Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design
al
(Relate to I-Ching & Taoism)
Introduction
Mahjong and other Hu Pais relate to I-Ching. (Yes. I mean I-Ching 易经).
I-Ching is also known as the “Book of Changes” . It is about change
and changeability of everything in the universe. In other words, I-
Ching is OBSERVATION OF CHANGES literally, just as the meaning for
“Book of Changes”.
I learned just recently from reading. I = 易 = change. Ching is 经 as in
经历 like chronicle of observations. The books and references I used are
listed separately.
To show how Mahjong and other Hu Pai game design could be based on
concepts and principles in I-hing, I compare the basic structure of
Mahjong with basic structure of I-Ching. I will also relate symbols in
I-Ching to symbols in Mahjong. Keep in mind that the central idea is
CHANGE and that the process of change is simple and cyclical, just as
explained in I-Ching (a term credited to Confucius).
First let me explain about the I-Ching trigram. It is a symbol of 3
lines which can be arranged in 8 different orders of yin and yang, one
line above another. These symbols were used as metaphors in place of
many words when the language was rudimentary. To illustrate, each
trigram starts from a bi-gram of 2 lines, yin and yang. Let yin = 0
and yang = 1. These 2 lines can make 4 bi-grams, such as O-1, 0-0,
1-0- 1-1. Then the interactions of the 4 bi-grams with yin and yang
beget 8 trigrams: 1-1-1, Heaven; 0-1-1, Lake; 1-0-1, Fire; 0-0-1,
Wind; 0-1-0 Thunder; 1-1-0, , Water; 1-0-0, Mountain; 0-0-0, Earth
(Living I-Ching by Deng Ming-Dao); they are usually shown in line-
symbols. A broken line is yin and a solid line is yang. Trigrams are
building-blocks of I-Ching divination system of hexagram.
Hexagrams are two trigrams in a stack; each has 6 lines Yin and Yang,
in 64 different configurations. Each configuration is a metaphor with
a message for interpretation. This is my basic knowledge of I-Ching.
In tracing the root of a game like Mahjong which has changed names, no
history in written authorship, undergone changes in symbols and cards
added, numerous versions of terms for symbols, even acquired new rules
of play, the core structure and concept of the game is more
significant than its superficial looks. As for any invention, the
uniqueness is not in the appearance but it is in the idea. That is the
essence and meaning of “intellectual property”. Intellectual property
is what I have here.
Reference List:
“The Living I-Ching”, by Deng Ming-Dao, copyright 2006.
“The I-Ching Book”, by Chris Marshall, ISBN 1 84442 634 3; 2004.
“Taoism, A Short Introduction”, by James Miller, copyright 2003.
“Wikipedia” on-line.
“Mah-Jongg from Shanghai to Miami Beach”, ISBN 0-8118-4733-0, 2005.
“The Happy Game of Mah-Jong”, by D.H. Li, ISBN 0-9637852-3-0, 1994.
“The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg”, by A.D. Millington, 1993
“The Paying-Card” articles by Michael Stanwick and Andrew Lo
“Sloperama” FAQ and NG discussions and emails from group members
“Chemistry for Dummies”, by John T. Moore,ISBN 0-7645-5430-1, 2003
“Ralph Waldo Emerson”, CD (CNIB library), 2007
“The History of Mahjong” NG Post by Cofa Tsui, January 2004
“The ZuiHu game” NG Post by ithinc, August 2007
Characteristics of Mahjong (MJ) and other Hu Pai with Parallels in I-
Ching
A pair in MJ is called “eyes”. A pair in I-Ching is yin and yang,
darkness and light.
Phoenix & Dragon are gender symbols in MJ; Yin &Yang are parallels in
I-Ching.
‘Dui’ a pair in Zui-Hu, literally meaning ‘opposed’; Y&Y are opposites
in I-Ching.
Directions, (East-South-West-North) in Mahjong; directions are
trigrams in I-Ching.
‘Wan’ is ‘Ten-thousand’ in MJ; means ‘ten-thousand-thing’ in Tai-Chi
and I-Ching.
‘Old-Thousand’ a card in Hu pai maybe fertility symbol like Mother
Earth in I-Ching.
Scores multiply stepwise in MJ by 2. Trigrams mutate to hexagrams in
steps by 2.
Seasons and Directions are MJ cards; Seasons & Directions are I-Ching
trigrams
Yin and yang, opposites in I-Ching, interact to make 2-line bi-grams &
3-line trigrams.
The goal in MJ is a symbols grouping, 2-3-3-3-3. A pair is ‘2’ , and
sub-groups of ‘3’.
An MJ hand, 13 cards, by D & D, change to a pair + 4 of 3’s,
(2-3-3-3-3 Hu-pattern.)
In I-Ching, ‘2’ = Y & Y, interact with each other; generate 8 groups
of 3’s (trigrams).
‘Kan’ is a MJ 3-card ‘run’, e.g. 1-2-3. ‘Kan’ in I-Ching is trigram-
water that flows.
Changes occur in each MJ hand by D&D; changes in I-Ching from Y&Y
interaction.
Hu, 和 in etymology = ‘eat rice together’; it is ‘unite together’ of
Y&Y in I-Ching.
MJ ‘Dead-wall’ is forbidden zone; I-Ching Tai-Chi, 太极 is primal
birthing place.
The ‘primal birthing place’ is the blank space, an inner circle of
‘Heaven-Eight trigram’.
‘Heaven-8 Trigrams’ express the “cyclical, seasonal and directional
nature of changes”.
MJ circles of King Wen trigrams represent cyclical changes of
everything in the universe.
MJ stick/string symbols are lines of yin-yang; they created all the
‘ten-thousand things’.
Yin and Yang exist in pair. They attract to a union like electron and
proton of atoms.
Yin or Yang can not exist alone; hence a bird, the sparrow is in place
of 1-stick/string.
The simplicity of symbols in MJ is like the simplicity of trigrams in
I-Ching.
E-S-W-N and the 4 Seasons in MJ are part of King Wen’s Trigram-circle.
The process of change affects every MJ-hand via the rules of ‘draw and
discard’.
Cycle of change affects everything in the universe in I-Ching by union
of Y&Y.
‘Draw and Discard’ create changes in MJ; combination and permutation
in I-Ching.
Fair and simple rules for all Hu games; ‘power of 2’ is formula for I-
Ching trigrams.
Mahjong and other Hu Pai have symbols and many metaphors.
I-Ching trigrams and hexagrams are metaphors and more.
MJ symbol called by different names; MJ rules can differ here and
there.
In Taoism wisdom “Name is not forever Name. Way is not the only Way”.
A case in point, Tai-Chi, 太极 by my interpretation, it mean ‘primal
birthing place’. (Every Chinese child by age 5 hears enough swearing
to know what 太 means. No need for etymology to analyze the word. The
dot is a sign of something came out between two legs. A birthing
occurred! Yet the use of V- word is still taboo. Medical description
and dictionary definition for the virgina is “shaded-passage”. I call
it here as ‘birthing place’.
In summary, connections between I-Ching and game design of Mahjong
include:
The circle symbol in Mahjong (Spare Coin) is trigram circle of King
Wen in I-Ching.
The stick/string/rope symbol (Suo Zi) in Mahjong is Yin-Yang line in I-
Ching.
The ‘wan’ symbol in Mahjong is referred to as “ten-thousand-thing’ in
I-Ching.
Seasons and Directions are part of I-Ching and part of Maahjong.
The ‘Pair’ has special significance in both Mahjong and I-Ching.
Parallel exists in I-Ching for the mahjong ‘dead-wall’, Tai-Chi (太极).
‘Kan,’ ‘Dui’ and ‘Qian’ have corresponding usage in Mahjong and I-
Ching.
“Why a Sparrow?” is answered; needed for non-existent half-Yin-Yang
pair.
Change by Yin-yang union in I-Ching; change by ‘peng & chow‘ in MJ.
Conclusion:
Mahjong and other Hu-game designs relates directly to I-Ching, 易经.
A coherent explanation is now possible for the symbols, structure and
rules of the game.
The concentric circles in MJ are King-Wen-Circles in I-Ching. The
Strings or Sticks in MJ are Yin-Yang-Lines in I-Ching. The Sparrow was
a substitute for a half-Yin-Yang-Line which can not exist without an
opposite. (Yin-Yang-Lines exist together at least in pair; that is
what ‘Hu’ (和) means in Hu-Pai. 和= together, Yin AND Yang.
A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
My thanks and appreciation for the discussions with and assistance
from members of our group; I am glad to have contributed my little
bit. I hope someday somehow somebody will get the Mahjong/Sparrow
origin straight.
al
It seems unusual to see not one argument in response since my post
September 27, 2007, 14 days ago, especially when the connection is so
remote from the conventional view or standpoint and the
characteristics are so conceptual rather than concrete or tangible.
I know every one in this group can be vocal and direct at times when a
point is in dispute. Why the sudden silence? I can not believe that
there is no objection or question to my interpretation. After all I am
a neophyte in this game. The post is on the origin of the mahjong
design, a hefty topic indeed. The concept behind the game design, if
understood, can answer many questions that recurred time and again in
the history of this discussion group. Without a core idea for the
game, mahjong pieces do not hang together; symbols do not have uniform
names or meaning; rules do not have reason for being different here
and there. Scholarly discourse mostly focused on a word or a phrase or
pronunciation of this or that appeared so and so. The results led
often to nowhere near the origin of mahjong.
If I had made a mistake and readers recognized it in my post, I would
have heard it by now. My earlier post as a reply to What is Maque /
mahjong had detailed the same content in summary and conclusion. So
there have been two posts proposing that there was a discernable
connection between the design of mahjong and the elements and concepts
in the Book of Changes (I-Ching).
Since I heard not a word from any one anywhere, I am led to speculate
the possibilities of (1) readers are still in shock, like what was
once referred to as Culture Shock Resistance. Or (2) the concept of
creation by Yin and Yang is alien under scholarly scrutiny. Or (3) the
formation of yin-yang lines into configurations such as bi-grams,
trigrams and hexagrams is beyond easy comprehension; or (4) by
ignoring it to give an implication that (a) the post is unworthy of
attention; (b) no sign of culture shock or resistance and (c) being
unaware of this post but not being uninformed on Chinese classic. Or
perhaps (5) avoiding further discussion can keep the status quo. (The
money base preserved and prevails).
It is interesting to note. If educated people nowadays reacted to a
suggestion that the idea and structure of mahjong design relate to I-
Ching either as wacky, unthinkable, confusing or nonsensical, how do
you think people in olden days (whenever that was) responded if they
were told that mahjong was based on I-Ching concepts and not on money/
coins as they had been familiar with in other older games? Naturally
they would ignore anything different and unknown. It is easy to see
what names those folks would have assigned to any new symbols in their
circumstances. They called the new symbols of mahjong with old names
they knew. It was not important what the mahjong symbols really were
then, nor are they now except when it comes to the question of origin
of the game.
By the way, there might have been original mahjong instruction in
writing for scholars who could read. But that was useless to many
people who could not read and most of Chinese people learned only by
oral instruction in olden days. However, if the game was written
before 221 BC, the book-burning of the Chin dynasty (221-206 BC) would
have destroyed its records anyway.
mstanwick
> On Sep 27, 11:33 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Mahjong and Hu-Pai Designs
> > (Relate to I-Ching & Taoism)
> > To show how Mahjong and other Hu Pai game design could be based on
[snip]
> > Conclusion:
> > Mahjong and other Hu-game designs relates directly to I-Ching, .
> > A coherent explanation is now possible for the symbols, structure and
> > rules of the game.
Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
thinking is found in the Wu Xing. But correspondence does not imply
cause. So now comes the pain... to show that such relationships were
actual, rather than just possible.
> > A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> > Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example, is
there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?
Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
the other correspondences.
I hope these suggestions are a help.
Cheers
Michael
al
Your suggestions a help? May be, but...
Not much help, Michael.
First I get the message that what is here is nothing new. Wu Xing has
been all about the same thing. I went to Wikipedia and looked up Wu
Xing to see what that is about. But wu xing is quite different from
the focus of my topic.
As I understand it, wu-xing is more for feng-sui, although the 5
elements do appear in the trigrams and hexagrams of I-Ching.
Then basically you told me the task is painful and almost impossible
to show written historical evidence for all the corresponding
relations between I-Ching and mahjong.
But as I said previously, physical evidence has been lost and / or
destroyed. That is why historians could not come up with proofs other
than "probable" this or that. Intellectual evidence is all we can use.
I have shown numerous conceptual connections between the mahjong game
and the Book of Changes. There are symbols in evidence too, except
that they are different from the repeat of traditional "money-
suited" kinds that are taken from a Matiao idea of "Zero Cash"; Half-
Cash, Hundred Cash, Thousand Cash and even Myriad Cash: all derived
from no-cash.
Doesn't it sound like and isn't it propagated like the idea of
immaculate conception?
So, I don't need to show cause-effect relationship for any
corresponding features between mahjong and I-Ching. I am satisfied in
knowing that the existence of correspondence is undeniable. People
tend to believe what they want anyway.
As the saying goes, you can only lead a horse to the water; you can
not make the animal drink.
Cheers....
P.S. Michael, take a look at page 89 of The Playing Card Vol.31 Number
2 (Andrew Lo).
The description for 5-string (suo):" like the shape of the gen
trigram" ( 1 solid line above 2 broken lines) with note #13 which
says: "for an explanation of trigrams see Cary Barnes, trans. Hellmut
Wilhelm, The I-Ching or Book of Changes; 1984.
Similarly, 3-Cash is "like the shape of qian trigram" (3 solid lines
on top of each other) and 6-Cash is "like the shape of kan trigram" (3
broken lines on top of each other).
One more item for your interest: look up the English word "LINE" and
see some Chinese equivalents. "suo" is one of the nouns in my
dictionary. What if "lines" were taken for "strings" in error? And why
Note-13 refers to trigrams among all things? Just a coincidence?
mstanwick
> On Oct 12, 8:45 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
> > thinking is found in the Wu Xing. But correspondence does not imply
> > cause. So now comes the pain... to show that such relationships were
> > actual, rather than just possible.
>
> > > > A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> > > > Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
>
> > You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
> > design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
> > think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
> > directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example, is
> > there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
> > intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?
> > Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
> > Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
> > realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
> > the other correspondences.
>
> > I hope these suggestions are a help.
> Your suggestions a help? May be, but...
>
> Not much help, Michael.
>
> First I get the message that what is here is nothing new. Wu Xing has
> been all about the same thing. I went to Wikipedia and looked up Wu
> Xing to see what that is about. But wu xing is quite different from
> the focus of my topic.
Of course it is....but I said the thinking/reasoning is similar, not
the concepts or ideas.
> As I understand it, wu-xing is more for feng-sui, although the 5
> elements do appear in the trigrams and hexagrams of I-Ching.
May I suggest 'Disputers of the Tao' by A. C. Graham as a good intro
to the development of the wu-xing concept by reading. The Yin and Yang
concepts figure prominently as does the Yi Ching.
> Then basically you told me the task is painful and almost impossible
> to show written historical evidence for all the corresponding
> relations between I-Ching and mahjong.
Ok. How about any directly relevant evidence of one or two relations -
and I gave one example - would be enough to get me to sit up and bring
your ideas to the front of my considerations.
> But as I said previously, physical evidence has been lost and / or
> destroyed. That is why historians could not come up with proofs other
> than "probable" this or that. Intellectual evidence is all we can use.
If you don't mind me saying so - that is a cop-out. You don't know if
there is no evidence out there. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't.
It is for you to go and search. Just because you are aware that others
haven't come up with anything does not mean that you will not. I know
this for a fact from my own experience. Searching and reading and
exploring are the tedious and tiring aspects - that is why I said it
is painful. But it is also enjoyable - especially when you find
something that is directly related to some feature you are looking
into.
> I have shown numerous conceptual connections between the mahjong game
> and the Book of Changes. There are symbols in evidence too, except
> that they are different from the repeat of traditional "money-
> suited" kinds that are taken from a Matiao idea of "Zero Cash"; Half-
> Cash, Hundred Cash, Thousand Cash and even Myriad Cash: all derived
> from no-cash.
> Doesn't it sound like and isn't it propagated like the idea of
> immaculate conception?
