New Article
msta...@talktalk.net
Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
It is co-authored by M. Stanwick and a Chinese playing card
researcher.
The article seeks to offer an explanation for the certain tile groups
that appear in mid 19th century and early 20th century ma que sets
using evidence recently acquired by the authors.
al
> A new article titled "Flowers and Kings: A Hypothesis of their
> Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
> Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
>
difficulty getting any response from the Playing-Card people. No reply
for inquiries. And no representative in Canada.
> It is co-authored by M. Stanwick and a Chinese playing card
> researcher.
>
> The article seeks to offer an explanation for the certain tile groups
> that appear in mid 19th century and early 20th century ma que sets
> using evidence recently acquired by the authors.
I just reviewed your Mah-Jongh(g) Before Mah-Jong(g) Part 1. The
Glover sets have some Kings tile but not "Flowers".
The sets shown had missing tiles. They appeared to be non-playable
sets. How long the sets had been in storage is uncertain.
I don't recall the exact details, but 148 does not distribute evenly.
152 tiles are needed, [148+ (4x extra 1)].
Your "flower" spelled as .化 or 花 ?
I thought I have seen them used interchangeably. Is it a new rule now?
When was that changed, anybody knows? Do you have answer to the
question, Michael?
++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
> Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
>
Give a synopsis now or at least post an answer to a question you have
found and get a discussion going. One good item can generate months of
discussion.
> It is co-authored by M. Stanwick and a Chinese playing card
> researcher.
>
> The article seeks to offer an explanation for the certain tile groups
> that appear in mid 19th century and early 20th century ma que sets
> using evidence recently acquired by the authors.
I have an explanation for "kings" and "variables" too. My explanation
is based on word meaning (etymology) and cosmology I learned recently.
++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
> Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
>
King, North King and a Middle or Central King (东王, 南王, 西王, 北王, 中王).
ANOTHER PATTERN INCLUDES HEAVEN KING, EARTH KING, MANKIND KING AND ALL-
IN-ONE KING
> [..]
>
> The article seeks to offer an explanation for the certain tile groups
> that appear in mid 19th century and early 20th century ma que sets
> using evidence recently acquired by the authors.
I BEG TO DIFFER. MA QUE OR MAH-JONG SETS USED IN MID 19TH CENTURY AND
EARLY 20TH CENTURY WERE NOT "19TH CENTURY...OR 20TH CENTURY MA QUE
SETS". THEY COULD HAVE BEEN 17TH, 15TH OR 11TH CENTURY SETS. THE AGE
OF THE DESIGN IS UNKNOWN. RIGHT?
For the kings, I found correspondence in their significance in Dao De
Jing. Many versions of translation for Chapter 25 in part was as
follows: "Dao is great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; the king is
great. There are 4 greats in the universe."
This may be another correlative link from Daoism to Mah-Jong or ma
que.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
I can see Zhong-Fa-Bai replaced the two sets of king tiles and the one
set of what I would consider as "wild cards" which mean "changeable".
Why and when the replacement or revision took place I do not know. But
the translation for the same sentence in Dao had been revised to say
"Man is great" instead of "king is great".
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al
msta...@talktalk.net
> A new article titled "Flowers and Kings: A Hypothesis of their
> Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
> Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
For those interested, The Playing-card editor has informed me that the
Journal, and therefore the article, will be available sometime between
the 28th August and the 1st of September.
Julian Bradfield
However, the Playing Card Society has informed me that the Journal
will not be available to non-members for the indefinite future, as
they can't find anyone to run the back-issues stock.
msta...@talktalk.net
msta...@talktalk.net
The Editor of The Playing-card journal has informed me that "MJ
newsgroup members [or anyone else for that matter] can order as
indicated on the IPCS web pages. But please be aware: there is only a
limited number of surplus copies, if there are many requests, this may
become a problem."
Julian Bradfield
> The Editor of The Playing-card journal has informed me that "MJ
> newsgroup members [or anyone else for that matter] can order as
> indicated on the IPCS web pages. But please be aware: there is only a
> limited number of surplus copies, if there are many requests, this may
> become a problem."
