a fruit, Eggplant is a fruit,  This is a fact,  It's not a matter of opinion... even though some people believe that pepper is a vegetable and use it as such.

If you want to talk about taxonomy, Peppers are neither - they're a Berry. 
As are tomatoes, pumpkins, bananas... (Raspberries and strawberries are not berries, they are aggregate fruits)
Whether something is referred to as a fruit or berry often has little in common with it's botanical classification.

[ElevenBlade]

If you want to talk about taxonomy, Peppers are neither - they're a Berry. 
As are tomatoes, pumpkins, bananas... (Raspberries and strawberries are not berries, they are aggregate fruits)
Whether something is referred to as a fruit or berry often has little in common with it's botanical classification.

  I'm just pointing out that while I am of the OPINION that peppers are a delicious vegetable because they go well with onions and sausages, the facts state otherwise.  That my opinion that they are a delicious anything... ends right there with the word "delicious"

Similarly, if my opinion is that a SAK is an excellent multitool, it ends with the word excellent.  What we are discussing is the validity of the purported "fact" thereafter.

[gregozedobe]

What we are discussing is the validity of the purported "fact" thereafter.

And what an amusing, fun discussion it has been.   

I keep thinking of the following quote :

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Just because we can't get total 100% consensus doesn't mean that most of the time most of us have a (mostly) shared consensus when we talk about a SAK.   But I'm not going to even try to expand that concept of consensus to include MultiTools ....      

[Syncop8r]

A classification is not a fact; it is a label we apply to something in a way that makes the most sense.
To me that makes it more of an opinion, although I don't think all opinions have equal value.

[ElevenBlade]

A classification is not a fact; it is a label we apply to something in a way that makes the most sense.
To me that makes it more of an opinion, although I don't think all opinions have equal value.

I fully agree with that opinion. 
There's an interesting essay written by Tom Nichols called "The Death of Expertise"

[King_Gorilla]

I would have to respectfully disagree here.

I would submit that this is absolutely not matter of opinion. and that there is objective truth. 

What we're discussing here is a matter of taxonomy.  There are rules for taxonomy - In the case of living creatures...  every living organism fits within it.  Everything from dogs, to birds, to oak trees, to humans.
The taxonomy goes Kingdom -> Phylum -> Class -> Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species.   We're all familiar with Genus and Species in usual converations. 

We're talking about a taxonomy of tools. and the designation "Multitool" falls somewhere in the middle.  Somewhere between "(Hand)Tools" and "slipjoint pocketknife".

Based on the rules of increasing specificity, I suspect that SAK would have to fall below Multitool.. because the equivalent line on the same level (perhaps Order or Family) would have to be  "Dedicated tool".  a SAK would have to fall under Multitool, and then below that subclassified into a Pocketknife or a Knife based MT, or whatever we agree on.

This is objective and not a matter of opinion, (though the underlying condition is that the rules are agreed upon).

Bell pepper is a fruit, Eggplant is a fruit,  This is a fact,  It's not a matter of opinion... even though some people believe that pepper is a vegetable and use it as such.

Now, you can make your friends very angry if you put bell pepper and eggplant in their fruit salad.  So there's objectivity, and there's pragmatism, but there is no place for personal opinion in deciding upon taxonomy. 

So back to SAKs.  They must be classified as a multitool, because they can not be classified anywhere else.  Unless anyone can come up with a taxonomy where it would fit somewhere else, and that would encompass every tool out there.  (and Other is not an acceptable category)

Now one may hold the opinion that a SAK is not a good Multitool, or that bell pepper is a terrible fruit. Thats an opinion that anyone can have. But objective things are either true or not.

I agree with EB, his post is the most logical way of looking at this.  Taxonomy is very important in all aspects of life.  However I would like to address a few small parts of what he said. 

Technically speaking a multitool would be any tool that combines multiple tools into one.  So that term would be used for anything with at least 2 distinct tools that used for two different functions.  For example a carpenters hammer has the hammer side for hammering and the claw side for pulling nails.  That technically makes it a multi tool.  So the taxonomy breakdown would go something like:  tools -> Hand tools -> multi tools -> pocket multi tools -> knife based MT or pliers based MT or wrench based MT etc.

Much of the confusion and disagreements that I am reading on this thread is mostly caused by the use of colloquial terminology.  SAK is a term used for just about any MT that is designed similar to a victorinox.  But all of those are really just "knife based MTs".  They may have a lot of other tools on them but they are still based off a folding knife design.  When Leatherman made the pliers based MT a big deal, people started saying "Multi tool" to describe any pliers based multi tool.  That is a colloquialism just like Swiss army knife.  Both are Multi tools, but people often use Multitool as a short hand for plier based Multi tool.