> So, I don't need to show cause-effect relationship for any
> corresponding features between mahjong and I-Ching.
Yes you do. At least some evidence of an actual connection between the
two features you are claiming are connected in some way. Start looking
for any of those correspondences and you might strike it lucky with
just one. Start looking for connections between the I-Chinf concepts
and playing cards - but connections that actually support the
relationship - not just a mention for some other purpose (see below).
I would be very interested as I was interrsted in a wu xing connection
some time ago.
> I am satisfied in
> knowing that the existence of correspondence is undeniable. People
> tend to believe what they want anyway.
But you did not post your ideas on this list to convince yourself.
Right at the beginning I said that if you post your ideas on this list
then you will have to expect some critical scrutiny etc. You need to
convince others.
I do not tend to believe what I want. I have told you the criteria I
need in order to further consider someone's idea. I demand the same of
myself.
> As the saying goes, you can only lead a horse to the water; you can
> not make the animal drink.
No, you can't. You have to convince it first. ^_^
> P.S. Michael, take a look at page 89 of The Playing Card Vol.31 Number
> 2 (Andrew Lo).
> The description for 5-string (suo):" like the shape of the gen
> trigram" ( 1 solid line above 2 broken lines) with note #13 which
> says: "for an explanation of trigrams see Cary Barnes, trans. Hellmut
> Wilhelm, The I-Ching or Book of Changes; 1984.
> Similarly, 3-Cash is "like the shape of qian trigram" (3 solid lines
> on top of each other) and 6-Cash is "like the shape of kan trigram" (3
> broken lines on top of each other).
Yes, thanks. I am well acquainted with this description. As you can
see, the writer Pan Zhiheng is attempting to describe the relative
positions of the coins to each other, on the cash suit cards, by show
their positions are like the **shapes** of other objects. That is why
the other descriptions make reference to other shaped objects, such as
a ring and a constellation and a drum and a bent foot and a hairpin
etc etc.
>
> One more item for your interest: look up the English word "LINE" and
> see some Chinese equivalents. "suo" is one of the nouns in my
> dictionary. What if "lines" were taken for "strings" in error? And why
> Note-13 refers to trigrams among all things? Just a coincidence?
Because it is the relative positions of the trigram lines that reflect
the relative positions of the coins to each other. By the way, I have
seen a Ming Dynasty fifty cash note. The central picture is of 2 rows
of round coins in the top left, two rows top right, two rows bottom
left and two rows bottom right. In the middle are two more rows. The
positions of each pair of rows is exactly the position of each coin on
a five of cash tile in maque. Now there's a coincidence. ^_^
Cheers
Michael
al
> On Oct 13, 9:17?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 8:45 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
> > > thinking is found in the Wu Xing. But correspondence does not imply
> > > cause. So now comes the pain... to show that such relationships were
> > > actual, rather than just possible.
>
> > > > > A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> > > > > Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
>
> > > You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
> > > design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
> > > think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
> > > directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example, is
> > > there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
> > > intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?
There is or had been a Dragon and there was also a Phoenix symbol on
the mahjong tiles. You might even have them in one of your sets.
But it seems unfair to ask if the relationship for the pair in maque
was "intentional". Who can determine that other than the dead author?
And I suppose nothing short of his own words would do.
> > > Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
> > > Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
> > > realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
> > > the other correspondences.
I refer you to the uniqueness of pattern 2-3-3-3-3. The 2 is a bi-gram
and the 3's are trigrams. Trigrams come from the bi-gram. Give a
better interpretation if you could. Wth a minimum knowledge of I-
Ching, even I can see the relationship.
>
> > > I hope these suggestions are a help.
> > Your suggestions a help? May be, but...
>
> > Not much help, Michael.
>
> > First I get the message that what is here is nothing new. Wu Xing has
> > been all about the same thing. I went to Wikipedia and looked up Wu
> > Xing to see what that is about. But wu xing is quite different from
> > the focus of my topic.
>
> Of course it is....but I said the thinking/reasoning is similar, not
> the concepts or ideas.
>
> > As I understand it, wu-xing is more for feng-sui, although the 5
> > elements do appear in the trigrams and hexagrams of I-Ching.
>
> May I suggest 'Disputers of the Tao' by A. C. Graham as a good intro
> to the development of the wu-xing concept by reading. The Yin and Yang
> concepts figure prominently as does the Yi Ching.
>
I will get to read tht someday. I have a dispute on the definition
itself. When see translations like "supreme ultimate" for Tai Chi, it
turns me off.
> > Then basically you told me the task is painful and almost impossible
> > to show written historical evidence for all the corresponding
> > relations between I-Ching and mahjong.
>
> Ok. How about any directly relevant evidence of one or two relations -
> and I gave one example - would be enough to get me to sit up and bring
> your ideas to the front of my considerations.
>
> > But as I said previously, physical evidence has been lost and / or
> > destroyed. That is why historians could not come up with proofs other
> > than "probable" this or that. Intellectual evidence is all we can use.
>
> If you don't mind me saying so - that is a cop-out. You don't know if
> there is no evidence out there. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't.
> It is for you to go and search. Just because you are aware that others
> haven't come up with anything does not mean that you will not. I know
> this for a fact from my own experience. Searching and reading and
> exploring are the tedious and tiring aspects - that is why I said it
> is painful. But it is also enjoyable - especially when you find
> something that is directly related to some feature you are looking
> into.
>
> > I have shown numerous conceptual connections between the mahjong game
> > and the Book of Changes. There are symbols in evidence too, except
> > that they are different from the repeat of traditional ?"money-
> > suited" ?kinds that are taken from a Matiao idea of "Zero Cash"; Half-
I made an error here. It is not "kan", it should be "kun" (Earth).
> Yes, thanks. I am well acquainted with this description. As you can
> see, the writer Pan Zhiheng is attempting to describe the relative
> positions of the coins to each other, on the cash suit cards, by show
> their positions are like the **shapes** of other objects. That is why
> the other descriptions make reference to other shaped objects, such as
> a ring and a constellation and a drum and a bent foot and a hairpin
> etc etc.
>
I think there is more to that, Michael. We can explore later.
>
>
> > One more item for your interest: look up the English word "LINE" and
> > see some Chinese equivalents. "suo" is one of the nouns in my
> > dictionary. What if "lines" were taken for "strings" in error? And why
> > Note-13 refers to trigrams among all things? Just a coincidence?
>
> Because it is the relative positions of the trigram lines that reflect
> the relative positions of the coins to each other. By the way, I have
> seen a Ming Dynasty fifty cash note. The central picture is of 2 rows
> of round coins in the top left, two rows top right, two rows bottom
> left and two rows bottom right. In the middle are two more rows. The
> positions of each pair of rows is exactly the position of each coin on
> a five of cash tile in maque. Now there's a coincidence. ^_^
>
Yes and no, Michael. What is your thinking on that? Was it a
coincidence or was it a result by design based on some idea?
I will follow with my assessment after yours.
> Cheers
> Michael
++++++++++++
Cheers
mstanwick
> On Oct 13, 6:10 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
> > > > design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
> > > > think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
> > > > directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example, is
> > > > there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
> > > > intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?
>
> There is or had been a Dragon and there was also a Phoenix symbol on
> the mahjong tiles. You might even have them in one of your sets.
> But it seems unfair to ask if the relationship for the pair in maque
> was "intentional". Who can determine that other than the dead author?
> And I suppose nothing short of his own words would do.
Sorry, that is not what I meant. I would be willing to accept some
early documented references that were about maque and that mentioned
any of the corresponding meanings, between maque and the I-Ching, that
you are putting forward for consideration.
> > > > Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
> > > > Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
> > > > realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
> > > > the other correspondences.
>
> I refer you to the uniqueness of pattern 2-3-3-3-3. The 2 is a bi-gram
> and the 3's are trigrams. Trigrams come from the bi-gram. Give a
> better interpretation if you could. With a minimum knowledge of I-
> Ching, even I can see the relationship.
Sorry, no, that is not what I meant by what I was looking for. It is
the same as what I just said above.
> > Yes, thanks. I am well acquainted with this description. As you can
> > see, the writer Pan Zhiheng is attempting to describe the relative
> > positions of the coins to each other, on the cash suit cards, by show
> > their positions are like the **shapes** of other objects. That is why
> > the other descriptions make reference to other shaped objects, such as
> > a ring and a constellation and a drum and a bent foot and a hairpin
> > etc etc.
>
> I think there is more to that, Michael. We can explore later.
You mean Pan said more than that, or meant more than that?
> > Because it is the relative positions of the trigram lines that reflect
> > the relative positions of the coins to each other. By the way, I have
> > seen a Ming Dynasty fifty cash note. The central picture is of 2 rows
> > of round coins in the top left, two rows top right, two rows bottom
> > left and two rows bottom right. In the middle are two more rows. The
> > positions of each pair of rows is exactly the position of each coin on
> > a five of cash tile in maque. Now there's a coincidence. ^_^
>
> Yes and no, Michael. What is your thinking on that? Was it a
> coincidence or was it a result by design based on some idea?
> I will follow with my assessment after yours.
I was being ironic. I have an observation as described above. But as
to its relevance - I am not sure. Similarly with other pieces of data
I have.
Cheers
al
Actually I meant both. Pan had said more than what you listed above
and I believe what he said meant more than the translation. I will
explain later.
>
> > > Because it is the relative positions of the trigram lines that reflect
> > > the relative positions of the coins to each other. By the way, I have
> > > seen a Ming Dynasty fifty cash note. The central picture is of 2 rows
> > > of round coins in the top left, two rows top right, two rows bottom
> > > left and two rows bottom right. In the middle are two more rows. The
> > > positions of each pair of rows is exactly the position of each coin on
> > > a five of cash tile in maque. Now there's a coincidence. ^_^
>
> > Yes and no, Michael. What is your thinking on that? Was it a
> > coincidence or was it a result by design based on some idea?
> > I will follow with my assessment after yours.
>
> I was being ironic. I have an observation as described above. But as
> to its relevance - I am not sure. Similarly with other pieces of data
> I have.
>
Your observation was interesting. Give it a little more time and let
me know what interpretation of relevance is there that comes to mind.
I like to compare notes.
> Cheers
mstanwick
It is part of another hypothesis I am working on. it may appear in due
course.
Cheers
al
++++++++++
In that case, I will just say what I came to my mind after I read your
observation about the identical positioning of the f items in both
places.
I thought balance might be the objective (for physical equilibrium of
forces and aesthetics appeal). The objects could have been buckets of
water, the balanced arrangement would have been that way as well.
Cheers...
pa...@email.unc.edu
Allan,
To my mind you have not really given enough evidence for me to even
feel that a Yi Jing and MJ hypothesis is worth examining. I think that
you are good at seeing the potential for associations between
differing items, but your follow up research and presentation
abilities could use improvement. I don’t mean to sound critical or
discouraging, and hope that you take the following as an attempt to be
helpful. I think your abilities (seeing the potential for correlations
between differing things, your cultural knowledge, your willingness to
devote time into thinking about and researching your ideas, etc.)
could be valuable and would actually hope that you could be encouraged
to continue your interest in researching MJ history.
With that in mind, here is an example of a correlation between the Yi
Jing and a game (in this case the game is Tantrix):
http://www.magictortoise.com/Tantrix_YiJing.pdf
This is an instance where the author not only had the insight to see
that there may have been a possible correlation between the Yi Jing
and the game (the stage that I feel you may currently be in), but he
exhaustively examined the possibility and was able to then make an
excellent presentation of his findings (knowledge + research). Note
also that he considers possible problems with his correlations and
gives analysis that helps explain factors that may not seem right
(e.g., that earth can correlate with blue rather than the more
familiar brown, red clay, yellow earth, etc., and that sky is
correlated with red rather than the perhaps more expected blue; that
there are 64 hexagrams but only 56 tiles in the current game of
Tantrix, etc.) and this actually strengthens his presentation.
I’m not expecting you to come close to the level of his analysis, but
you can see why I may not be too interested in the current level of
your analysis. It should also be noted that while the level of
correlation between the Yi Jing and Tantrix is quite strong, that game
is modern, and since the inventor is still alive, we know that the
original intent of the game was not to illustrate the principles found
in the Yi Jing! It is always difficult to present a convincing
circumstantial case (and I am having the same concern with my research
so far with the Taiping idea) but please also look at any
inconsistencies that you can think of rather than waiting for others
to point them out. As researchers we should be looking at both the
positives and negatives with our ideas.
Dan
al
> On Sep 27, 11:33 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mahjong and other Hu Pais relate to I-Ching. (Yes. I mean I-Ching 易经).
>
> Allan,
>
> To my mind you have not really given enough evidence for me to even
> feel that a Yi Jing and MJ hypothesis is worth examining. I think that
> you are good at seeing the potential for associations between
> differing items, but your follow up research and presentation
> abilities could use improvement.
>
> With that in mind, here is an example of a correlation between the Yi
> Jing and a game (in this case the game is Tantrix):http://www.magictortoise.com/Tantrix_YiJing.pdf
>
I will study the example later.
(and I am having the same concern with my research
> so far with the Taiping idea) but please also look at any
> inconsistencies that you can think of rather than waiting for others
> to point them out. As researchers we should be looking at both the
> positives and negatives with our ideas.
>
Good point. And how is your project going?
Just the other day I thought of something about your idea of Taoping-
orgin for mahjong. Because I was looking at the Hu pais (MO HU and
Peng Hu) and Cofa's posts of years back and I get to appreciate that
the Hu games are for "togetherness" and harmony (as the meaning of the
word, HU). I asked myself the question: does that not seem to
contradict with Dan's thesis that mahjong was created based on war or
in time of war (with forts and walls for defense)?
I thought I should share this with you. You probably have looked at
that already.
> Dan
Cheers,
Allan
pa...@email.unc.edu
> [snip]
> And how is your project going?
>
> Just the other day I thought of something about your idea of Taoping-
> orgin for mahjong. Because I was looking at the Hu pais (MO HU and
> Peng Hu) and Cofa's posts of years back and I get to appreciate that
> the Hu games are for "togetherness" and harmony (as the meaning of the
> word, HU). I asked myself the question: does that not seem to
> contradict with Dan's thesis that mahjong was created based on war or
> in time of war (with forts and walls for defense)?
>
> I thought I should share this with you. You probably have looked at
> that already.
Allan,
My Taiping project suffers from my limitations as a researcher! As my
ability to read Chinese is severely limited, I am not even able to
examine the numerous Chinese texts on the Taiping that are available
in local libraries, and I am also unable to examine material located
in China that are not available in the USA.
I have been unable to find much information on Taiping leisure
activities (perhaps a sentence here or there that may mention
something like women amused themselves with embroidery, music, and
song), and nothing about any pai games. Thus, I have not located
anything that strongly implicates the Taiping, and I have had to rely
on trying to increase the circumstantial evidence that may support the
hypothesis. So far, all I can really say is that they can not be ruled
out, and that there are many correlations that indicate the possible
potential of further research.
One example: I would love to see if there are Taiping records stating
what individuals were punished for (if these records exist in China)
to see if there is any mention of gambling with pai games. Was
gambling at that time common for games like Penghe (or Maque?), or was
gambling with dominoes more prevalent? This is not only of possible
general MJ interest, but also could be important for the Taiping
hypothesis. Since the Taiping prohibited gambling, it would be
unlikely that they would create a gambling game! I do have some
speculation (as yet unsubstantiated and perhaps somewhat unconvincing)
on this point that is sufficient to not rule out the Taiping. Also,
although MJ became a popular way to gamble, it is not known if it was
used in this way during the time that the Taiping were active.
As to the idea that MJ evolved from games that implied that harmony
was a component, I don't see any conflict with the Taiping hypothesis.
They were trying to bring a harmonious and peaceful kingdom to earth
that reflected heaven. While they fought the Qing, this does not mean
that their ideals were violent.
Dan
al
> On Oct 17, 5:35 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > And how is your project going?
>
> > Just the other day I thought of something about your idea of Taoping-
> > orgin for mahjong. Because I was looking at the Hu pais (MO HU and
> > Peng Hu) and Cofa's posts of years back and I get to appreciate that
> > the Hu games are for "togetherness" and harmony (as the meaning of the
> > word, HU). I asked myself the question: does that not seem to
> > contradict with Dan's thesis that mahjong was created based on war or
> > in time of war (with forts and walls for defense)?