Sure, you can order. But you won't get what you order for the
indefinite future.
I asked for a couple of back issues in November. In February I got a
mail saying my order was on record, and I would be notified when it
was possible to fulfill it. It's now August...
(Having been even more incompetent myself as a back-issues supplier,
I'm in no position to complain...but maybe you should think about
putting your articles somewhere where they might get read! In most
real subjects, people put their articles on their homepages or in a
public archive, and this is even beginning to happen in the
humanities;-) It's not as if you get paid for them, is it?)
msta...@talktalk.net
> mstanw...@talktalk.net writes:
> > The Editor of The Playing-card journal has informed me that "MJ
> > newsgroup members [or anyone else for that matter] can order as
> > indicated on the IPCS web pages. But please be aware: there is only a
> > limited number of surplus copies, if there are many requests, this may
> > become a problem."
>
> Sure, you can order. But you won't get what you order for the
> indefinite future.
>
> I asked for a couple of back issues in November. In February I got a
> mail saying my order was on record, and I would be notified when it
> was possible to fulfill it. It's now August...
I will bring this to the Editor's notice and ask for a response.
> (Having been even more incompetent myself as a back-issues supplier,
> I'm in no position to complain.
Yes you are.
> ..but maybe you should think about putting your articles somewhere where they might get read!
They are read by the membership of The Playing-card! Clearly, there is
the problem of getting the articles to a wider audience. Requests for
photocopies will be accepted after the article has been published.
If anybody wishes to have the previous articles (there are 4 in all)
instead of the Playing-card journals in which they appear (due to the
back-issue problem), I can send photocopies with colour reproductions.
I have not considered placing older articles on a public archive. Can
you explain how it is done?
> It's not as if you get paid for them, is it?
The primary aim is to have them published in a publication devoted to
the subject area and that has academic or scholarly rigour or
appreciation to research. I have copyright. Once they are published, I
then have photocopies made.
msta...@talktalk.net
> mail saying my order was on record, and I would be notified when it
> was possible to fulfill it. It's now August...
Ok. I have had a message from the Editor regarding my query about the
back-issue problem. Apparently they had only recently found someone to
handle the back-issue orders and hence there is a delay is getting the
orders posted.
msta...@talktalk.net
Actually, the Journal has now been published. The cover sports an
excellent colour print of 16 Flowers/Seasons depicting images of war -
probably the sino-Japanese conflict. The back cover has a color print
of the entire set these tiles belong to.
Pwee Keng Ho
The pictures are very nice. I've only skimmed the artilce but it certainly
looks like a work of much scholarship. Congratulations, Michael.(and Hong
Bing too).
The pictures of the Ganjifa cards are quite pretty too.
<msta...@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:b43caa9f-d0d2-48a7...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
msta...@talktalk.net
> I just got the journal today in the post!
> The pictures are very nice. I've only skimmed the artilce but it certainly
> looks like a work of much scholarship. Congratulations, Michael.(and Hong
> Bing too).
Thank you Keng Ho. We tried to put as much relevant information/data
in the article as length constraints would allow. There are a few
glitches. For example, the date of the Sheng set is wrong in the
Table. It should be < 1890.
In the near future I hope to present a short article, with pictures,
of individual cards from some partial three-suited Chinese playing
card decks that I have acquired from a Chinese collector. These decks
sport designs nearly identical to decks acquired by Laufer while he
was in China 1901 - 1904 that represent the money-suit system category
of Chinese playing cards. The collector had them labelled as circa
1910. A similar deck is featured in Prunner's catalogue under 'Money
Playing Cards' # VII 1 - 30.
I also hope to present a coloured replica deck of a MJ Playing card
deck from circa 1900. This deck is # XIX 1 - 39 in Prunner's
catalogue. Another complete deck (120 cards) from circa 1939 will also
be presented, that sports insignia representing the money-suit
category, and that has pictures of the Sino/Japanese conflict. These
designs are very similar to those MJ tiles on the cover of the current
issue of The Playing-card journal.
