Good points being raised here! I apologize that my comment about the identity of the shadow in Jim's dance "Groundhog Daze" was so brief that it contained embedded assumptions that might not be clear to all readers. My first dance language was MWSD (modern square dancing), and I am inclined to prefer terms to be defined clearly and consistently whenever possible. I don't always find that to be the case with the language of contra. Let's think for a moment about the literal meanings of the three related terms under discussion. In my mind, it is best to use each term in our teaching in a way that is most consistent with its literal meaning, so that the dancers can form the most useful mental image: Corner: A person who is standing in the same corner as you. It's really appropriate only in a square formation, or a closely related formation that leads to or from a square. It is a geometric term and refers only to the position, with no implication that it's the same person each time. It's very close in meaning to "neighbor," and I think of it as the square analogue to "neighbor." I don't feel like the term fits in a normal contra dance, but in a double contra aka 4-facing-4 dance, it can be useful if the choreography has elements that are "square-like," i.e. "Lines of 4 go forward and back, Swing your corner, Face in as a square." Shadow: Literally, this is a specific predictable phenomemon that will appear no matter what in a certain set of circumstances, i.e. when you are in direct sunlight, you see an image of yourself cast on the ground in the direction opposite the sun. In a dance, this term should be reserved for a situation when the same person will always be found in the same location relative to yourself at a specific moment in the choreography (obviously with adjustments due to end effects). A caller's job in teaching is to help the dancers identify who that shadow is when needed, either because it's crucial in learning the dance or to help with recovery strategies. There are times when a shadow appears in a dance only as a side effect (like in a star or a hey); this isn't always pointed out by the caller and can be a source of delight when dancers make this discovery. Geometrically, a shadow can only be a person of opposite gender who is in the same line as you when in Becket formation (or facing the same direction as you in proper/improper formations), again ignoring end effects. Most often the shadow of interest is the person "in your other hand" when standing Becket in long lines. But not always. There are dances in which you interact with the shadow beyond your partner in your own Becket line. There are even dances in which multiple shadows come into play. In teaching, a caller should point out the shadow of interest in terms of position but also make clear that the shadow is always the same person unless the set changes during the dance by breakdown/reset or adding/subtracting couples. In Jim's dance, the shadow is in fact the person in your "other hand" when standing Becket. Trail Buddy: I feel like this term is used sporadically and inconsistently. I'd like to hear other callers' comments about this one.  Sometimes I've heard this used in a way that seems synonymous with "shadow," which seems redundant to me but may actually be a regional variation. If so, it would benefit us all to learn what exactly that is. Other times I think it may be used in a 4-facing-4 dance to refer to your "other partner" i.e. the other opposite-gender person in your own line of 4. Because of this vagueness, I prefer to avoid the term. If I feel it's necessary, I'll call someone a "line buddy" in the 4-facing-4 situation. This is rare, but in the example I gave above (under "Corner"), I'll say, "Sometimes your corner is your line buddy, and sometimes it is a new person," because of the zigzag progression typical of most 4-facing-4 dances. What are other people's experiences? Brian