>
> > I thought I should share this with you. You probably have looked at
> > that already.
>
> Allan,
>
>
> I have been unable to find much information on Taiping leisure
> activities (perhaps a sentence here or there that may mention
> something like women amused themselves with embroidery, music, and
> song), and nothing about any pai games. Thus,
I am not surprised about that. In old Chinese tradition and culture,
refined ladies did not associate with gaming or gambling. Just on
simple economics, time was an expensive commodity in a household. The
neighborhood women had to put in time for cooking (with wood or
straws; no electricity), washing laundry by hand, gardening for
vegetables by hand. Care and or breast-feed babies (no formula). They
were busy all day on chores and tired out by night. If they feel up to
it, they would have had to play by candle light if they ever learned
the game. And where would they find a group of 4 players having free
time together? It was a different world. I have seen it and I know it
was like that just 60 years ago.
[..]
> [..]
> [..]
> Dan
al
>
> > [snip]
> > And how is your project going?
>
>
> > [..]
>
> Allan,
>
> My Taiping project suffers from my limitations as a researcher! As my
> ability to read Chinese is severely limited, I am not even able to
> examine the numerous Chinese texts on the Taiping that are available
> in local libraries, and I am also unable to examine material located
> in China that are not available in the USA.
>
> As to the idea that MJ evolved from games that implied that harmony
> was a component, I don't see any conflict with the Taiping hypothesis.
> They were trying to bring a harmonious and peaceful kingdom to earth
> that reflected heaven. While they fought the Qing, this does not mean
> that their ideals were violent.
>
I have not read your post on the Taiping hypothesis. Where can find
it? I should know more of what you have there first.
However. mahjong is a trick-forming game, unlike other trick-taking
games. The nature of trick-forming is non-aggressive whereas trick-
taking is by contrast, more aggressive. Military people as a rule
tend to be aggressive type. That is a human nature consideration, as I
see it.
Games may be more for old established history which people have been
all very much familiar with the facts, rather than for history-in-the-
making. Is your Taiping hypothesis about old historical facts or
history-in-the-making?
> Dan
++++++++++
Cheers.....
pa...@email.unc.edu
> > I have been unable to find much information on Taiping leisure
> > activities (perhaps a sentence here or there that may mention
> > something like women amused themselves with embroidery, music, and
> > song), and nothing about any pai games. Thus,
>
> I am not surprised about that. In old Chinese tradition and culture,
> refined ladies did not associate with gaming or gambling. Just on
> simple economics, time was an expensive commodity in a household.
> It was a different world. I have seen it and I know it
> was like that just 60 years ago.
Allan,
The social situation for the Taiping was quite different than their
contemporaries. Rather than living as generational family units, grown
men (even for married couples) lived separate from women and children.
I would think that this would change somewhat their social dynamics
(and the situation would likely be different than what you are
familiar with from 60 years ago). Note also that there were military
units composed entirely of women. Unfortunately, I have not read about
how these differences influenced leisure activities.
I have been continuing to research and refine the analysis since
making these posts, but the early information concerning the Taiping
hypothesis is in this thread (Paper Pai vs. MJ Tiles, Why?):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/c383b947ba21523a/8b486faf4f3a0a47#8b486faf4f3a0a47
Dan
al
> On Oct 19, 4:12 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I have been unable to find much information on Taiping leisure
> > > activities
>
> > I am not surprised about that.
> > [snip]
>
> Allan,
>
> The social situation for the Taiping was quite different than their
> contemporaries. Rather than living as generational family units, grown
> men (even for married couples) lived separate from women and children.
>
> I have been continuing to research and refine the analysis since
> making these posts, but the early information concerning the Taiping
>
I recall reading some of the posts back in April. I was too busy at
that time. Plus I am not familiar with Chinese history.
>
> Dan
al
> On Oct 13, 9:17?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 8:45 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
>
Michael, your protective system is interesting. By saying that my
thinking is "very similar [to that] found in Wu Xing essential gain
you much advantage (perhaps that is a tactic in debates just to win).
(1) You indicated your scope and range of knowledge, (2) you had known
the typical thinking I just learned now.
I noticed this in our previous discussions. So now I see it is "tool"
of yours to gain an upper hand from the start.
> > > > > [..]
> > > [..] [..]
>
> > > I hope these suggestions are a help.
> > [..]
>
> > First I get the message that what is here is nothing new. Wu Xing has
> > been all about the same thing. I went to Wikipedia and looked up Wu
> > Xing to see what that is about. But wu xing is quite different from
> > the focus of my topic.
>
> Of course it is....but I said the thinking/reasoning is similar, not
> the concepts or ideas.
>
"Thinking" as a process, it is the same (logical or illogical). You
gave the impression that the difference was in the concept.
> > As I understand it, wu-xing is more for feng-sui, although the 5
> > elements do appear in the trigrams and hexagrams of I-Ching.
>
> May I suggest 'Disputers of the Tao' by A. C. Graham as a good intro
> to the development of the wu-xing concept by reading. The Yin and Yang
> concepts figure prominently as does the Yi Ching.
>
Here is an defense tactic. You knew just about any topic, because you
have read just about any book out there.
What I can not understand is this. "IKnowing so much, why do you
accept the words of some unofficial historian in the Ming era and then
took their word for word translation such as HalfCash (even as [ a big
mouth] guest with missing teeth?
> > [..]
>
> Ok. How about any directly relevant evidence of one or two relations -
> and I gave one example - would be enough to get me to sit up and bring
> your ideas to the front of my considerations.
>
You have heard them all and you have seen them, Michael. Nothing is
going to do that. It is easier to ignore whatever comes your way and
automatically grade it as such.
> > But as I said previously, physical evidence has been lost and / or
> > destroyed. That is why historians could not come up with proofs other
> > than "probable" this or that. Intellectual evidence is all we can use.
>
> If you don't mind me saying so - that is a cop-out. You don't know if
> there is no evidence out there. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't.
> It is for you to go and search. Just because you are aware that others
> haven't come up with anything does not mean that you will not. [..]
>
Well, Michael, if you have not come up anything after search (the
world over?), what chance would I have to locate any "physical"
evidence?
But talking about "cop-out", Michael, I think your leaving the scene
of discussion on the question "CASH or NOT-CASH" is close to it.
Non-participation is another defense mechanism, perhaps.
> >[..] [..]
>
> [..] At least some evidence of an actual connection between the
> two features you are claiming are connected in some way. Start looking
> for any of those correspondences and you might strike it lucky with
> just one. Start looking for connections between the I-Chinf concepts
> and playing cards - but connections that actually support the
> relationship - not just a mention for some other purpose ..]
>
Here is something.
the pattern of mahjong and uniquely mahjong is 2-3-3-3-3 which mens a
pair and melds of 3's.
The pairs are called "eyes"
The taiji symbol has a pair of round dots like eyes of yin-yang.
The I-Ching happens to have trigrams of 3 lines that result from the
interaction of 2 lines, yin and yang.
Can your CASH concept explain anything relates to the game? Has
anybody else pointed out the correspondences between mahjong and I-
Ching as such? If so, why was the idea rejected? Was it because the
people who recorded mahjong history refused to revise it?
Do we have to wait and see an old idea to believe and accept? I
remember I told Tom and may be others. Historians record old solutions
to problems. They don't usually come up with new ideas of their own.
> >[..]
>
> [..]
>
>
> Cheers
> Michael
+++++++++++
Cheers, Allan
mstanwick
> > If you don't mind me saying so - that is a cop-out. You don't know if
> > there is no evidence out there. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't.
> > It is for you to go and search. Just because you are aware that others
> > haven't come up with anything does not mean that you will not. [..]
>
> Well, Michael, if you have not come up anything after search (the
> world over?), what chance would I have to locate any "physical"
> evidence?
Step up to the plate and go out there and attempt some research. I
have tried to help you with my time and comments and materials and
expense and you shrug your shoulders and give up?
> But talking about "cop-out", Michael, I think your leaving the scene
> of discussion on the question "CASH or NOT-CASH" is close to it.
I have been in New York (a marvellous city BTW) at the American Museum
of Natural History researching the Glover and Laufer collections. I
also have been on holiday there with my family. Next time I will not
be so obliging in my answer to your baseless accusation. I am not
required to give my reasons for my absence and you are definitely not
required or obliged or justified to draw any conclusions from it
either.
> > [..] At least some evidence of an actual connection between the
> > two features you are claiming are connected in some way. Start looking
> > for any of those correspondences and you might strike it lucky with
> > just one. Start looking for connections between the I-Chinf concepts
> > and playing cards - but connections that actually support the
> > relationship - not just a mention for some other purpose ..]
>
> Here is something.
> the pattern of mahjong and uniquely mahjong is 2-3-3-3-3 which means a
> pair and melds of 3's.
> The pairs are called "eyes"
> The taiji symbol has a pair of round dots like eyes of yin-yang.
> The I-Ching happens to have trigrams of 3 lines that result from the
> interaction of 2 lines, yin and yang.
So? Your causal argument as I understand it, is that A and B are
similar and therefore A caused B (since A precedes B). But some shred
of evidence actually showing us that A and B are actually connected is
required, to take your notions out of the realm of superficial (and I
don't mean this in a negative way) similarities. Pan is no help since
his use of trigrams is a device to describe what the arrangements of
the insignia look like.
Regards
al
> On Oct 27, 4:59 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > [..]
>
> >[..]
>
> > > [..] At least some evidence of an actual connection between the
> > > two features you are claiming are connected in some way. Start looking
> > > for any of those correspondences and you might strike it lucky with
> > > just one. Start looking for connections between the I-Chinf concepts
> > > and playing cards - but connections that actually support the
> > > relationship - not just a mention for some other purpose ..]
>
> > Here is something.
> > the pattern of mahjong and uniquely mahjong is 2-3-3-3-3 which means a
> > pair and melds of 3's.
Pattern formation is the object of the game. Players' approach is not
aggression but coping with changes and chances (Coincident with the
thinking in I-Ching).
> > The pairs are called "eyes"
The "eyes" represent the pair of yin and yang (forces) that interact
and create the 3's which symbolize the trigrams of Heaven and Earth
etc. in the Bagua.
> > The taiji symbol has a pair of round dots like eyes of yin-yang.
That is evidence (circumstantial).
> > The I-Ching happens to have trigrams of 3 lines that result from the
> > interaction of 2 lines, yin and yang.
>
> So? Your causal argument as I understand it, is that A and B are
> similar and therefore A caused B (since A precedes B). But some shred
> of evidence actually showing us that A and B are actually connected is
> required, to take your notions out of the realm of superficial (and I
> don't mean this in a negative way) similarities. Pan is no help since
> his use of trigrams is a device to describe what the arrangements of
> the insignia look like.
>
I don't know what you are saying in a whole long paragraph, Michael.
I was not claiming any causal relationship in my evidence. What
evidence I gave as I said, is circumstantial.
> Regards
Cheers.......al
mstanwick
> I was not claiming any causal relationship in my evidence. What
> evidence I gave as I said, is circumstantial.
Wrong. It is not circumstantial. There is nothing in what you have
provided, to suggest the relationship you are attempting to establish
between the I Ching and madiao.
Regards
al
it used. That is a feature in mahjong has a similar feature in madiao
or ma daio or mataio.
There might be more truth in the "progenitor" claim than we had
recognized, as the game-play and "insignia" are both "significantly
different". What else is there to justify that "important progenitor"
claim?
> Regards
Cheers....
mstanwick
> I believe the word for the "relationship" is "correspondence". I saw
> it used. That is a feature in mahjong has a similar feature in madiao
> or ma daio or mataio.
But not in this case. Context is everything. Both maque and madiao are
card games (the context). However, the relevant context is the three
suited cards games (probably derived from four suited ones) that sport
so-called money suits.
So, a feature in mahjong has a similarity to another feature in a
three suited money pack of cards. It is those card packs of three
suits, that are hypothesised to derive from four suited card packs of
the type used in ma diao.
> What else is there to justify that "important progenitor" claim?
I am not making the claim, as you describe it.
Regards
al
> On Nov 1, 5:27?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the word for the "relationship" is "correspondence". I saw
> > it used. That is a feature in mahjong has a similar feature in madiao
> > or ma daio or mataio.
>
> But not in this case. Context is everything. Both maque and madiao are
> card games (the context). However, the relevant context is the three
> suited cards games (probably derived from four suited ones) that sport
> so-called money suits.
>
But let's say context is important, as a rule.
The corresponding features in matiao and mahjong are in context of
Chinese philosophy and culture. Terms such as 'taiji ot tai-chi,
"gian (Creative) trigram trigrams", shown in 3 solid lines,
'kun' (Receptive) trigram", shown in 3 split lines, are used in both
games.
These terms are from the same source, Book of Changes. Mahjong and
mataio have terms of common reference (based on my belief and
interpretation of the mahjong suits) and that they are not cash-based
but I-Ching inspired. That is all I am saying (mahjong is built on yin-
yang LINES).
> So, a feature in mahjong has a similarity to another feature in a
> three suited money pack of cards. It is those card packs of three
> suits, that are hypothesised to derive from four suited card packs of
> the type used in ma diao.
>
I guess I am now saying still, as I said before, disagree with you on
the hypothesized '"money suits".
My simple rebuttal is "Cash is not cash as Mouse is not mouse".
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
I just visited Andy's web site and the pages on money or cash-based
cards. I thought I noticed a discrepancy. Did you ?
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers...al
Julian Bradfield
> On Nov 1, 2:01 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
...
> Context is everything. That sounds over-stted, Michael
> But let's say context is important, as a rule.
> The corresponding features in matiao and mahjong are in context of
> Chinese philosophy and culture. Terms such as 'taiji ot tai-chi,
> "gian (Creative) trigram trigrams", shown in 3 solid lines,
> 'kun' (Receptive) trigram", shown in 3 split lines, are used in both
> games.
Just where are I Ching terms used in mah-jong?
mstanwick
> Context is everything. That sounds over-stted, Michael
Why?
> The corresponding features in matiao and mahjong are in context of
> Chinese philosophy and culture.
What does that mean?
> Terms such as 'taiji ot tai-chi,
> "gian (Creative) trigram trigrams", shown in 3 solid lines,
> 'kun' (Receptive) trigram", shown in 3 split lines, are used in both
> games.
Where? State where that ( "...are used in both games" ) is mentioned
in the literature.
> These terms are from the same source, Book of Changes. Mahjong and
> mataio have terms of common reference (based on my belief and
> interpretation of the mahjong suits)...[snip]
Just what do you mean by 'my belief'? What is your 'belief'?
> I just visited Andy's web site and the pages on money or cash-based
> cards. I thought I noticed a discrepancy. Did you ?
I have no idea what your are referring to, so I cannot answer your
question.
Regards
al
+++++++++++
The most important one is ' LINES ' which had been taken as strings
which then twisted to become 'strings of cash' which was based on the
assumption that the round object was cash.
The next one is 'ten-thousand'.
The term ten-thousand is a figure of speech for a large undetermined
number of things in I-Ching. Again, '* wan * has been mistaken as a '
ten-thousand cash ' even though there have been other names for cash,
such as cake, cookie, circle and container.
By the way, you have a good knowledge of Chinese history and mahjong.
Do you know if 'string of cash' was a term first coined and used by a
Westerner?
I ask this because I never heard of 'string of cash' when I played the
game. I and people I know refer to the suit as 'soc' and we didn't
really know what it meant.
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> By the way, you have a good knowledge of Chinese history and mahjong.
> Do you know if 'string of cash' was a term first coined and used by a
> Westerner?
With reference to Maque, it was reported by, and therefore used by,
Himly. Himly writes 'so' but gives the character (in Pinyin) for
'suo3'. It is the same character that Pan uses for the "String Suit".
Therefore, with reference to Madiao, it was reported by, and therefore
used by Pan.
Regards
Julian Bradfield
> On Nov 3, 4:58 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...
>> Just where are I Ching terms used in mah-jong?
>
> +++++++++++
> The most important one is ' LINES ' which had been taken as strings
The term LINES is hardly specific to I Ching. Is SUO the term
used for lines in Chinese I Ching manuals? If I believe Wikipedia and
my dictionaries, the term is YAO, and even you will not claim that yao
could be mis-heard as suo.