I will draw comparisons between these decks and the money-suit
insignia and the pictures present on them and the insignia and
pictures (or lack of) present on tiles in ma que tile sets and the
early MJ card deck.
> The pictures of the Ganjifa cards are quite pretty too.
I agree. I have only skimmed the article but it seems the author had
these cards painted by artists he knows. Quite impressive work.
Incidentally, there is an abslutely excellent article with the most
gorgeous pictures of Ganjifa cards in the 'Asian Games: The Art of
Contest' catalogue edited by Colin MacKenzie and Irving Finkel. If you
have not got this book then I urge you, without hesitation, to acquire
a copy.
Pwee Keng Ho
chapter on dice and the lovely pictures therein.
:)
<msta...@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:8e2dd20a-d57c-49f5...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
kon...@gmail.com
Quote:
>In the near future I hope to present a short article, with pictures,
of individual cards from some partial three-suited Chinese playing
card decks that I have acquired from a Chinese collector. These decks
sport designs nearly identical to decks acquired by Laufer while he
was in China 1901 - 1904 that represent the money-suit system
category
of Chinese playing cards.
Awesome acquisition. I'm jealous. (^_^) Looking forward to that
article as well.
msta...@talktalk.net
Thanks Tom. Keng Ho's mention of the Dice chapter by Irving Finkel in
the catalogue I referenced also had me thinking about Culins' papers
on dice. I had made a note some time ago about the way the motifs on
the Indian dice in both Finkel's chapter and in Culin's paper were
identical to the depictions of the motifs in the 'cash' suit of MJ.
They also appear on a very early set of bone Dominoes in the catalogue.
al
> I do indeed have a copy of that book, though I prize it most highly for the
> chapter on dice and the lovely pictures therein.
> :)
>
>
> news:8e2dd20a-d57c-49f5...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 9:04 pm, "Pwee Keng Ho" <pwe...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> > I just got the journal today in the post!
> > The pictures are very nice. I've only skimmed the artilce but it certainly
> > looks like a work of much scholarship. Congratulations, Michael.(and Hong
> > Bing too).
Hello, I read the publication in the past two days slowly.
Just a brief comment:
Scholarly style; bounteous bibliography....
Questions: Why were kings everywhere and into everything? What did
kings have to do with the game? Did kings mandate the designs or did
they not? If they did, ever wonder why they had chosen such symbols.
Have you thought about that?
++++++++++
花 is not 化.
200 entries found in CEDICT for the word, 化, CHANGE or variability.
None relates to "FLOWER."
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x5316&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
++++++++++
150 entries found for the word, 花, FLOWER. None relates to CHANGE or
variability.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x82B1&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
+++++++++++++++
With reference to the online dictionary CEDICT, it is clear that 花 and
化 are not the same and should not be used interchangeably. Flower is
花. 化学 is chemistry which is a study of changes in matter and energy.
化 is like 变化, transformation. it's a VARIABLE.
Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
Accordingly, "Inner Flower" is out of bound...
++++++++++
>[..]
Cheers....al
msta...@talktalk.net
If anyone who does not possess a copy of the current Playing-card
Journal would like a colour photocopy of the article, please contact
me at msta...@talktalk.net
I will now supply photocopies free of charge.
ithinc
> Hello, I read the publication in the past two days slowly.
> 花 is not 化.
Correct! But this is not related to the article.
> Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
> word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
> CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
Wrong! 化 represents the pronunciation in 花 and not related to its
meaning.
> Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
> time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
> significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
> mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles. 化 is a
verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
花".
ithinc
ithinc
> kings have to do with the game? Did kings mandate the designs or did
> they not? If they did, ever wonder why they had chosen such symbols.
> Have you thought about that?
王 is not always king. For example, in 擒贼先擒王, 山大王, 峰王, 四大天王, 王 means
the chief member or an outstanding member of a group. So kings were
not necessary connected to the early mahjong sets. We use King just as
a term.
ithinc
ithinc
> > Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
> > time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
> > significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
> > mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
>
> 化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles. 化 is a
> verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
> 花".