 There were a few other posts about the bell pepper thing.  I am always really surprised by how many people get confused by this stuff.  Look up the history of the tomato.  Some fruit is just fruit no matter how you look at it.(apples, peaches, etc)  Some vegetables are only vegetables no matter how you look at it.  BUT some are both.  It depends on the nature of your conversation.  If you were to be talking to a botanist or talking about technical definitions, tomatoes, olives, and bell peppers are all fruit.  However if you are talking to a chef, they would be referred to as vegetables.  For culinary purposes they are defined as vegetables because in the culinary world flavors and tastes are more important than the technical crap.  The tomato even has a specific legal classification because of a court case involving farmers being taxed on their produce. 
Here is a small bit from wikipedia regarding fruit and vegetables:
This is considerably different from the word's culinary meaning. While peaches, plums, and oranges are "fruit" in both senses, many items commonly called "vegetables", such as eggplants, bell peppers, and tomatoes, are botanically fruits.

So once again, Taxonomy is very important. 

[Syncop8r]

If you were to be talking to a botanist or talking about technical definitions, tomatoes, olives, and bell peppers are all fruit.

If you were talking to a botanist they would tell you that tomatoes and bell peppers are berries and that olives are drupes.

[dks]

I thought they were all taxonomised under "tasty"

[gregozedobe]

So once again, Taxonomy is very important.

Yes, Taxonomy is important, but even more important is which authority you are choosing to recognise as the authority in a particular area.  The example above demonstrates that very well - Culinary expert/Cook classification vs Botanists (and even with those categories you can find differing opinions, eg Botanists that follow the genomic properties of a plant differ from those that look through a magnifying glass or low powered microscope).  As always, the devil is in the detail.

The same applies in lots of other areas of life, eg spelling & grammar, where the "correct" answer depends very much on which authority you choose to follow (and when and where you were educated  ).  I once took part in a study of regional differences in vocabulary, where the researcher showed me a number of pictures and asked me which word/s I would use for them.  Without knowing, she was able to tell me what area I grew up in (within 50kms), and that I had also lived elsewhere for a while. It was very impressive.

[Aloha]

Wonderful conversation  . 

[dks]

Wonderful conversation  . 

Thank you

[ElevenBlade]

I agree with EB, his post is the most logical way of looking at this.  Taxonomy is very important in all aspects of life.  However I would like to address a few small parts of what he said. 

Technically speaking a multitool would be any tool that combines multiple tools into one.  So that term would be used for anything with at least 2 distinct tools that used for two different functions.  For example a carpenters hammer has the hammer side for hammering and the claw side for pulling nails.  That technically makes it a multi tool.  So the taxonomy breakdown would go something like:  tools -> Hand tools -> multi tools -> pocket multi tools -> knife based MT or pliers based MT or wrench based MT etc.

Much of the confusion and disagreements that I am reading on this thread is mostly caused by the use of colloquial terminology.  SAK is a term used for just about any MT that is designed similar to a victorinox.  But all of those are really just "knife based MTs".  They may have a lot of other tools on them but they are still based off a folding knife design.  When Leatherman made the pliers based MT a big deal, people started saying "Multi tool" to describe any pliers based multi tool.  That is a colloquialism just like Swiss army knife.  Both are Multi tools, but people often use Multitool as a short hand for plier based Multi tool.

 There were a few other posts about the bell pepper thing.  I am always really surprised by how many people get confused by this stuff.  Look up the history of the tomato.  Some fruit is just fruit no matter how you look at it.(apples, peaches, etc)  Some vegetables are only vegetables no matter how you look at it.  BUT some are both.  It depends on the nature of your conversation.  If you were to be talking to a botanist or talking about technical definitions, tomatoes, olives, and bell peppers are all fruit.  However if you are talking to a chef, they would be referred to as vegetables.  For culinary purposes they are defined as vegetables because in the culinary world flavors and tastes are more important than the technical crap.  The tomato even has a specific legal classification because of a court case involving farmers being taxed on their produce. 
Here is a small bit from wikipedia regarding fruit and vegetables:
This is considerably different from the word's culinary meaning. While peaches, plums, and oranges are "fruit" in both senses, many items commonly called "vegetables", such as eggplants, bell peppers, and tomatoes, are botanically fruits.

So once again, Taxonomy is very important.

 

Some very good points here. 

Fleshing out the taxonomy breakdown as such makes it even more compelling... the level op "pocket multitool", which excludes all your claw hammers and tire irons... then immediately going to the "base" of the pocket multitool makes a lot of sense. 