> which then twisted to become 'strings of cash' which was based on the
> assumption that the round object was cash.
This is your assertion, but you provide no evidence for your
assertion.
> The term ten-thousand is a figure of speech for a large undetermined
> number of things in I-Ching. Again, '* wan * has been mistaken as a '
> ten-thousand cash ' even though there have been other names for cash,
> such as cake, cookie, circle and container.
Come off it. WAN is a general Chinese figure of speech for a large
undetermined number, not specific to I Ching. Indeed, in every
language I know, large numerals are so used, and I should be
astonished if you could point out a language which has large numerals
and doesn't use them in this way.
So it appears your basis for the claim that I Ching terms appear in
mah-jong amounts to: one term that doesn't appear in I Ching; and one
term that is simply a general figure of speech that happens to be
employed in I Ching.
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > On Nov 3, 4:58 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >> Just where are I Ching terms used in mah-jong?
>
> > +++++++++++
> > The most important one is ' LINES ' which had been taken as strings
>
> The term LINES is hardly specific to I Ching. Is SUO the term
> used for lines in Chinese I Ching manuals? If I believe Wikipedia and
> my dictionaries, the term is YAO, and even you will not claim that yao
> could be mis-heard as suo.
>
one of them (an important one) is 'LINES'. I did not say lines as a
term specific to I-Ching.
I have never seen 'suo' used in I-Ching books. I don't have a Chinese
I-Ching manual. I probably would not understand the old writing
anyway. I claim no scholarly knowledge of higher learning in I-Ching,
but I do feel I have a grasp of the basic concepts.
As to your remark about yao and suo, they do sound and look different.
Before I answer, I want you to tell me the meaning of the two words as
you know them. Can you show their written form in Chinese?
> > which then twisted to become 'strings of cash' which was based on the
> > assumption that the round object was cash.
>
> This is your assertion, but you provide no evidence for your
> assertion.
>
Your comment sounds familiar. What evidence you need?
Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
Shouldn't that be an indication of faulty assumption to a logical
thinking mind?
I failed to understand why so many people got "string" along.
> > The term ten-thousand is a figure of speech for a large undetermined
> > number of things in I-Ching. Again, '* wan * has been mistaken as a '
> > ten-thousand cash ' even though there have been other names for cash,
> > such as cake, cookie, circle and container.
>
> Come off it. WAN is a general Chinese figure of speech for a large
> undetermined number, not specific to I Ching. Indeed, in every
> language I know, large numerals are so used, and I should be
> astonished if you could point out a language which has large numerals
> and doesn't use them in this way.
>
I stand by what I said about the ' ten-thousand'. It's about time you
come off your high horse. You read in error what I said . I did not
say 'ten-thousand' applies to I-Ching or used in Book of Changes
exclusively. Read it again.
Of course 'ten-thousand' is a general term. I have given examples
numerous times in my posts. My latest mention is about a house-plant
that lives almost forever in a bottle. It's called ' ten-thousand-year-
green'.
Any one reads and writes Chines knows 'ten-thousand' is a figure of
speech. Examples of its usage include ' t-t-years' = forever; ' t-t-
difficulties' = endless problems; ' t-t-directions' = everywhere. ( t-
t is 'ten-thousand, a figure of speech)
> So it appears your basis for the claim that I Ching terms appear in
> mah-jong amounts to: one term that doesn't appear in I Ching; and one
> term that is simply a general figure of speech that happens to be
> employed in I Ching.
Not so fast. Your hasty interpretation appeared to be based on
incomplete information.
You should check again another meaning of yao (more applicable to I-
Ching).
Re-read what I did say about the general nature of the term ten-
thousand.
Let's see if you have one positive thing to say.
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
> of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
As far as I am aware, the term 'bing' or 'cake' was applied to the
'cash' or 'coin' suit, not to the 'strings of cash' suit as you state.
This term 'cake' also bothered me as well. If the term were not
associated with money in any way then that would be a significant
problem.
However, there is documentary evidence to show that the term 'bing',
'cake' was associated with money.
According to Peng Xinwei's 'A Monetary History of China', when silver
and gold were used as money, one of the units of gold or silver was
the 'cake'. The term 'cake' (bing) was the name of either gold or
silver money that had been cast into the shape of a 'cake' (slightly
flat and round). Silver was sometimes the more favoured currency and
it was also called 'cake-metal'.
The term 'cake' was therefore used as a unit of, usually, silver
currency or money. Similarly, the unit of the four suits and three
suits of money cards is the cash coin. Since both were used as units
of money and bore similar round shapes, then this provides a reason
for why the term 'cake' could be used as an alternative term for the
units of the money suits, 'cash'.
The more interesting observation is that the character for 'bing'
denotes 'cake' as a form of food, not a unit of metal currency. The
difference is in the radical for food rather than for metal. Himly
argues that the food 'cake' is a vestige of the metal 'cake'.
Regards
Julian Bradfield
> Your question was what I-ching terms used in mahjong. My answer was
> one of them (an important one) is 'LINES'. I did not say lines as a
> term specific to I-Ching.
Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were claiming that I Ching terms were
used in mah-jong, and that this demonstrated a connexion between I
Ching and mah-jong. If you are simply saying that some words used in I
Ching are also used in mah-jong, this may be true; but it has no
relevance to the discussion here, if there is no connexion.
But in any case, LINES is an English word, not a term in either I
Ching or mah-jong - so what did you actually mean?
> As to your remark about yao and suo, they do sound and look different.
> Before I answer, I want you to tell me the meaning of the two words as
> you know them. Can you show their written form in Chinese?
I know nothing except what I read in dictionaries, according to which
suo3 (索) has a wide range of meanings, the main ones being (from CEDICT)
/to search/to demand/to ask/to exact/large rope/isolated/
and yao2 (爻) has only the meaning
/lines on a trigram/
>> > which then twisted to become 'strings of cash' which was based on the
>> > assumption that the round object was cash.
>>
>> This is your assertion, but you provide no evidence for your
>> assertion.
>>
> Your comment sounds familiar. What evidence you need?
Something that does not have a simpler alternative explanation. The
best evidence you have is that Pan described the layout of the sticks
on some of the suo tiles by reference to the shape of trigrams. This
is weak, since the simpler explanation is that he used descriptive
terms that would be familiar to his readers (who, being educated
(otherwise they would not read) would know the I Ching).
Actual good evidence would be a pack of cards in which the suo suit
was clearly illustrated with trigrams. This wouldn't be conclusive,
since the cards might have been made by an I Ching obsessive who forced
everything he knew into the mould of I Ching; but it would be quite
good evidence, and if there were many such, it would be strong.
> Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
> of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
As I quoted from Himly article, the term cake appears to derive from
cake of silver. If people call the coin suit cakes, that does not
stop the string suit being a string of coins. If you ask whether I
have heard of a string of cakes, well, the answer is yes! 索饼 is, as
you presumably know, a type of noodle. Whether anybody ever used the
term for a string of cash, I have no idea; someone who can read a good
historical Chinese dictionary might be able to tell us if the term is
mentioned.
> say 'ten-thousand' applies to I-Ching or used in Book of Changes
> exclusively. Read it again.
So what was the point?
> You should check again another meaning of yao (more applicable to I-
> Ching).
> Re-read what I did say about the general nature of the term ten-
> thousand.
You had two points. One, that wan is a term of I Ching used in
mah-jong. Two, that wan means an indeterminate quantity, not
necessarily 10000 cash literally. Point one is true but irrelevant,
unless you can establish some connexion; point two is true, but only
relevant if you can provide a reason why we should interpret wan
generally rather than literally.
al
> On Nov 4, 4:31?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
> > of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
>
> As far as I am aware, the term 'bing' or 'cake' was applied to the
> 'cash' or 'coin' suit, not to the 'strings of cash' suit as you state.
>
stretch of imagined thin connection. People coined names of object by
the most immediate and familiar; not some remote obscured history.
That is just common sense.
> This term 'cake' also bothered me as well. If the term were not
> associated with money in any way then that would be a significant
> problem.
>
The circular object was called 'huong' which I didn't know what it was
supposed to be at the time it was introduced to me long time ago. Then
later I didn't bother to ask. Since then I learned the written form of
the word. It has a radical of the bamboo sign, meaning the 'huong' is
made of or associated with bamboo material.
Wouldn't you know it, the cash-cult has an explanation for that too.
Bamboo at one time (I don't know when) was used as monetary medium of
change somewhere.
> However, there is documentary evidence to show that the term 'bing',
> 'cake' was associated with money.
>
> According to Peng Xinwei's 'A Monetary History of China', when silver
> and gold were used as money, one of the units of gold or silver was
> the 'cake'. The term 'cake' (bing) was the name of either gold or
> silver money that had been cast into the shape of a 'cake' (slightly
> flat and round). Silver was sometimes the more favoured currency and
> it was also called 'cake-metal'.
>
Far-fetched is how I describe the connection.
What was the time line here? Which comes first? Cake-metal or cards?
Remember the cash was worth one-tenth of one cent. And Cash had a
denomination attached to it. What was ten-thousand gold or silver cake-
money worth then? What is the explanation for the disproportionate
ratio between suits?
The general monetary structure among the 3 suits is unreasonable.
> The term 'cake' was therefore used as a unit of, usually, silver
> currency or money. Similarly, the unit of the four suits and three
> suits of money cards is the cash coin. Since both were used as units
> of money and bore similar round shapes, then this provides a reason
> for why the term 'cake' could be used as an alternative term for the
> units of the money suits, 'cash'.
>
I don't buy it.
By the way, when ' wan' is used for ten-thousand, why a
'hundred' (buk) was not used for a complicated picture of many
strings? That is if 'strings' were really money. Furthermore, why
bother with circles when it could have been so much simpler to use a
Chinese word for cash?
Imagine how much simpler to have 9-circle and 9-soc looking as clean
as 0-wan?
Again, those circles are symbols for something else. They are not cash-
coins.
And do not forget. Gambling was prohibited from time to time in
Chinese history. Cash cards would have been a declaration of gambling
in money. Also, the publication of playing cards was permitted only by
royal edict. It would be doubtful that the original version was
professedly money-based.or was gambling oriented.
Chinese cultural history points to a likelihood that the 'cash-money'
sign was given to the circle suit of cards at a later time after the
original meaning had been lost or ignored or misunderstood.
I can summarize my belief simply. Those round circles were not cash.
They were symbols for something else.
Ooops, I forgot...the mismatched suits of symbols were done in
purpose, possibly, to escape detection as gambling tool. May be...
> The more interesting observation is that the character for 'bing'
> denotes 'cake' as a form of food, not a unit of metal currency. The
> difference is in the radical for food rather than for metal. Himly
> argues that the food 'cake' is a vestige of the metal 'cake'.
>
Well, that Himly guy sure can explain everything. I suppose he must
have already presented all evidence to your satisfaction, Michael. Or
was that just "interesting observation"?
> Regards
++++++++
Cheers...al
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Your question was what I-ching terms used in mahjong. My answer was
> > one of them (an important one) is 'LINES'. I did not say lines as a
> > term specific to I-Ching.
>
> Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were claiming that I Ching terms were
> used in mah-jong, and that this demonstrated a connexion between I
> Ching and mah-jong. If you are simply saying that some words used in I
> Ching are also used in mah-jong, this may be true; but it has no
> relevance to the discussion here, if there is no connexion.
>
discussion.
> But in any case, LINES is an English word, not a term in either I
> Ching or mah-jong - so what did you actually mean?
>
Ines have a special meaning in I-Ching and lines have been
misrepresented in mahjong.
> > As to your remark about yao and suo, they do sound and look different.
> > Before I answer, I want you to tell me the meaning of the two words as
> > you know them. Can you show their written form in Chinese?
>
> I know nothing except what I read in dictionaries, according to which
> suo3 ( ) has a wide range of meanings, the main ones being (from CEDICT)
> /to search/to demand/to ask/to exact/large rope/isolated/
Which one of the definition for your suo3 above, one of the 4 action-
words, the modifier or the noun?
A large rope is somewhat like a big string? But a large rope is not
really a thin string. Why do the Chinese rope up their coins? a large
rope does not fit through a 1/4-inch or a centimeter square hole. You
do appreciate the factual data, I hope. The suo3 is too loose a term
for a tight little hole.
> and yao2 ( ) has only the meaning
> /lines on a trigram/
>
That is only we need. Yao2 means "lines on a trigram".
Trigrams are 3-line configurations from yin-yang in I-Ching.
Yao associates with mahjong as you found in Wlkipedia, you said?
Yao is not strings of coin and you are sure of that? They are trigram
lines by definition in a dictionary you use and trust.
Could suo3 be a misnomer and wrong extension from a symbol mistaken
for cash? No wonder here have been names like axle, bamboo stick and
bushel assigned to it, besides string of cash. They were all wrong.
> >> > which then twisted to become 'strings of cash' which was based on the
> >> > assumption that the round object was cash.
>
> >> This is your assertion, but you provide no evidence for your
> >> assertion.
>
What are you talking about? The evidence is in your dictionary. You
said yao is in mahjong (Wikipedia). You see yao2 are lines on trigrams
(dictionary). You know trigrams belong to I-Ching (I assume). What
more do you need?
> > Your comment sounds familiar. What evidence you need?
>
> Something that does not have a simpler alternative explanation. The
> best evidence you have is that Pan described the layout of the sticks
> on some of the suo tiles by reference to the shape of trigrams. This
> is weak, since the simpler explanation is that he used descriptive
> terms that would be familiar to his readers (who, being educated
> (otherwise they would not read) would know the I Ching).
>
Your rationale is too "educated" for me. Bring down a notch or two so
I can argue with you.
So, are you saying that mahjong was designed for the educated crowd.
Therefore the suits of cards were all made very simple and all in
terms of cash money which everybody could understand?
> Actual good evidence would be a pack of cards in which the suo suit
> was clearly illustrated with trigrams. This wouldn't be conclusive,
> since the cards might have been made by an I Ching obsessive who forced
> everything he knew into the mould of I Ching; but it would be quite
> good evidence, and if there were many such, it would be strong.
>
Agree. A good example is the cash-base defense. When cake and cash
don't mix. There comes "metal-cake".
Nothing seems conclusive for the moment, except the cash-base. Right?
> > Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
> > of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
>
> As I quoted from Himly article, the term cake appears to derive from
> cake of silver. If people call the coin suit cakes, that does not
> stop the string suit being a string of coins. If you ask whether I
> have heard of a string of cakes, well, the answer is yes! is, as
I have never heard of it. Your term is more correct as 'cake of
strings'. It's only a little subtle point, but my Chinese tells me
that's the translation. 'String of cakes' is not 'cake of strings'.
Tell me where you heard of 'cake of strings'.
> you presumably know, a type of noodle. Whether anybody ever used the
> term for a string of cash, I have no idea; someone who can read a good
> historical Chinese dictionary might be able to tell us if the term is
> mentioned.
>
I know Chinese mahjong players just call 'soc' (in my dialect). Never
'soc' of anything. I believe string of cash was a foreign
transliteration. Some one can correct me if he has an answer.
> > say 'ten-thousand' applies to I-Ching or used in Book of Changes
> > exclusively. Read it again.
>
> So what was the point?
>
The point is I know well what 'ten-thousand' means and how to use the
term.
[..]
>
> You had two points. One, that wan is a term of I Ching used in
> mah-jong. Two, that wan means an indeterminate quantity, not
> necessarily 10000 cash literally. Point one is true but irrelevant,
> unless you can establish some connexion; point two is true, but only
> relevant if you can provide a reason why we should interpret wan
> generally rather than literally.
You may have a point or two as well. I have good reasons. You will
read about them in time. Enough just for now. Thanks...
I want to make one point clear. It is that yao2 was mistaken as suo3.
In other words, trigrams lines were taken, by mistake due to
ignorance, as large ropes, which later stretched and twisted and
squeezed to become strings. That should be clear to you.
Cheers....al
Julian Bradfield
> That is only we need. Yao2 means "lines on a trigram".
> Trigrams are 3-line configurations from yin-yang in I-Ching.
> Yao associates with mahjong as you found in Wlkipedia, you said?
I said nothing of the sort. Please read more carefully.
> What are you talking about? The evidence is in your dictionary. You
> said yao is in mahjong (Wikipedia). You see yao2 are lines on trigrams
No, I did not say that.