Here is some zhipai pieces from the Minguo era(1911~1949),
http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/25.htm. We can see in some cards, "白化" or
"大化" is printed instead of "白花" or "大花".
ithinc
al
> On Oct 2, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I read the publication in the past two days slowly.
> [...]
> > 花 is not 化.
>
> Correct! But this is not related to the article.
>
The "New Article" was about "flowers and kings".
> > Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
> > word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
> > CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
>
> Wrong! 化 represents the pronunciation in 花 and not related to its
> meaning.
>
You said it right. Were you replying to the authors of the article?
That was what I tried to say, that 化 is not necessarily meaning 花,
although they sound the same.
Have you read the new article in question? Take a closer look at page
36 where the mahjong set showing all the 化 cards. That MJ set is older
than the mid-19th century.
> > Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
> > time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
> > significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
> > mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
>
> 化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles.
When an engraver did that (disregarding true meaning for work
simplicity), it shows either he was ignorant of the difference between
化 with or without ++, or he didn't know the rule for 化. It does not
mean he was correct in mixing the two words.
> 化 is a verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
> 花".
Grammar has hardly been much of a serious consideration in Chinese
writing. It would be highly unlikely the substitution was based on
grammar. Besides, 化 can be a verb or a noun, just as the word CHANGE
in English.
>
> ithinc
al
Again, if 王 does not always mean king, then your post should be
directed to the authors of "Flowers and Kings".
My questions asked why the "kings " are in many places and many
things. Readers in the group would be interested in knowing your
answers.
As for the meaning of the word 王, it is most meaningful when it is
used to mean king by virtue of the word's derivation. 王 without the
the vertical | stroke is just three lines. The three lines are symbols
for heaven (top line), earth (bottom line) and mankind (middle line).
That | line represents a link from heaven to earth through mankind.
That is a designated position for a king. It was said that kings
believed they were god-sent to rule the universe.
Of course a word may be used differently for various reasons, but the
meaning of 王 is king, as far as I know. CEDICT has a list of many
appearances of 王.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x738B&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
al
>
> > Hello, I read the publication in the past two days slowly.
> [...]
> > 花 is not 化.
>
> Correct! But this is not related to the article.
>
Page 36 of the Playing Card article has the many 化.
> > Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
> > word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
> > CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
>
> Wrong! 化 represents the pronunciation in 花 and not related to its
> meaning.
>
It's true. 化 sounds the same as 花, but as I said, the 2 words should
not be used or translated interchangeably.
> > Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
> > time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
> > significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
> > mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
>
> 化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles. 化 is a
> verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
> 花".
>
> ithinc
++++++++++++++
If simplification is the justification for interchanging the use of
the two words, what does Big 化 symbolize and why such a term?
ithinc
> My questions asked why the "kings " are in many places and many
> things. Readers in the group would be interested in knowing your
> answers.
I answered you it's Kings in the early maque sets, not kings, just
like that, when we say Flower tiles, we don't mean the tiles can
flower.
ithinc
ithinc
> On Oct 10, 9:37 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 2, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Hello, I read the publication in the past two days slowly.
> > [...]
> > > 花 is not 化.
>
> > Correct! But this is not related to the article.
>
> Did I read it wrong?
> The "New Article" was about "flowers and kings".
No, you read it right, but wrote it wrong (in wrong place).
> What is the article related to, then?
> Page 36 of the Playing Card article has the many 化.
The "New Article" is about the function of Flowers and Kings. Whether
花 is 化 or not is not the topic. And no one says 花 is 化.
> > > Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
> > > word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
> > > CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
>
> > Wrong! 化 represents the pronunciation in 花 and not related to its
> > meaning.
>
> You said it right. Were you replying to the authors of the article?
> That was what I tried to say, that 化 is not necessarily meaning 花,
> although they sound the same.
No one says 化 means 花. We say the 化 is a wrong writing or a wrong
engraving, and it is chosen instead of 花 to be engraved easily.
> It's true. 化 sounds the same as 花, but as I said, the 2 words should
> not be used or translated interchangeably.
No one uses them interchangeably.
> > > Abbreviation of the word, 化 for 花 likely did not take place in olden
> > > time and it should not have applied to symbols intended for
> > > significant difference in the same game. The interpretation was a
> > > mistake, by Himly or whoever else.