Colloquialisms play a major role here, and to @gregosedobe's point "correctness" can be regional as it is part of language (especially English, which is about as regional and un-standardized as can be).  We use Band-Aid (in the US) to mean any adhesive bandage or plaster (see what I did there for my friends across the pond?) regardless of brand.  Some people use the word Kleenex to mean any facial tissue.  Usually, these colloquialisms are overly broad, rather than the other way round.  I wonder if the term "multi-tool" was coined before Tim Leatherman made his iconic invention.  I would agree that in much of casual conversation, one thinks of a pliers based MT when hearing the word Multitool.  But then, I certainly remember people saying "let me borrow your Leatherman" when I had a Gerber on my belt... and I absolutely cringed with a visceral reaction when someone said the same to my friend who had a $15 generic copy of a PST.  To complicate matters further... you can spend hours on Ebay looking at "swiss army knives" ... some good, and some awful... made nowere near Switzerland.

Then there's your interesting point about the user of the word.. and the namer of the word... if you will.  The Botanist vs the Chef.  Maybe - we tool enthusiasts... some of us are botanists and some of us are chefs...  That's fair to some extent.  But then if you are a "chef" and you want to call a Victorinox Tinker a pocketknife because it's most likely to be used as such... I dare say that you are on the slipperly slope toward calling my Gerber MP600 a Leatherman. 

I would entreat our motley crew of mutl-purpose-tool users to recognize the importance of objectivity in our line of work.  Leaning toward the side of the Botanist in this regard, we should agree that a multi-level taxonomy is the only way to come to a definition of "multi-tool".  As a result we can define what a multi-tool is, what it isnt, and also identify "that without which it is not".

[King_Gorilla]

If you were talking to a botanist they would tell you that tomatoes and bell peppers are berries and that olives are drupes.

True.  But I didn't mean to imply that they are not berries or drupes, only they they are first and foremost fruit. 

Berries:  In botany, a berry is a fleshy fruit without a stone (pit) produced from a single flower containing one ovary.
Olives:  In any botanist's book that means they're technically classified as fruits — specifically a kind called drupes, a.k.a. stone fruits.

Some very good points here. 

Fleshing out the taxonomy breakdown as such makes it even more compelling... the level op "pocket multitool", which excludes all your claw hammers and tire irons... then immediately going to the "base" of the pocket multitool makes a lot of sense. 

Colloquialisms play a major role here, and to @gregosedobe's point "correctness" can be regional as it is part of language (especially English, which is about as regional and un-standardized as can be).  We use Band-Aid (in the US) to mean any adhesive bandage or plaster (see what I did there for my friends across the pond?) regardless of brand.  Some people use the word Kleenex to mean any facial tissue.  Usually, these colloquialisms are overly broad, rather than the other way round.  I wonder if the term "multi-tool" was coined before Tim Leatherman made his iconic invention.  I would agree that in much of casual conversation, one thinks of a pliers based MT when hearing the word Multitool.  But then, I certainly remember people saying "let me borrow your Leatherman" when I had a Gerber on my belt... and I absolutely cringed with a visceral reaction when someone said the same to my friend who had a $15 generic copy of a PST.  To complicate matters further... you can spend hours on Ebay looking at "swiss army knives" ... some good, and some awful... made nowere near Switzerland.

Then there's your interesting point about the user of the word.. and the namer of the word... if you will.  The Botanist vs the Chef.  Maybe - we tool enthusiasts... some of us are botanists and some of us are chefs...  That's fair to some extent.  But then if you are a "chef" and you want to call a Victorinox Tinker a pocketknife because it's most likely to be used as such... I dare say that you are on the slipperly slope toward calling my Gerber MP600 a Leatherman. 

I would entreat our motley crew of mutl-purpose-tool users to recognize the importance of objectivity in our line of work.  Leaning toward the side of the Botanist in this regard, we should agree that a multi-level taxonomy is the only way to come to a definition of "multi-tool".  As a result we can define what a multi-tool is, what it isnt, and also identify "that without which it is not".

I definitely agree.  Objectivity for the win!   

Another observation.  Even though I am sure they qualify as a colloquialism as well, things like Band Aid and Kleenex are referred to as genericised brand names.  Just like "escalator", the companies behind band aids and kleenex were so successful at branding that their product names became synonymous with the over-all kind of product.  Luckily, Leatherman or Gerber have not had enough dominance for their brand names to be legally genericised.  But just like you said, I have had many instances when a layperson will ask to borrow my MT by asking for my Leatherman or my Gerber, regardless of what I may have been carrying that day.  It can be amusing, like 15 years ago when older people would call any mp3 player an Ipod. 

At the risk of pushing this very entertaining conversation into the realm of the oddities of the English language; another interesting point would be how people tend to use knife as a synecdoche.  Since the knife blade is one part of the whole multitool.  Even people who use and carry MTs a lot tend to drop into some short-hand by asking you to hand them "your knife" or "the knife" when they are pointing or referring to a MT with a dozen functions.