> So, are you saying that mahjong was designed for the educated crowd.
I'm not. I have no strong views on whether mah-jong was invented amongst
highly educated or less educated people.
> Therefore the suits of cards were all made very simple and all in
> terms of cash money which everybody could understand?
Are you talking about mah-jong, or about the (supposed) precursor
games here?
>> stop the string suit being a string of coins. If you ask whether I
>> have heard of a string of cakes, well, the answer is yes! is, as
[ I wrote 索饼 ]
> I have never heard of it. Your term is more correct as 'cake of
> strings'. It's only a little subtle point, but my Chinese tells me
> that's the translation. 'String of cakes' is not 'cake of strings'.
Yes, I thought that might be the case. In context, that makes a bit
more sense - suobing appears to be strings of noodles tied in a
bundle, so that could mean strings of "noodle".
> Tell me where you heard of 'cake of strings'.
I googled for it, of course.
> I want to make one point clear. It is that yao2 was mistaken as suo3.
> In other words, trigrams lines were taken, by mistake due to
> ignorance, as large ropes, which later stretched and twisted and
> squeezed to become strings. That should be clear to you.
Well, that's a clear statement of your idea, and there's obviously no
point in continuing this discussion until such time as you can provide
any evidence for this idea.
Julian Bradfield
>That is only we need. Yao2 means "lines on a trigram".
>Trigrams are 3-line configurations from yin-yang in I-Ching.
>Yao associates with mahjong as you found in Wlkipedia, you said?
I said nothing of the sort. Please read more carefully.
>What are you talking about? The evidence is in your dictionary. You
>said yao is in mahjong (Wikipedia). You see yao2 are lines on trigrams
No, I did not say that.
>So, are you saying that mahjong was designed for the educated crowd.
I'm not. I have no strong views on whether mah-jong was invented amongst
highly educated or less educated people.
>Therefore the suits of cards were all made very simple and all in
>terms of cash money which everybody could understand?
Are you talking about mah-jong, or about the (supposed) precursor
games here?
>>stop the string suit being a string of coins. If you ask whether I
>>have heard of a string of cakes, well, the answer is yes! is, as
[ I wrote 索饼 ]
>I have never heard of it. Your term is more correct as 'cake of
>strings'. It's only a little subtle point, but my Chinese tells me
>that's the translation. 'String of cakes' is not 'cake of strings'.
Yes, I thought that might be the case. In context, that makes a bit
more sense - suobing appears to be strings of noodles tied in a
bundle, so I thought it could mean "strings" of "noodle", but "cakes" of
"strings" is better.
>Tell me where you heard of 'cake of strings'.
I googled for it, of course.
>I want to make one point clear. It is that yao2 was mistaken as suo3.
>In other words, trigrams lines were taken, by mistake due to
>ignorance, as large ropes, which later stretched and twisted and
>squeezed to become strings. That should be clear to you.
Well, that's a clear statement of your idea, and there's obviously no
mstanwick
> I can summarize my belief simply.
Belief.
> Ooops, I forgot...the mismatched suits of symbols were done in
> purpose, possibly, to escape detection as gambling tool. May be...
Ridicule.
> Well, that Himly guy sure can explain everything. I suppose he must
> have already presented all evidence to your satisfaction, Michael. Or
> was that just "interesting observation"?
Sarcasm.
Belief, ridicule and sarcasm. The debasement of this discussion.
Goodbye.
Julian Bradfield
> Agree. A good example is the cash-base defense. When cake and cash
> don't mix. There comes "metal-cake".
> Nothing seems conclusive for the moment, except the cash-base. Right?
>
>> > Think for a moment. Some people call the circles cakes. Have you heard
>> > of a string of cakes? How about a string of containers? Never!
>>
>> As I quoted from Himly article, the term cake appears to derive from
>> cake of silver. If people call the coin suit cakes, that does not
>> stop the string suit being a string of coins. If you ask whether I
>> have heard of a string of cakes, well, the answer is yes! is, as
On the topic of cakes and coins, I may have already pointed this out
when quoting Himly...
You're Cantonese-speaking, aren't you? In which case, you know the
word 鉼 for "penny", also bing3 in Mandarin. Now a confusion, either
deliberate or accidental, between 鉼 and 餅 is surely much more
plausible than any of your posited confusions of words.
al
> On Oct 11, 4:41?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Sep 27, 11:33 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Mahjong and Hu-Pai Designs
> > > (Relate to I-Ching & Taoism)
> [snip]
> > > To show how Mahjong and other Hu Pai game design could be based on
> > > concepts and principles in I-Ching,
> [snip]
> > > Conclusion:
> > > Mahjong and other Hu-game designs relates directly to I-Ching, .
> > > A coherent explanation is now possible for the symbols, structure and
> > > rules of the game.
>
> [snip]
>
> Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
> cause. So now comes the pain... to show that such relationships were
> actual, rather than just possible.
>
Interesting correspondences? Yes.
Similar thinking found in Wu Xing? No.
What is an actual relationship/ Can you illustrate what you mean by
using the well-known moey-based hypothesis? Give an example of Cash
relationship.
> > > A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> > > Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
>
> You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
> design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
> think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
> directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example,
Being a Discussion Group, I would have expected an assisting approach
rather than a resistive response from you. I have cited different
examples in my posts. In time I will have answers for all the
questions you mentioned above.
Again, does your "money-based" meet all those conditions? My taiji (I-
Ching) related design concept, as I see it, reflects in the basic
pattern of mahjong game-play. That unique pattern is 2-3-3, then
2-3-3-3-3 where the 2 is a pair and the 3's are runs (and pengs,
later). In simplest terms, the 2 represent yin and yang; the 3's are
trigrams in I-Ching (Book of Changes).
Furthermore, only with such philosophical base for its design was
mahjong a game fit for the elite class of scholars of olden day China.
Let me repeat. In China where I played mahjong and in Chinatowns
outside China, mahjong players do not call the circles "cash". The
"cash" image was seized and propagated by foreigners who learned
mahjong from people who had little or only 'word of mouth' knowledge
of mahjong history.
Proof of that is the so called "variants" in nearly every thing
mahjong.
> there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
> intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?
You should know the answer to this. A ma que set had Dragon and
Phoenix tiles as real as ESWN winds tiles.
Do they intentionally reflect yin and yang? I would say more than
likely they do, as yin and yang are female and male symbols. So are
phoenix and dragon.
> Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
> Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
> realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
> the other correspondences.
>
There was no original manuscript or authentic historical record, as
you well know. Any written record is acceptable?
I see a problem with your "money-base" hypot. Just because there had
been mention of it in written and translated literature, there is
hardly any need for further questions.
> I hope these suggestions are a help.
>
Your suggestions sound more like road-blocks.
> Cheers
> Michael
+++++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
Refer to my post of Nov 5th 1.42.
al
>
> > I believe the word for the "relationship" is "correspondence". I saw
> > it used. That is a feature in mahjong has a similar feature in madiao
> > or ma daio or mataio.
>
> But not in this case. Context is everything. Both maque and madiao are
> card games (the context). However, the relevant context is the three
> suited cards games (probably derived from four suited ones) that sport
> so-called money suits.
>
is the "relevant context"?
What critical thinking is this?
Maque and Ma Diao are miles apart in every way.Ma Diao according to
Lo's translation had Zero Cash, Half Cash and taiji diagram for 1-
Cash. Maque has none of that.
Maque is pattern formation as objective (2-3-3-3-3. Ma Diao was trick
taking.
Maque has a pair of eyes and subsets of 3's. Ma Diao had tricks of 4
cards.
Maque and Ma Diao are two different animals, so to speak. Furthermore,
your extrapolation of '4 suits reduced to 3' is more unlikely than
probable. You know maque has 4 suits. The 4th suit of words
distinguishes maque from the rest.
Ma Diao's suit-reduction probably had no relevance in maque's origin
or eventual develoment. Maque has no "Zero Cash " or " Half Cash".
> So, a feature in mahjong has a similarity to another feature in a
> three suited money pack of cards. It is those card packs of three
> suits, that are hypothesised to derive from four suited card packs of
> the type used in ma diao.
>
Now I see the reduction to 3 suits from 4 was hypothesized. That is,
there was no proof. Whole suit of taiji symbols turned up in some game
for the circular shape and whole suit of fish in some other game for
the 'string' suit. That shows "money pack" is also hypothesized and
unproven; more than ever, unlikely.
> > What else is there to justify that "important progenitor" claim?
>
> I am not making the claim, as you describe it.
>
I was quoting from Tom's FAQ #11.
Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is 条.
This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
a "string" of anything.
By the way, where was the "string" first appeared in writing? Was it
Culin's or Wilkinson's interpretation?
++++++++++
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers......al
Julian Bradfield
> Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is 条.
> This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
> wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
> a "string" of anything.
Yes, it does seem to be in the wrong column. Prunner's catalogue
(p. 44) shows a deck of cards where the "strings" suit is marked with
the 条 character. (Except the 1! The 2-9 are marked with the numeral
and 条, and bear a picture of a female character; but the 1 bears the
characters 大鱼 (da2 yu2, big fish), illustrated with a fish saying
something I can't read but which the catalogue says means "copying
forbidden".)
You say that 条 can never be a "string" of anything.
At least the Unicode database lists "string" as one of its possible
meanings, though my paper dictionaries don't - but it seems it can
mean pretty much anything long and thin, so why not "string"?
Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word 厂条 for a
silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
century.
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is 条.
> > This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
> > wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
> > a "string" of anything.
>
> Yes, it does seem to be in the wrong column. Prunner's catalogue
> (p. 44) shows a deck of cards where the "strings" suit is marked with
> the 条 character. (Except the 1! The 2-9 are marked with the numeral
> and 条, and bear a picture of a female character; but the 1 bears the
> characters 大鱼 (da2 yu2, big fish), illustrated with a fish saying
> something I can't read but which the catalogue says means "copying
> forbidden".)
>
44). I can not comment until I have a better picture of it.
> You say that 条 can never be a "string" of anything.
> At least the Unicode database lists "string" as one of its possible
> meanings, though my paper dictionaries don't - but it seems it can
> mean pretty much anything long and thin, so why not "string"?
First I meant by the shape of that 条 in Andy's page, no string looks
like that.
How can an odd shape object as such string together anything?
Next, something that can "mean pretty much anything", then it hardly
mens anything, because you would never be sure of what it really
means.
In one or more of earlier posts on the suits of mahjong and the games
origin with I-Ching, I did mention the fact that features of I-Ching
concepts being reflected in mahjong. Here is what I recall.
Simplicity, Variability and Persistency....
Simplicity in design symbols (obvious, compared to old paper cards
with pictorials).
Variability in results of game-play, like the outcome of yin/yang
interactions and hexagrams. After all, Book of Changes was all about
changes and changeability. Perhaps variability of symbol
interpretation should be included as well. I did say that circular
shape could represent everything circular and stick or string shape
could represent everything elongated. Then "ten-thousand things" as a
figure of speech collectively represents everything else in the
universe.
Persistency manifests and is maintained in the rules of play. A pair
of "eyes" is a requisite for a winning hand in mahjong. The completion
of 3-card runs is the necessary condition. The 3's are trigrams and
the the pair is Yin and Yang. These concepts do not change.
> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word 厂条 for a
> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
> century.
Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
mean the word 条 or money base, or both as a connection?
+++++++++
Cheers....al
Julian Bradfield
>> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word 厂条 for a
>> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
>> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
>> century.
>
> Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
> mean the word 条 or money base, or both as a connection?
Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
"strings" suit marked with 条, and not the 索 that is supposed to be
the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
The "circles" suit in that deck is marked with 并, a colloquial word
for "coin", so the money base seems likely. Then why 条? I can think
of some possible reasons:
(a) 条 is being used to mean "string (of cash)" directly.
(b) 条 is the measure word for 索, and 条 is just short for 条索. I
guess this is not very plausible!
(c) 条 is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot 厂条, the modern version
of a string of cash.
(d) (a) and (c) together!
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word 厂条 for a
> >> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
> >> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
> >> century.
>
> > Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
> > mean the word 条 or money base, or both as a connection?
>
> Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> "strings" suit marked with 条, and not the 索 that is supposed to be
> the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
I MUST ADMIT I DID NOT KNOW HOW "SUO" SPELLED IN CHINESE UNTIL AFTER
JOINING THE DISCUSSION GROUP AND STARTED READING ABOUT THE GAME'S
HISTORY. THAT IS WHY I HAD NO PRE-CONDITIONING BY FOREIGNERS'
INTERPRETATION AND MISINTERPRETATION. AND THAT IS WHY THE IDEA OF
"CASH BASE" NEVER MADE SENSE TO ME.
In the back of my mind though, from common expressions, "suo' or 索
used to mean something like a knot.
according to some dictionary, 索 = .线，带，绳子 = thread; belt; rope.
It's true. 索 can be a string. Then it should be more of an object on
it's own, like a thread, a belt or a rope; a string should not be used
necessarily as a string of something else. I mean a C is a 索, not a 索
of 并.
A 索 is a 索 of 并 only because 并 was assumed as coins in the first suit
of cards.
A string is an improper term for naming an object. It acts as a
modifier or an indefinite object. I suspect 索 was mistaken by one of
th early foreigners whose writing was copied and spread and now stuck.
The source of the error is from the assumption and concept of "money
base" when the 并 from paper cards was transposed to mahjong.
> The "circles" suit in that deck is marked with 并, a colloquial word
> for "coin", so the money base seems likely. Then why 条? I can think
> of some possible reasons:
To my mind, "money base and string (条) don't mix or match. Normal
common handling of money is put the coins in a bag, not on a string.
并 as a symbol from way back, before matiao's "Zero-Cash". A new round
shape that looked like a coin was then coined as Cash, like a computer
mouse looks like a house mouse with a long tail gets to be called a
mouse ever since.
"Money-base" is not a given. Who can confirm the first 并 was a proper
term? Do you recall what is in the Ma Diao suits? Start in 1-9 Cash
and end in 100 million Cash! That was in the late Ming dynasty.
Figures like millions and 100 million were just simply unreal. Then
was Cash itself for real or mistaken?
> (a) 条 is being used to mean "string (of cash)" directly.
Would that be indirectly? A string is a string, directly.
> (b) 条 is the measure word for 索, and 条 is just short for 条索. I
> guess this is not very plausible! LINE=1.线；绳索
My dictionary has a definition for LINE = 绳索 or 线 (绳 = rope; 线 =
thread).
Along my line of thinking, LINE is most reasonable. The "suo" is a
line. Why? Lines refer to the trigrams in I-Ching. Then the circular
shapes represent King Wen circles of cyclical changes. "Wan" refers to
"ten-thousand thing" as a figure of speech in I-Ching.
The fourth suit in mhjong relates to CHANGES as well. Cash-base cannot
explain anything about the winds, the seasons etc.
Remember how the 条 looks in Andy's page? That 条 has two stripes bent
in opposite directions like yin and yang. Another definition for 条 is
a STRIPE.
> (c) 条is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot 厂条, the modern version
> of a string of cash.
How does the timing for 条? Did it not appear long before the silver
ingot?
> (d) (a) and (c) together!
It looks like all the suits of mahjong have the wrong names from the
time it left the author's circle of players.The simplicity of symbols
subject to many different interpretations and the absence of a known
theme or core idea left the game to guess. Even if the game was based
on I-Ching concepts (which I truly believe), it still is a game beyond
comprehension of most people then and now. Hence the confusion and
uncertainty about mahjong was and is inevitable.
mstanwick
> Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> "strings" suit marked with 条, and not the 索 that is supposed to be
> the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
Regional variations?
I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
suits.
Suo3 was, and is, more often used in the South of China.
Bing3 is more often used in the North of China whereas tong3 is used
in the South of China.
> (c) 条 is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot 厂条, the modern version
> of a string of cash.
Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.
Regards
Julian Bradfield
> On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>[...]
> I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> suits.
I think you should hold yourself to the same standards you require of
al. The phrase "on good authority" is no authority!
Not that I doubt the statements, but it would be nice to have them
sourced for future reference.
>> (c) 条 is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot 厂条, the modern version
>> of a string of cash.
>
> Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.
I don't understand your point in this remark.
al
> On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> > "strings" suit marked with 条, and not the 索 that is supposed to be
> > the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
>
> Regional variations?