>
> > 化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles.
>
> When an engraver did that (disregarding true meaning for work
> simplicity), it shows either he was ignorant of the difference between
> 化 with or without ++, or he didn't know the rule for 化. It does not
> mean he was correct in mixing the two words.
Here you're right. The engravers were ignorant.
> > 化 is a verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
> > 花".
>
> Grammar has hardly been much of a serious consideration in Chinese
> writing. It would be highly unlikely the substitution was based on
> grammar. Besides, 化 can be a verb or a noun, just as the word CHANGE
> in English.
化, when meaning change, is always a verb in Chinese, even when it is
used as the subject of a sentence. Chinese is not English. We won't
call some object 化.
> If simplification is the justification for interchanging the use of
> the two words, what does Big 化 symbolize and why such a term?
No one uses them interchangeably. What's your "Big 化"?
ithinc
al
> On Oct 13, 4:33 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 9:37 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 2, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > 花 is not 化.
>
> > > Correct! But this is not related to the article.
>
> > Did I read it wrong?
> > The "New Article" was about "flowers and kings".
>
> No, you read it right, but wrote it wrong (in wrong place).
>
> > What is the article related to, then?
> > Page 36 of the Playing Card article has the many 化.
>
> The "New Article" is about the function of Flowers and Kings. Whether
> 花 is 化 or not is not the topic. And no one says 花 is 化.
>
flowers"?
"Inner flowers" applied to 化 and "outer flowers" applied to 花. Is that
not interchangeable use of two words for one object?
> > > > Flower is a plant, 花, characterized by the radical, ++ on top of the
> > > > word, 化. In term of etymology, a flower is described as a plant that
> > > > CHANGES [through the seasons], as depicted by ++ and 化.
>
> > > Wrong! 化 represents the pronunciation in 花 and not related to its
> > > meaning.
I disagree with you. 化 represents MORE THAN the pronunciation in 花.
>
> > You said it right. Were you replying to the authors of the article?
> > That was what I tried to say, that 化 is not necessarily meaning 花,
> > although they sound the same.
>
> No one says 化 means 花. We say the 化 is a wrong writing or a wrong
> engraving, and it is chosen instead of 花 to be engraved easily.
>
> > It's true. 化 sounds the same as 花, but as I said, the 2 words should
> > not be used or translated interchangeably.
>
> No one uses them interchangeably.
>
I just said. New terms have been introduced. They are "inner flowers"
and "outer flowers".
Let me explain again. 化 is coined as "inner flower" and 花 is "outer
flower".
> > > > [..]
>
> > > 化 is more simple than 花, and is easier to engrave on the tiles.
>
> > When an engraver did that (disregarding true meaning for work
> > simplicity), it shows either he was ignorant of the difference between
> > 化 with or without ++, or he didn't know the rule for 化. It does not
> > mean he was correct in mixing the two words.
>
> Here you're right. The engravers were ignorant.
>
If I understood you correctly, 化 had substituted 花 for simpler
engraving. What if you were wrong and that 化 was intended as a
variable like X+Y=10 where X is variable from 1 to 9 or Y is variable
from 9 to 1?
> > > 化 is a verb.; but in "同化", we need a noun. So "同化" is the abbreviation of "筒
> > > 花".
Similar to 'change'. It can be a verb or a noun.
I am saying 化 was meant for 'change' and not flower. Its function in
the game was to make changes by substituting for another card.
>
> > Grammar has hardly been much of a serious consideration in Chinese
> > writing. It would be highly unlikely the substitution was based on
> > grammar. Besides, 化 can be a verb or a noun, just as the word CHANGE
> > in English.
>
> 化, when meaning change, is always a verb in Chinese, even when it is
> used as the subject of a sentence. Chinese is not English. We won't
> call some object 化.
>
There is change and there is variability. Regardless which language;
there is reason and there is reasonableness. What you said above lacks
grammatical common sense.
> > If simplification is the justification for interchanging the use of
> > the two words, what does Big 化 symbolize and why such a term?
>
> No one uses them interchangeably. What's your "Big 化"?
>
> ithinc
++++++++++++
I asked you what Big 化 means. You answered with the same question to
me. Let me answer the question then. It was a mistake from sloppy use
of the word 化.
+++++++++++
Cheers...al
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Sep 22, 2:15 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 10:51 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > > > On May 30, 4:32 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > > A new article titled "Flowers and Kings: A Hypothesis of their
> > > > Function in Early Ma Que" is to be published in The Playing-card,
> > > > Volume 37, No 1, sometime around August/September.
A correspondent on this News Group initially questioned the use of 化
and 花, in the article in question.
From the descriptions I have read on this News Group from this
correspondent, it appears that they have unfortunately conflated
several statements and hence confused the issue of the use of 化 and 花,
as described in the article. This may be partly due to the wording
used in the article.
I will not be posting a fuller explanation on this site on this
matter.
If interested readers would like a fuller explanation of what was
written in the article regarding this matter, please feel free to
email me. I reserve the right to only correspond with those I consider
genuine inquirers.
ithinc
> Didn't you read the authors' words such as "inner flowers" and "outer
> flowers"?
You may need to change your glasses. These two terms are direct
translations of Liu Yishu's record. And they still exist now in
Jiangdu Mahjong. The terms were created by the players, not by the
writers.
> "Inner flowers" applied to 化 and "outer flowers" applied to 花. Is that
> not interchangeable use of two words for one object?
You read it wrong. It is not interchangeable use.
Inner Flowers include: 筒王(饼王/同化) 索王(索化) 萬王(万化) 總王(搃王) 元王 合王 喜王 陞王
Outer Flowers include: 天王 地王 人王 和王 東王 南王 西王 北王 春 夏 秋 冬 雨 日 風 雪 蘭 荷 菊
梅, etc.
> I disagree with you. 化 represents MORE THAN the pronunciation in 花.
You have the freedom.
> I just said. New terms have been introduced. They are "inner flowers"
> and "outer flowers".
>
> Let me explain again. 化 is coined as "inner flower" and 花 is "outer
> flower".
See above.
> If I understood you correctly, 化 had substituted 花 for simpler
> engraving. What if you were wrong and that 化 was intended as a
> variable like X+Y=10 where X is variable from 1 to 9 or Y is variable
> from 9 to 1?
It is a valid hypothesis before it's proved wrong. I have given
reasons and circumstantial evidences.
> > 化, when meaning change, is always a verb in Chinese, even when it is
> > used as the subject of a sentence. Chinese is not English. We won't
> > call some object 化.
>
> There is change and there is variability. Regardless which language;
> there is reason and there is reasonableness. What you said above lacks
> grammatical common sense.
It is obvious you lack the grammatical knowledge of Chinese.
ithinc
pa...@email.unc.edu
response to his recent article “Flowers and Kings…” and he suggested
that I post it on this NG. For my earlier preliminary information on
the possibility that the Taiping were the inventors of MJ, please
refer to the following thread (Paper Pai vs. MJ Tiles, Why?):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/c383b947ba21523a#
Since the Himly set correlates the best with the Taiping origin
hypothesis, and since it is possibly the oldest of the early sets with
~ dates, I used this set to look at the possibility of significance
for the border and character colors. I can fit them fairly well with
the Taiping organization, and perhaps they would fit satisfactorily
with the ‘inner/outer flowers’ as given in your article.
My proposed symbolic associations are as follows:
Of the 9 Wang/King tiles, only one is different, being set apart by
both characters being red rather than one blue and the Wang character
in red, and the border matches the Season tiles rather than the other
Wang/King tiles. This Zong Wang tile, if representing God, would be
expected to be set somewhat apart from the others, thus the use of red
for both characters. The border that matches the Season tiles could
represent the belief that God controls the seasons (as well as other
natural phenomena; matching the belief that God created the universe).