>
> I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> suits.
>
ma tiao/diao.
Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
I don't know what "authority" you have for reference. 条 and 索 are
different in basic structure components in terms of etymology.
索 has a thread as a radical in its lower section under the hood.
条 has 'wood' as its corresponding lower part.
This mean 条 and 索 are made of different material; they are different
things.
Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations", Michael.
I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
local people.
> Suo3 was, and is, more often used in the South of China.
>
In my dialect, I call it soc, suo3 is close enough for 索.
> Bing3 is more often used in the North of China whereas tong3 is used
> in the South of China.
>
Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
Thus money-base is gone.
Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
wrong.
> > [..]
>
> [..]
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>[...]
> > I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> > more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> > suits.
>
> I think you should hold yourself to the same standards you require of
> al. The phrase "on good authority" is no authority!
It is authority for me. That is as far as I could go.
My original remarks, before I posted because my pc crashed, contained
a reference to why I put 'on good authority' rather than an explicit
reference. The points I noted were taken from email correspondence I
have had with a person in China who is researching ma que development
and Chinese Playing cards.
Since it was in private correspondence I was unable to give the
person's name. I have tried to contact them but they have moved.
The person has provided me with references of old Chinese novels from
which some of this info appears plus from his own experience.
> Not that I doubt the statements, but it would be nice to have them
> sourced for future reference.
I am sure it would. At this point I cannot offer any more. But when I
contact him again, I will attempt to get the source of the info
released.
> >> (c) 条 is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot 厂条, the modern version
> >> of a string of cash.
>
> > Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.
>
> I don't understand your point in this remark.
I should have put 'also' (as in 'also cast') in there. It was meant to
relate a possible connection of silver money to 'bing3'.
mstanwick
> So 'tiao' is also 条, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> ma tiao/diao.
Yes.
> Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
Where is your evidence for 'word of mouth' as the only explanation?
And why 'confusion'? Explain.
> I don't know what "authority" you have for reference.
See my previous reply.
> Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations",
I said 'regional variations'. I was only commenting on a 1st possible
explanation for why the names were different for the one money card
suit. The 1st step might be that they are regional variations. 2ndly,
these variations might be due to a particular way these earlier money
cards were interpreted. This is a prediction that can be tested.
> I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
> results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
> local people.
The earliest symbol of the money suit was named for what it looked
like to local people. The earliest symbol is the one that there is the
earliest evidence for.
> Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> Thus money-base is gone.
Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
directly reflects money, I agree.
> Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
> wrong.
What does 'totally wrong' mean?
al
> On Dec 3, 2:22 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > So 'tiao' is also 条, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> > ma tiao/diao.
>
> Yes.
>
earlier that both names, Matiao and maque, could be wrong because 'ma'
was misinterpreted long, long long long ago.
Remember what I said? This was what I showed in a sketch: ma could
be : (1) a horse as in matiao; (2) hemp as in maque; and (3) twins or
a pair for two LINES or a pair of stipes (i.e. tiaos). That would be
the I-Ching lines of yin and yang.
Neither 'horse' nor 'hemp' makes any sense in the games. My "horse
sense" tells me. However, a pair of LINES can explain the symbols, the
game-play and the rules of mahjong.
> > Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> > i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
>
> Where is your evidence for 'word of mouth' as the only explanation?
> And why 'confusion'? Explain.
>
If you cannot see the "evidence" when the word 'ma' can be horse, hemp
and pair, then try visualize it. One word can be interpreted by its
sound to mean many things. Is that not homonmic confusion? Let me add
'mother' to the list.
> > I don't know what "authority" you have for reference.
>
> See my previous reply.
>
I guess email service is not yet as widely available as Europe and
America.
> > Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations",
>
> I said 'regional variations'. I was only commenting on a 1st possible
> explanation for why the names were different for the one money card
> suit. The 1st step might be that they are regional variations. 2ndly,
> these variations might be due to a particular way these earlier money
> cards were interpreted. This is a prediction that can be tested.
>
Predictions don't prove one or the other.
Cookie or cake refer to food stuff. Pipe or tube refer to utensil made
of bamboo. How much regional or local variation can account for the
unbelievable difference? What prediction can be made? Something like
the "myriad"?
> > I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
> > results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
> > local people.
>
> The earliest symbol of the money suit was named for what it looked
> like to local people. The earliest symbol is the one that there is the
> earliest evidence for.
>
And where is the earliest symbol? Prunner's 360/??
If "Cash" was the true symbol, it would have been the standard
throughout, because it was so recognizable and unmistakably obvious
with a square hole.
BTW, a White guy asked me about Chinese women on that (only once long
ago).
> > Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> > bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> > is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> > Thus money-base is gone.
>
Talking about homonymic confusion, I can give you evidence of that.
There are bing1, bing2 and bing3 or more. Likewise, there are tong1,
tong2 and tong3 at least. Have you ever spoken to or heard from some
one saying those words?
> Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
> directly reflects money, I agree.
>
That is because "Cash" was only one interpretation in one locality or
region.
I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
and when the term first appeared?
> > Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
> > wrong.
>
> What does 'totally wrong' mean?
I mean bing3 and tong3 could be (and I think they are) the wrong names
assigned to the circular symbol in mahjong, just as wrong as "Cash".
In fact, I I will go as far as saying just as wrong as "mahjong".
++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
Julian Bradfield
> So 'tiao' is also 条, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> ma tiao/diao.
> Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
No, tiao is not loosing or hanging - that's diao. Different initial,
different tone (at least in Mandarin). Hardly a homonym!
> Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> Thus money-base is gone.
Yes. I don't think anybody has claimed that players *now* think of
mah-jong cards in terms of the money-base system (although one wonders
what they do think the "wan" suit is).
The point is that the cards derived from cards that *were* money based.
I don't know why you find this idea so offensive. No modern western
card player thinks of hearts, diamonds, spades and clubs as derived
from cups, coins, etc., but that doesn't vitiate the historical
evolution, uncertain in its details though it be.
Julian Bradfield
>> > Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
>> > wrong.
>>
>> What does 'totally wrong' mean?
>
> I mean bing3 and tong3 could be (and I think they are) the wrong names
> assigned to the circular symbol in mahjong, just as wrong as "Cash".
> In fact, I I will go as far as saying just as wrong as "mahjong".
But what do you mean by "wrong"? What would make a name "right"?
mstanwick
Julian is correct of course. Tiao2 is not diao4 'hang', nor diao4
'drop down'.
> One word can be interpreted by its
> sound to mean many things. Is that not homonmic confusion?
No. My question was whether you can you discuss or imagine other
scenarios that might result in both ma 'horse', ma 'hemp' etc? rather
than selecting or discussing only the 'confusion' possibility.
> I guess email service is not yet as widely available as Europe and
> America.
Please explain?
> How much regional or local variation can account for the
> unbelievable difference? What prediction can be made? Something like
> the "myriad"?
Why unbelieveable?
> And where is the earliest symbol? Prunner's 360/??
Yes. Prunner's early 19th century pack. In conjunction with Pan. At
this point.
> Talking about homonymic confusion, I can give you evidence of that.
> There are bing1, bing2 and bing3 or more. Likewise, there are tong1,
> tong2 and tong3 at least. Have you ever spoken to or heard from some
> one saying those words?
No. Please explain why you are using the word 'confusion'.
> > Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
> > directly reflects money, I agree.
>
> That is because "Cash" was only one interpretation in one locality or
> region.
At which point in time are you referring to?
> I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
> translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
> and when the term first appeared?
Cao Xueqin's (1715 - 1763) "Hong Lou Meng". er bing3 "2 cakes" was
mentioned in a description of a card game that was probably "shi hu".
In Li Ruzhen (1763 ~ 1830) "Jing Hua Yuan" in which the three suits
were called suo3, bing3 and wan.
al
> On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Julian is correct of course. Tiao2 is not diao4 'hang', nor diao4
> 'drop down'.
>
How does Ma Diao relate with Ma Tiao then?
> > One word can be interpreted by its
> > sound to mean many things. Is that not homonmic confusion?
>
> No. My question was whether you can you discuss or imagine other
> scenarios that might result in both ma 'horse', ma 'hemp' etc? rather
> than selecting or discussing only the 'confusion' possibility.
>
I checked a dictionary and counted 22 Chinese words under 'ma'. I am
sure there are more than 2 confusing possibilities.
I read somewhere 'diao' is same as 'niao', but 'niao' is a bird. Have
you read that?
Generally Chinese singular character on its own is difficult to reveal
its meaning; it's understandable better in context.
If you look at Chinese classical literature, you will find phrases and
sentences with at least 4 words. Such abbreviated style caused a lot
of ambiguity, but classical scholars pride themselves on ambiguity
(somebody else also said that before) when they can show their depth
of learning in selected words.
> > I guess email service is not yet as widely available as Europe and
> > America.
>
> Please explain?
>
I mean some place in China may not have internet service. You
mentioned that your contact has recently relocated. I come from a
place where there was no residence telephone service until about 10
years ago.
> > How much regional or local variation can account for the
> > unbelievable difference? What prediction can be made? Something like
> > the "myriad"?
>
> Why unbelieveable?
>
You are talking about suo and tiao? Unbelievable because they are so
different. One is from thread or string and the other is from wood
(radicals).
The same applies to bing and tong. Bing is edible food stuff while
tong is a tube made of bamboo. Yet incredibly, they are both names
for the same symbol.
> > And where is the earliest symbol? Prunner's 360/??
>
> Yes. Prunner's early 19th century pack. In conjunction with Pan. At
> this point.
>
I thought Pan (1556-1622) is much earlier in Ming time. His "cash" His
millions of Cash I don't buy. Prunner's coins were a symbol of
national wealth in a "throne speech" presentation. In the same set,
the Salomi-like sausages look more like bolts of threads as a symbol
for a healthy textile industry. It would take a few men to handle a
roll of that size if that was metal copper Cash. String of Cash that
was not.
> > Talking about homonymic confusion, I can give you evidence of that.
> > There are bing1, bing2 and bing3 or more. Likewise, there are tong1,
> > tong2 and tong3 at least. Have you ever spoken to or heard from some
> > one saying those words?
>
> No. Please explain why you are using the word 'confusion'.
>
You question is confusing me now. I don't know what there is to
explain. When I say bing, you can't be sure if I meant bing1, bing2 or
bing3. Is that confusing?
May be I am not using the correct word, Michael. Ambiguous?
> > > Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
> > > directly reflects money, I agree.
>
> > That is because "Cash" was only one interpretation in one locality or
> > region.
>
> At which point in time are you referring to?
>
I would say whenever, the earliest time whoever coined it.
> > I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
> > translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
> > and when the term first appeared?
>
> Cao Xueqin's (1715 - 1763) "Hong Lou Meng". er bing3 "2 cakes" was
> mentioned in a description of a card game that was probably "shi hu".
>
> In Li Ruzhen (1763 ~ 1830) "Jing Hua Yuan" in which the three suits
> were called suo3, bing3 and wan.
Now, I see, Michael. There were these other card games that had those
suits with those names. The same names just passed to mahjong. Just as
I thought. Old familiar names applied to "new" unseen game.
For one thing those same names have origin unknown. They could have
been copied from some other older game like ma diao or ma tiao which
has 1-Cash shown as taiji diagram. Because it had a circle, round like
a coin with a strange design, it was called Cash anyway. Follow suit,
that's the way it went.
To make it interesting, who is to say that mahjong did not have its
own symbols (and lost names based on I-Ching) before the other card
games. We don't know.
+++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
With reference to "CASH",
> > I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
> > translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
> > and when the term first appeared?
>
> Cao Xueqin's (1715 - 1763) "Hong Lou Meng". er bing3 "2 cakes" was
> mentioned in a description of a card game that was probably "shi hu".
>
That was "CAKE", not CASH.
> In Li Ruzhen (1763 ~ 1830) "Jing Hua Yuan" in which the three suits
> were called suo3, bing3 and wan.
Again. Bing3 is not CASH. That is cookie or cake.
My curiosity in where the and when the term CASH came about and by
whom.
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> > Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
> >> > wrong.
>
> >> What does 'totally wrong' mean?
>
That is the circle is neither cake nor tube.
Both are meaningless in context with the game-play and rules.
> > I mean bing3 and tong3 could be (and I think they are) the wrong names
> > assigned to the circular symbol in mahjong, just as wrong as "Cash".
> > In fact, I I will go as far as saying just as wrong as "mahjong".
>
> But what do you mean by "wrong"? What would make a name "right"?
A right name should be a noun and relates to other components in the
game in coherence with an over-all concept. (Just a quick answer...)
++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > So 'tiao' is also 条, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> > ma tiao/diao.
> > Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> > i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
>
> No, tiao is not loosing or hanging - that's diao. Different initial,
> different tone (at least in Mandarin). Hardly a homonym!
>
too.
But you are right. Also Michael made a correction (dropping not
loosing a leg) on a finer point.
However, as I said before, both names are meaningless in terms of
symbols and game-play.
> > Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> > bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> > is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> > Thus money-base is gone.
>
> Yes. I don't think anybody has claimed that players *now* think of
> mah-jong cards in terms of the money-base system (although one wonders
> what they do think the "wan" suit is).
"Wan" is a figure of speech, "ten-thousand things", taken from
Daoism / Taoism and the I-Chang. It was intended to mean the
countless things in tne universe created by the interaction of the
pair, yin and yang.
I-Chang divination is the anticipation of CHANGES affecting these
thousands and thousands of things in the universe.
Yin-yang (LINES) interaction produce trigrams (situations). Two
trigrams = one hexagram. Each hexagram has the random result of
changes taken place and the logic is what had happened in the past
will influence the outcome in the near future. Thus the process
continues endlessly in a CIRCLE.
That (to my observation and perception) is the game of mahjong in a
nutshell.
>[..]
+++++++++
Cheers....al
Julian Bradfield
> On Dec 3, 11:16 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Ma Diao is the Late Ming game translated by Lo.
> How does Ma Diao relate with Ma Tiao then?
As I've explained before, Ma Tiao is the Chinese word Ma Diao in a
different romanization scheme. Pinyin writes t-, d-, p-, b-, k-, g-
where Wade-Giles writes t'-, t-, p'-, p-, k'-, g' .
> I checked a dictionary and counted 22 Chinese words under 'ma'. I am
> sure there are more than 2 confusing possibilities.
Chinese is remarkable for its rich homonymy. However, you should
remember that not all words that are homonymous now, were homonymous a
few hundred years ago. Your own language, Cantonese, has preserved
many distinctions that are lost in Mandarin. And because of the
homonymy, spoken Chinese has moved to a state where words are usually
polysyllabic, while written literary Chinese sticks mostly to one
syllable per word, probably reflecting the spoken language of two
thousand years ago.
> You are talking about suo and tiao? Unbelievable because they are so
> different. One is from thread or string and the other is from wood
> (radicals).
> The same applies to bing and tong. Bing is edible food stuff while
> tong is a tube made of bamboo. Yet incredibly, they are both names
> for the same symbol.
What's incredible about this? In the 1920s, English and American
mah-jong players came up with numerous different slang terms for the
various suits. Are Chinese players less inventive?
> for a healthy textile industry. It would take a few men to handle a
> roll of that size if that was metal copper Cash. String of Cash that
> was not.
You seem to think that money must be easy to handle. It *does* take
some effort to handle large amounts of cash if all you have is coins.
(Even today, a thousand British 10p pieces (i.e. £100) would weigh ten
kilos.) And China is notable for having had some very large "coins"!
(The knife money and spade money, for example.)
> You question is confusing me now. I don't know what there is to
> explain. When I say bing, you can't be sure if I meant bing1, bing2 or
> bing3. Is that confusing?
If you *say* bing, then we will hear whether you are *say*ing bing1,
bing2, or bing3 (assuming that you know how to speak Mandarin and we
know how to hear it). If you *write* bing in Chinese, we will see what
you mean. It's only if you *write* "bing" in the lazy romanization
that omits tones, that we will not know which you meant.
(Of course, if you *say* bing1 on its own, we don't know whether you
mean "ice" or "soldier", but we can probably work it out from
context!)
Your point about homonymy is quite valid, but you're weakening it by
using examples that aren't homonyms in Chinese. Rather than talking
about all the possible meanings of ma (meaning ma1, ma2, ma3, and ma4
all put together), just talk about all the meanings of ma1.
Confusion between non-homonymous words is also possible, of course,
but you just have to talk about it correctly in terms of similar
sounding words.
> To make it interesting, who is to say that mahjong did not have its
> own symbols (and lost names based on I-Ching) before the other card
> games. We don't know.
The whole point of this discussion is, who is to say that it *did*
have its own symbols? That's what we want you to provide some good
arguments for. Otherwise Occam's Razor tells us to assume that the
symbols were taken from existing games.
Julian Bradfield
> A right name should be a noun and relates to other components in the
> game in coherence with an over-all concept. (Just a quick answer...)
OK. But this is of no interest to most of us. We're interested in the
reality of history, not in a hypothetical rationalization of how
history should have been.
Julian Bradfield
> On Dec 3, 11:16 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Ma Diao is the Late Ming game translated by Lo.
> How does Ma Diao relate with Ma Tiao then?
As I've explained before, Ma Tiao is the Chinese word Ma Diao in a
different romanization scheme. Pinyin writes t-, d-, p-, b-, k-, g-
where Wade-Giles writes t'-, t-, p'-, p-, k'-, k- .
> I checked a dictionary and counted 22 Chinese words under 'ma'. I am
> sure there are more than 2 confusing possibilities.
Chinese is remarkable for its rich homonymy. However, you should
remember that not all words that are homonymous now, were homonymous a
few hundred years ago. Your own language, Cantonese, has preserved
many distinctions that are lost in Mandarin. And because of the
homonymy, spoken Chinese has moved to a state where words are usually
polysyllabic, while written literary Chinese sticks mostly to one
syllable per word, probably reflecting the spoken language of two
thousand years ago.
> You are talking about suo and tiao? Unbelievable because they are so
> different. One is from thread or string and the other is from wood
> (radicals).
> The same applies to bing and tong. Bing is edible food stuff while
> tong is a tube made of bamboo. Yet incredibly, they are both names
> for the same symbol.
What's incredible about this? In the 1920s, English and American
mah-jong players came up with numerous different slang terms for the
various suits. Are Chinese players less inventive?
> for a healthy textile industry. It would take a few men to handle a
> roll of that size if that was metal copper Cash. String of Cash that
> was not.
You seem to think that money must be easy to handle. It *does* take
some effort to handle large amounts of cash if all you have is coins.
(Even today, a thousand British 10p pieces (i.e. £100) would weigh ten
kilos.) And China is notable for having had some very large "coins"!
(The knife money and spade money, for example.)
> You question is confusing me now. I don't know what there is to
> explain. When I say bing, you can't be sure if I meant bing1, bing2 or
> bing3. Is that confusing?
If you *say* bing, then we will hear whether you are *say*ing bing1,
bing2, or bing3 (assuming that you know how to speak Mandarin and we
know how to hear it). If you *write* bing in Chinese, we will see what
you mean. It's only if you *write* "bing" in the lazy romanization
that omits tones, that we will not know which you meant.
(Of course, if you *say* bing1 on its own, we don't know whether you
mean "ice" or "soldier", but we can probably work it out from
context!)
Your point about homonymy is quite valid, but you're weakening it by
using examples that aren't homonyms in Chinese. Rather than talking
about all the possible meanings of ma (meaning ma1, ma2, ma3, and ma4
all put together), just talk about all the meanings of ma1.
Confusion between non-homonymous words is also possible, of course,
but you just have to talk about it correctly in terms of similar
sounding words.
> To make it interesting, who is to say that mahjong did not have its
> own symbols (and lost names based on I-Ching) before the other card
> games. We don't know.
The whole point of this discussion is, who is to say that it *did*
mstanwick
> > > That is because "Cash" was only one interpretation in one locality or
> > > region.
An interesting proposal. Please give your evidential support for it.
> > > I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
> > > translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
> > > and when the term first appeared?
What is your point regarding 'translation'? Are you talking about the
appearance of the term 'cash' in maque descriptions or about its
appearance in descriptions of money suited card games?
mstanwick
> > In Li Ruzhen (1763 ~ 1830) "Jing Hua Yuan" in which the three suits
> > were called suo3, bing3 and wan.
>
> Again. Bing3 is not CASH. �That is cookie or cake.
Yes. I was not sure to what term and translation your were referring
to.
> My curiosity in where the and when the term CASH came about and by
> whom.
With reference to ma que, in its earliest incarnation, I would have to
say Himly. His 1870's observations and research were written up in
German in 1889. I can give the reference if requested. He names the
terms for the three suits as suo3, tong2 and wan. He compares the
difference of these names with suo3, bing3 and wan as found in the 3
money suits of playing cards. He says that instead of bing3 we have
tong2 but that tong2 refers to the same thing as bing3 (cakes).
In a later paper (1901) he expands on his earlier comments regarding
tong2....
tong2 = similar, together with, same.
Himly says it is an abbreviation of tong2 = copper, that would be a
'slang' for tong qian or copper money = cash. Hence bing3 ~ cash.
He also comments that there was, in the 1870's, in Fukien and Hunan
the tradition of casting silver into 'cakes' (bing3 'cakes' as in
food) and this term is a relic of bing3 = metal 'cake', with the
radical jin = money or alloy, hence metal cake or money cake).
Julian Bradfield
> He also comments that there was, in the 1870's, in Fukien and Hunan
> the tradition of casting silver into 'cakes' (bing3 'cakes' as in
> food) and this term is a relic of bing3 = metal 'cake', with the
> radical jin = money or alloy, hence metal cake or money cake).
In the paper you sent me, this is not a comment by Himly in the 1870s,
but a quotation from the KangXi dictionary, compiled 1710-1716.
mstanwick
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I knew the quotation marks referred
to the Chinese text but I thought that text was Himly's.
Nevetheless, is it your view (since you provided the translation) that
Himly had sourced the Dictionary for this information, as a possible
explanation for why bing3 = 'cakes' (food) (rather than the
'cakes' (metal)) that is found in descriptions of one money suited
packs of cards?
Is it therefore also your understanding of the text from the
Dictionary that the term 'cake' (as in food) was used to refer to
silver 'cakes'?
I would also be interested in finding out the period of time the
Dictionary information refers to.
Julian Bradfield
> On Dec 4, 1:41╴pm, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> writes:
>> > He also comments that there was, in the 1870's, in Fukien and Hunan
>> > the tradition of casting silver into 'cakes' (bing3 'cakes' as in
>> > food) and this term is a relic of bing3 = metal 'cake', with the
>> > radical jin = money or alloy, hence metal cake or money cake).
>>
>> In the paper you sent me, this is not a comment by Himly in the 1870s,
>> but a quotation from the KangXi dictionary, compiled 1710-1716.
> Nevetheless, is it your view (since you provided the translation) that
> Himly had sourced the Dictionary for this information, as a possible
> explanation for why bing3 = 'cakes' (food) (rather than the
> 'cakes' (metal)) that is found in descriptions of one money suited
> packs of cards?
This was certainly my understanding at the time I did the translation:
the Chinese text is cited in a footnote attached to the character
bing, and referenced as "characters with 8 strokes", presumably
indicating its location in the dictionary.
However, at present my confidence is a little shaken by my inability
to find the quotation in the dictionary under any of the relevant
characters. (Unfortunately, I haven't yet got my hands on a fully
electronic version...)
> Is it therefore also your understanding of the text from the
> Dictionary that the term 'cake' (as in food) was used to refer to
> silver 'cakes'?
I can't say.
> I would also be interested in finding out the period of time the
> Dictionary information refers to.
As I said, the dictionary was compiled 1710-1716 (an astonishingly
short space of time!), so if it says "today", I suppose it means that
time.
mstanwick
Thanks for the clarification.
> However, at present my confidence is a little shaken by my inability
> to find the quotation in the dictionary under any of the relevant
> characters. (Unfortunately, I haven't yet got my hands on a fully
> electronic version...)
Are you saying you have access to an electronic version?
Is it available on the web? If so, is the url available?
> > Is it therefore also your understanding of the text from the
> > Dictionary that the term 'cake' (as in food) was used to refer to
> > silver 'cakes'?
>
> I can't say.
Why not? If the text is taken as presented in yor translation, would
it therefore be your interpretation as I have described above?
> As I said, the dictionary was compiled 1710-1716 (an astonishingly
> short space of time!), so if it says "today", I suppose it means that
> time.
Good. That is my understanding also.
Julian Bradfield
> Are you saying you have access to an electronic version?
> Is it available on the web? If so, is the url available?
Yes - you can find it with any obvious Google search!
http://www.kangxizidian.com/
The full text is not searchable, but you can search for a character
and be taken to a scanned image of the page with the entry for that
character.
>> > Is it therefore also your understanding of the text from the
>> > Dictionary that the term 'cake' (as in food) was used to refer to
>> > silver 'cakes'?
>>
>> I can't say.
>
> Why not? If the text is taken as presented in yor translation, would
> it therefore be your interpretation as I have described above?
Yes, but I don't read Chinese, so my understanding is my
interpretation of Himly's translation into German of the Chinese text,
and that's not really my interpretation of the original text!
But I do take it to be an explanation of how the bing (with metal radical)
came into existence: the food word was applied, and then written
differently when applied to metal.
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > So 'tiao' is also 条, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> > ma tiao/diao.
> > Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> > i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
>
> No, tiao is not loosing or hanging - that's diao. Different initial,
> different tone (at least in Mandarin). Hardly a homonym!
>
involved.
Examples are sou and soc, tong and huong, I called the myrtid 'mhan'.
Only the 'ma' part of ma diao, ma tiao or ma que is a homonym.
T> > Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing
made of
> > bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> > is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> > Thus money-base is gone.
>
> Yes. I don't think anybody has claimed that players *now* think of
> mah-jong cards in terms of the money-base system (although one wonders
> what they do think the "wan" suit is).
At the time I was introduced to the game years ago in China, players
just called it 'mhan' by the word's literal meaning. No questions
asked. The same has been in Canada by my experience. Just play the
rules and never mind the meaning.
> The point is that the cards derived from cards that *were* money based.
>
That is what I am not convinced. I disagree with the so-called
derivation form 4 suits to 3 suits and enlarged in number. I argue
that amhjong is a different enough game to be an 'invented' entity
although with common reference to Taiji as MaTiao or other old games.
Mahjong has the 2-3-3 unique pattern no other game had.
> I don't know why you find this idea [money base] so offensive. [..]
The money-base concept is contrary to the 'invention' hypothesis.
There is no money base in mahjong. the CIRCLE as I explained in
another post is a symbol for endless cyclical changes of "ten-thousand-
things". Mahjong introduced new symbols unlike any older games, but
they were branded with familiar names. I gave a parallel situation as
in the case of the modern computer mouse and a house mouse. Obviously
Cash is not cash just as Mouse is not mouse.
+++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > On Dec 3, 11:16 am, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ma Diao is the Late Ming game translated by Lo.
> > How does Ma Diao relate with Ma Tiao then?
>
> As I've explained before, Ma Tiao is the Chinese word Ma Diao in a
> different romanization scheme. Pinyin writes t-, d-, p-, b-, k-, g-
> where Wade-Giles writes t'-, t-, p'-, p-, k'-, g' .
>
there somewhere I can read on the net?
> > I checked a dictionary and counted 22 Chinese words under 'ma'. I am
> > sure there are more than 2 confusing possibilities.
>
> Chinese is remarkable for its rich homonymy. However, you should
> remember that not all words that are homonymous now, were homonymous a
> few hundred years ago. Your own language, Cantonese, has preserved
> many distinctions that are lost in Mandarin. And because of the
> homonymy, spoken Chinese has moved to a state where words are usually
> polysyllabic, while written literary Chinese sticks mostly to one
> syllable per word, probably reflecting the spoken language of two
> thousand years ago.
>
Chinese words polysyllabic? I can not think of one, Julian. What would
be an example?
I know scientific terms require multi-syllables. A transformer for
electricity for example is polysyllabic. It's literally "change-
pressure-device" which can step up or step down an electric pressure
(voltage). There was no such thing in Chinese as a transformer, an
invention from the Western world; therefore there was no single
Chinese word existed for it. A meaningful practical way was to
describe the item by it's name.
But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
> > You are talking about suo and tiao? Unbelievable because they are so
> > different. One is from thread or string and the other is from wood
> > (radicals).
> > The same applies to bing and tong. Bing is edible food stuff while
> > tong is a tube made of bamboo. Yet incredibly, they are both names
> > for the same symbol.
>
> What's incredible about this? In the 1920s, English and American
> mah-jong players came up with numerous different slang terms for the
> various suits. Are Chinese players less inventive?
>
English and American players had to be inventive because at the early
days of mahjong, their knowledge of the game was (I imagine) rather
limited. Out of necessity they were inventive and screwed up the game.
Whereas Chinese players followed tradition of centuries and they could
always ask elders to find out what was what. They had no need to
invent but just blindly follow with no questions asked.
> > for a healthy textile industry. It would take a few men to handle a
> > roll of that size if that was metal copper Cash. String of Cash that
> > was not.
>
> You seem to think that money must be easy to handle. It *does* take
> some effort to handle large amounts of cash if all you have is coins.
> (Even today, a thousand British 10p pieces (i.e. £100) would weigh ten
> kilos.) And China is notable for having had some very large "coins"!
> (The knife money and spade money, for example.)
>
I assume you have seen the Prunner 360/ xx. The size of those rolls of
"coins" (if they were coins) was out of proportion. Those did not look
like "strings of cash". And if they were Cash, it would have been more
a hundred cash in each roll and takes at least 2 men to carry one roll
to anywhere. Going by that reference set of cards, I would say the
"string of cash" look more like bolts of threads for the weaving
machine.
I know the coin that was supposed to be the base unit of reference. It
was a copper coin less than an inch in diameter and worth one-tenth of
one cent. It had a square hole at the middle or center. I carried a
string of 9 coins for good luck and longevity when I left China. It
seemed to have worked.
> > You question is confusing me now. I don't know what there is to
> > explain. When I say bing, you can't be sure if I meant bing1, bing2 or
> > bing3. Is that confusing?
>
> If you *say* bing, then we will hear whether you are *say*ing bing1,
> bing2, or bing3 (assuming that you know how to speak Mandarin and we
> know how to hear it). If you *write* bing in Chinese, we will see what
> you mean. It's only if you *write* "bing" in the lazy romanization
> that omits tones, that we will not know which you meant.
> (Of course, if you *say* bing1 on its own, we don't know whether you
> mean "ice" or "soldier", but we can probably work it out from
> context!)
>
You seem to know the language well, Julian.
In real life situations, however, people speak with dialectic
variations so xyz1 could sound like xyz 2 or xyz3. It could get a bit
more tricky.
> Your point about homonymy is quite valid, but you're weakening it by
> using examples that aren't homonyms in Chinese. Rather than talking
> about all the possible meanings of ma (meaning ma1, ma2, ma3, and ma4
> all put together), just talk about all the meanings of ma1.
>
This is a good lesson for me to learn. I appreciate your advice.
I did not know of the Principle of Simplicity until now.
> Confusion between non-homonymous words is also possible, of course,
> but you just have to talk about it correctly in terms of similar
> sounding words.
>
I see the point, like ma = horse or = hemp or = pair / twins.
> > To make it interesting, who is to say that mahjong did not have its
> > own symbols (and lost names based on I-Ching) before the other card
> > games. We don't know.
>
> The whole point of this discussion is, who is to say that it *did*
> have its own symbols? That's what we want you to provide some good
> arguments for. Otherwise Occam's Razor tells us to assume that the
> symbols were taken from existing games.
Very good...I for one who says mahjong * did * have its own symbols. I
will try to provide circumstantial evidence, cross references and
intellectual concepts to that. Any suggestions or directions you can
give?
++++++++++
Cheers.....al
Julian Bradfield
> I need a lesson on Wade-Giles and Unicode. I never had to use them. Is
> there somewhere I can read on the net?
Yes. Google is your friend.
> Chinese words polysyllabic? I can not think of one, Julian. What would
> be an example?
To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
Chinese dictionary:
骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
> But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
are polysyllabic.
> In real life situations, however, people speak with dialectic
> variations so xyz1 could sound like xyz 2 or xyz3. It could get a bit
> more tricky.