I have assigned Jesus and the ‘Holy Ghost’ (the others in the
traditional Christian trinity) as well as the Taiping leader and his
son to the four Wang/King tiles that make up the four lines of the
Wang character, i.e., Heaven, Earth, Man, and Harmony (Tian, Di, Ren,
He). Note that Hong Xiuquan, the Taiping leader, was proclaimed to be
the Son of God and Jesus’ younger brother, while Hong Tianguifu, his
son and heir apparent, was proclaimed to be Jesus’ adopted son; thus
all four of these associated individuals would have a heavenly family
connection to God. There are some difficulties in trying to associate
these four individuals with the four tiles, but it seems reasonable
enough to be plausible.
The other four Wang/King tiles would be represented by the other four
major leaders of the Taiping (who were all given Wang/King titles by
their leader), who were never proclaimed to be part of God’s family
(though one channeled the ‘voice of God’, and another the ‘voice of
Jesus’; both subjecting even Hong Xiuquan, the Taiping leader, to
their commands when ‘speaking’ in this capacity). Thus, the East King,
Yang Xiuqing (the Mouthpiece for God, and Taiping Generalissimo) would
be represented by the East King tile; the South King, Feng Yunshan
(the Taiping General of the Reserve) by the South King tile; the West
King, Xiao Chaoqui (the Mouthpiece for Jesus and the Taiping Deputy
Generalissimo), the West King tile; and the North King, Wei Changhui,
the North King tile.
Note that all nine of the above were worshiped by the Taiping
(including being prayed to even after the deaths of some of these
Taiping leaders). It should also be noted that the Princes (Wang)
promoted to replace the depleted leadership rank Kings were never
accorded the same status as the individuals mentioned above. Nor was
the Wing King, Shi Dakai, one of the original Kings and the fifth
General.
So relating the Taiping interpretation of the tiles to the inner/outer
flowers idea, here is the best that I can come up with initially:
I think the Hua/Flower tiles (Tong, Suo, Wan) and their corresponding
suit tiles may be carried over from money-suit cards and not hold any
significance to Taiping organization or ideology, and I am not
surprised that the Hua/Flower tiles would be used as substitutes for
tiles in their respective suits.
Zong Wang (God) should be the most powerful piece and it would be
reasonable for it to be able to substitute for any other tile, but
probably no other tile should be its equal. The later additions of the
Ting Yong and Sheng Wang tiles would seem to be contrary to what I
would think would be appropriate for a set representing the Taiping.
The Nakamura set could perhaps still be considered to represent the
Taiping (with additional phenomenon added), but the Glover sets
(lacking the Zong Wang tile) and the Sheng set (representing Confucian
ideals rather than the Christian variant of the Taiping; note that
many used Confucian ideals as a justification to fight against the
Taiping, so these two belief systems would be considered antagonistic)
would not.
I would expect the four tiles that include the heavenly family of God
to be the next most powerful pieces, with Jesus > Hong Xiuquan, the
Taiping leader > Hong Tianguifu, his son and heir apparent, and I am
uncertain what rank the ‘Holy Ghost’ would have since it did not seem
to be well understood by the Taiping (translated as ‘Wind’, their
leader (Hong) wrote that “Holy Ghost is God […] the one who in heaven
dispatches the winds.” Therefore, I would have expected the ‘Holy
Ghost” (He Wang tile?) to somehow be associated with the Winds; Jesus
(Tian Wang tile?) to somehow be associated with the Myriads suit (the
highest value ‘currency’); Hong Xiuquan (Di Wang tile?) somehow be
associated with the Strings suit; Hong Tianguifu (Ren Wang tile?)
somehow be associated with the Cash suit (the lowest value
‘currency’).
The remaining four Wang/King tiles that represent the four most
prominent Generals would be ranked as the East King, Yang Xiuqing (the
Mouthpiece for God, and Taiping Generalissimo) > the West King, Xiao
Chaoqui (the Mouthpiece for Jesus and the Taiping Deputy
Generalissimo) > the South King, Feng Yunshan (the Taiping General of
the Reserve) > the North King, Wei Changhui. Being less important than
the four Wang/King tiles that represent God’s family, I would have
initially guessed that they would somehow be associated with their
respective Winds. I was thinking that the Winds tiles could represent
the troops under each of these Generals’ command.
Since all nine Wang/King tiles could be ranked into relative
importance, and since the eight (in two distinct groups of four) could
thus be associated with specific suit or Wind tiles, perhaps as ‘wild
cards’, I was expecting more specificity than the Liu rules provide.
But I also suppose that using these eight as individual ‘outer
flowers’ would not conflict with the Taiping origin idea and the
associations that I have speculated that the tiles represent.
The Seasons could also have been associated with specific winds, but
their use as ‘outer flowers’ would also not be inconsistent with my
Taiping hypothesis.
Dan
al
As I recall, I read your post briefly before I was hospitalized. I was
afflicted with food-poisoning from a lunch I ate on the way to an
appointment with an ophthalmologist for an infection in my eye. That
was over 3 weeks ago. I felt sick on the way home from the trip and
through the night. I was so weak the next morning I had to go by
ambulance to the local hospital.
In the hospital the I-V injection overloaded my systems. Fluid was in
my lungs and my heart had to work harder. I could hardly breathe. I
was then transferred to Intensive-Care-Unit. That saved my life. Tests
showed I had congestive heart failure and M-I, a heart attack. I am
recuperating at home now, but I was in the hospital for nearly 3
weeks.
++++++++++++
I wrote the above 2 paragraphs this morning. I will continue to write
a few more lines this afternoon until I need another rest. I thought I
should explain my sudden absence from the scene following your last
post about 3 weeks ago.
I don't feel like reading too much of anything right now. I will try
to answer you from memory. You quoted from a book the terms flower (花)
and transformation (化) were used interchangeably by the author. You
concluded that was, as you said, "circumstantial evidence."
++++++++++++++
I took another break. Now let me continue.
"Circumstantial evidence" that might have been. It is worthless unless
it corresponds with reality. For example, there was much written about
the flat earth at one time, and probably even more was written about
the geocentric theory. So there was plenty of circumstantial evidence
given by established sources turned out to be incorrect. Therefore
what you quoted from an old book is not necessarily correct either.
++++++++++++++++++
You said (化) is abbreviation for (花) and that it was for the purpose
of easier engraving. In the tile MJ set of "Flowers and Kings" there
were only 3 (化) tiles and the difference between (花) and (化) is only +
+.
I would say if the omission of ++ is to simplify engraving, the 3
tiles can do without the word (化) entirely. Why not simplify them
using one word for each suit and still maintain their functions? The 4
real flower tiles in that set do not use the word (花).
筒, 索, and 万 (3 little words) could have served as wild cards for the
three suits. Eliminate the (化) would have been the simplest. But that
was not done, because, perhaps, there was a reason.
+++++++++++++++++
I do not see (花) = (化) or vise versa in the tile set in "Flowers and
Kings" as you do. You and I have different views on MJ history. You
pride on knowing a great deal of what has been written in Chinese
books of history and literature. I see such writing as being based on
mostly hearsay and oral tradition. I do not have your teacher-scholar
level of knowledge, but I exercise my critical judgment based on
observations as a slow learner-student.
For example, I reviewed your post briefly; you said "These two terms
are direct translations of Liu Yishu's record. And they still exist
now in Jiangdu Mahjong. The terms were created by the players, not by
the writers."
Who was Liu Yishu, anyway? Why was he such an authority on MJ?
Just because that was in the records then what was said and translated
is correct? We should not forget or ignore the confusion in Cash,
Tien, Ping, Circle, Dot or Tong. These terms were also made up by the
players. Which or any one of them is right? None of them!
++++++++++++
By the way, as far as Chinese grammar is concern, it is the worse
among the three languages I have studied. My 4 years of Latin is more
than 20 years Chinese in terms of grammar rules. As I recall, grammar
was not taught in my days of classes (in China) until senior high or
beyond grade 9. However, there are not that many clear-cut grammatical
rules in Chinese. Foreigners who have tried to learn Chinese would
tell you that.
++++++++++++++++++++
I actually started this post yesterday. I am slowing down. I am glad
to have the chance of giving you a reply.
++++++++++
Cheers...al