It can. Also in English. There are American dialects in which Mary,
marry and merry all sound the same, so "Will merry Mary marry?" might
be understood as "Will Mary marry Merry?" !
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > I need a lesson on Wade-Giles and Unicode. I never had to use them. Is
> > there somewhere I can read on the net?
>
> Yes. Google is your friend.
>
> > Chinese words polysyllabic? I can not think of one, Julian. What would
> > be an example?
>
> To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
> Chinese dictionary:
>
> 骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> 粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
> 豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
> 娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
>
Ah, I see what you were saying. Each one of the items you gave here
consists of two Chinese words and each Chinese word is monosyllabic.
娩年 for example has 2 words. 娩 is one word and 年 is another word. Each
word has one sound (although may be many tones).
One word in English may need more than one word in Chinese to describe
because in that case the term 'transformer' is 'change-pressure-
device' hyphenated to mean one word instead of 3 individual words.
Note that in 'change-pressure-device' , 'change is a word on its own,
so is 'pressure' and 'device'.
I looked at polysyllabics as phrases. But I see why you regard them
differently.
> > But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
>
> The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
> are polysyllabic.
>
To me, polysyllabic 'words' are multi-worded 'words'.
> > In real life situations, however, people speak with dialectic
> > variations so xyz1 could sound like xyz 2 or xyz3. It could get a bit
> > more tricky.
>
> It can. Also in English. There are American dialects in which Mary,
> marry and merry all sound the same, so "Will merry Mary marry?" might
> be understood as "Will Mary marry Merry?" !
Good one...but even some people with lazy lips can make other pause to
figure what they say. Lazy hands leaving out hyphens can make writing
ambiguous too.
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> >> > silver 'cakes'?
> But I do take it to be an explanation of how the bing (with metal radical)
> came into existence: the food word was applied, and then written
> differently when applied to metal.
Yes. The index of Peng Xinwei's 'A Monetary History of China' uses the
term bing3 'cake' (food), to refer to 'cake' of silver or gold.
However, from Peng's discussion, this appears to be related to the
'cake' shape. In his discussion he talks about the ingot shape and the
'cake' shape - as well as other shapes. Thus, silver was cast into a
'cake' shape and then it was sometimes called 'cake-metal',
"...following the pattern of 'ingot-silver".
al
> > On Dec 3, 11:36 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > In Li Ruzhen (1763 ~ 1830) "Jing Hua Yuan" in which the three suits
> > > were called suo3, bing3 and wan.
>
> > Again. Bing3 is not CASH. �That is cookie or cake.
>
> Yes. I was not sure to what term and translation your were referring
> to.
>
> > whom.
>
> With reference to ma que, in its earliest incarnation, I would have to
> say Himly. His 1870's observations and research were written up in
> German in 1889. I can give the reference if requested. He names the
> terms for the three suits as suo3, tong2 and wan. He compares the
> difference of these names with suo3, bing3 and wan as found in the 3
> money suits of playing cards. He says that instead of bing3 we have
> tong2 but that tong2 refers to the same thing as bing3 (cakes).
>
CASH for the circle suit was originated from some one other than
Chinese.
> In a later paper (1901) he expands on his earlier comments regarding
> tong2....
>
> tong2 = similar, together with, same.
>
> Himly says it is an abbreviation of tong2 = copper, that would be a
> 'slang' for tong qian or copper money = cash. Hence bing3 ~ cash.
>
Tong as I said earlier in my posts has a bamboo radical not jin or
metal alloy
David Li had it as bamboo containers.
This is another 'word-of-mouth' mis-communication example from slangs.
> He also comments that there was, in the 1870's, in Fukien and Hunan
> the tradition of casting silver into 'cakes' (bing3 'cakes' as in
> food) and this term is a relic of bing3 = metal 'cake', with the
> radical jin = money or alloy, hence metal cake or money cake).
It seemed Himly had tried very hard to bring in the money for
justifying his term for "Cash". The existence (assumed) of silver cake
did not imply its use in card game symbols readily. If money coin was
in copper, silver or gold, the terms would follow a pattern as huong
tian, nghan tian and ghim tian where tian is cash-coin in my dialect).
The notion "cake" just does not fit.
++++++++++
Cheers......al
al
Michael, I think assigning 'cake' to the round symbol is a stretch.
For one thing you are going deep into Chinese monetary history in
order to trace a tiny thread of "evidence". Common practice in naming
a popular game symbol is picking a common everyday item which
everybody knew. Silver cake was unlikely a common everyday item. It's
just my socio-psychological observation.
For another thing, a cake refers to something much bigger than a
cookie. The symbols on a tong from 5 to 9 give an impression of
smaller cookie-like object.
++++++++++
Cheers....al
Tom Sloper
"al" <al...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>>> I need a lesson on Wade-Giles and Unicode. I never had to use them. Is
>>> there somewhere I can read on the net?
>>
>> Yes. Google is your friend.
>>
>One more step: where exactly?
All you have to do is input the key words "wade-giles" and "unicode chinese"
mstanwick
> Tong as I said earlier in my posts has a bamboo radical not jin or
> metal alloy
> David Li had it as bamboo containers.
> This is another 'word-of-mouth' mis-communication example from slangs.
But I do not think it can be stated with certainty that tong with the
bamboo radical was used as slang involving mis-communication. For
example the abstracted strings of cash may have been taken for bamboo
rods by some local or regional intepretations and hence the tong =
bamboo tubes was used. So it might have resulted from a
reinterpretation of the representation used for the suit.
Himly's relatively early report observes tong2, which he says is an
abbreviation for tong2 'copper'. He does not report tong with a
'bamboo' radical nor does he report tong with a 'metal' radical. In my
opinon he relates tong2 ( = similar, together with, same) with cash
since he has placed the three suits of ma que as the three suits of
the money suited card games that were the subject of his papers. One
of the suits has bing3 'cakes' which he equates with cash. Tong2
(copper) was the alternative name for that suit and tong2 (same,
simialr etc0 was its abbreviated form.
> It seemed Himly had tried very hard to bring in the money for
> justifying his term for "Cash".
I am pleased you appreciate his diligence in researching and producing
an explanation for the term bing3 in the playing cards he was
analysing.
> The existence (assumed) of silver cake
> did not imply its use in card game symbols readily.
No one is suggesting otherwise.
> If money coin was
> in copper, silver or gold, the terms �would follow a pattern as huong
> tian, nghan tian and ghim tian ...
According to your unsupported expectation (since you used the phrase
"would follow").
> The notion "cake" just does not fit.
You have not demonstrated that.
mstanwick
> Common practice in naming
> a popular game symbol is picking a common everyday item which
> everybody knew. Silver cake was unlikely a common everyday item. It's
> just my socio-psychological observation.
> For another thing, a cake refers to something much bigger than a
> cookie. The symbols on a tong from 5 to 9 give an impression of
> smaller cookie-like object.
Thank you for your 'impressions'.
Bing3 was used as a suit term in money suited cards very early in
Chinese playing card history. Since those suits reflected a money
context, it is, and was, right and proper to seek out whether the
bing3 (cake) term has any basis with money (this is the prediction).
If no connection of any kind could be found, then the money connection
for that term would be in serious doubt.
Julian Bradfield
>> To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
>> Chinese dictionary:
>>
>> 骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
>> 粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
>> 豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
>> 娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
>>
> Ah, I see what you were saying. Each one of the items you gave here
> consists of two Chinese words and each Chinese word is monosyllabic.
> 娩年 for example has 2 words. 娩 is one word and 年 is another word. Each
> word has one sound (although may be many tones).
The standard use of "word" doesn't agree with your use. Linguists
and language teachers, both in China and outside China, agree that
these constructs are words in the modern language. In Chinese terms,
each of them is one 词, made up of two 字. Most of these modern words
have been made by combining two related old words - but it's not always the
case that the modern word has an obvious connection with the old words
that make it up (for example, 蒙蒙 meng2meng2 "drizzle" is rather
tenously connected with 蒙, though there is a connection I suppose:
drizzle covers one in water!).
I think the reason they're viewed as words is that they move about in
sentences as units, but I'd have to know more about Chinese to know
the full arguments.
> To me, polysyllabic 'words' are multi-worded 'words'.
It's just a change in terminology, perhaps.
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
I read what is in Wikipedia. It is NOT so simple!
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
> >> Chinese dictionary:
>
> >> 骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> >> 粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
> >> 豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
> >> 娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
>
> > Ah, I see what you were saying. Each one of the items you gave here
> > consists of two Chinese words and each Chinese word is monosyllabic.
> > 娩年 for example has 2 words. 娩 is one word and 年 is another word. Each
> > word has one sound (although may be many tones).
>
> The standard use of "word" doesn't agree with your use. Linguists
> and language teachers, both in China and outside China, agree that
> these constructs are words in the modern language. In Chinese terms,
> each of them is one 词, made up of two 字. Most of these modern words
> have been made by combining two related old words - but it's not always the
> case that the modern word has an obvious connection with the old words
> that make it up (for example, 蒙蒙 meng2meng2 "drizzle" is rather
> tenously connected with 蒙, though there is a connection I suppose:
> drizzle covers one in water!).
>
one 词, this mean a phrase'; two 字, this means two words.
A 词 is polysyllabic (because a phrase has two or more words), but a 字
is mono. That's my understanding.
I don't know what language teachers do these days. A word has a
meaning on it's own. A syllable is part of a word, like 'syllable' is
a word, syl la ble are 3 syllables. In this case none of the
syllables has any meaning by itself.
> I think the reason they're viewed as words is that they move about in
> sentences as units, but I'd have to know more about Chinese to know
> the full arguments.
>
I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think meaningfulness
is more of a criterion rather than movement that differentiate a word
from a syllable.
> > To me, polysyllabic 'words' are multi-worded 'words'.
>
> It's just a change in terminology, perhaps.
Interesting....
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Dec 5, 2:08�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Tong as I said earlier in my posts has a bamboo radical not jin or
> > metal alloy
> > David Li had it as bamboo containers.
> > This is another 'word-of-mouth' mis-communication example from slangs.
>
> But I do not think it can be stated with certainty that tong with the
> bamboo radical was used as slang involving mis-communication. For
> example the abstracted strings of cash may have been taken for bamboo
> rods by some local or regional intepretations and hence the tong =
> bamboo tubes was used. So it might have resulted from a
> reinterpretation of the representation used for the suit.
You are quite right, Michael. So far what is there for certain?
By the way, I seem to recall reading tarot cards were the earliest. Is
that for sure?
>
> Himly's relatively early report observes tong2, which he says is an
> abbreviation for tong2 'copper'. He does not report tong with a
> 'bamboo' radical nor does he report tong with a 'metal' radical. In my
That was most likely taken by its sound; but then there were more than
one thing that sounds close to it. We never know which is the right
one, because we cannot relate to a reference like a theme or central
idea of the game.
> [In my] opinon he relates tong2 ( = similar, together with, same) with cash
> since he has placed the three suits of ma que as the three suits of
> the money suited card games that were the subject of his papers. One
> of the suits has bing3 'cakes' which he equates with cash. Tong2
> (copper) was the alternative name for that suit and tong2 (same,
> simialr etc0 was its abbreviated form.
>
This goes back to my estimation or contention that old card symbols
were arbitrarily transferred to ma que mostly by the old Chinese who
might not have had any clues about the new symbols and partly by
translators who didn't know much better.
> > It seemed Himly had tried very hard to bring in the money for
> > justifying his term for "Cash".
>
> I am pleased you appreciate his diligence in researching and producing
> an explanation for the term bing3 in the playing cards he was
> analysing.
>
Amazing good work when you compared what had been done by the Chinese
themselves up to that time.
As I mentioned before, research into game history was not a gainful
employment nor a noble career. Book writing on games would lead an
author to starvation. Respectable scholars go for government exams and
civil service jobs or just relax in poetry and the arts if their
family could afford it..
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> >[//]
>
> > The notion "cake" just does not fit.
>
> You have not demonstrated that.
I don't know how to explain, Michael. A "cake" is a sizable item of
food stuff. How can it get mixed up with a deck of playing cards?
One time, cash was referred to as one-tenth of a cent or one-
thousandth of a dollar. Now the silver-cake is substituted in its
place in the name of Cash.
How does that fit? I don't know.
+++++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Dec 5, 4:22�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [..]
> Bing3 was used as a suit term in money suited cards very early in
> Chinese playing card history. Since those suits reflected a money
> context, it is, and was, right and proper to seek out whether the
> bing3 (cake) term has any basis with money (this is the prediction).
> If no connection of any kind could be found, then the money connection
> for that term would be in serious doubt.
The same reasoning can apply to tong (the container). There had been
"ten thousand" and more uses for bamboo. Neither one can claim to be
the right symbol (again, no frame of reference).
+++++++++++
Cheers.....al
Julian Bradfield
> As you said, "each of them is one 词, made up of two 字."
>
> one 词, this mean a phrase'; two 字, this means two words.
> A 词 is polysyllabic (because a phrase has two or more words), but a 字
> is mono. That's my understanding.
The standard terminology these days is that one 词 is a word, made up
of two 字, which are characters (or morphemes, linguistically).
> I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think meaningfulness
> is more of a criterion rather than movement that differentiate a word
> from a syllable.
That's not how the notion of word is usually defined. "Words" are
defined as syntactic entities, not minimum semantic units.
Chinese is notable because all its syllables have a meaning, or more
often several meanings, by themselves, and therefore every word (in my
sense) can be understood as a sequence of meanings - and most of the
native words do somehow relate to the meanings of their
components. (Obviously, things like the Sinicized versions of foreign
names don't - they're usually just a sequence of syllables that sounds
roughly like the foreign name, regardless of meaning.)
However, other languages also have words composed from semantic
units. If you look at all the English words I've written so far, the
following are all decomposable into parts (morphemes) which have a
meaning, though not all the parts can stand on their own:
termin-ology, morph-emes, linguist-ic-al-ly, usual-ly, not-able,
mean-ing, re-late, com-pon-ents, and so on.
Some of the words are, on the other hand, compounds of two full words,
but they have a specific meaning that is related to, but narrower
than, the combination of the meanings of the part. Examples from my
text above are:
them-selves, there-fore, under-stood, some-how.
Other examples are blackbird, shotgun, playing-card.
Chinese differs in that many more of its words fall into the second
category (technically, combinations of free morphemes) than into the
first category (one free morpheme combined with bound morphemes).
But there's no more reason to deny that "了解" is a word than to deny
that "understand" is a word.
Anyway, this is well off-topic; I ask the group's indulgence, as I
suppose all of us would like to understand more about Chinese in order
to appreciate the original materials and arguments about language
change as related to mah-jong.
mstanwick
> > Bing3 was used as a suit term in money suited cards very early in
> > Chinese playing card history. Since those suits reflected a money
> > context, it is, and was, right and proper to seek out whether the
> > bing3 (cake) term has any basis with money (this is the prediction).
> > If no connection of any kind could be found, then the money connection
> > for that term would be in serious doubt.
>
> The same reasoning can apply to tong (the container).
> There had been
> "ten thousand" and more uses for bamboo. Neither one can claim to be
> the right symbol (again, no frame of reference).
Please explain what you mean.
mstanwick
> > But I do not think it can be stated with certainty that tong with the
> > bamboo radical was used as slang involving mis-communication.
> You are quite right, Michael. So far what is there for certain?
Describe what you mean by 'certain'.
> By the way, I seem to recall reading tarot cards were the earliest. Is
> that for sure?
I don't know.
>
>
>
> > Himly's relatively early report observes tong2, which he says is an
> > abbreviation for tong2 'copper'. He does not report tong with a
> > 'bamboo' radical nor does he report tong with a 'metal' radical. In my
>
> That was most likely taken by its sound;
No. It was inscribed on one of the ma que tiles as 'tong hua'. Himly
is very thorough in his reporting. he gives the two characters for
'tong hu' and even gives the colours they were painted in. The others
were 'suo hua' and 'wan hua'.
> but then there were more than
> one thing that sounds close to it. We never know which is the right
> one, because we cannot relate to a reference like a theme or central
> idea of the game.
Yes we do. Otherwise why would I claim it? My statements are
supported, where necessary, by evidence. In other circumstances I use
words that denote uncertainty or a degree of probability, where
necessary.
> This goes back to my estimation or contention that old card symbols
> were arbitrarily transferred to ma que mostly by the old Chinese who
> might not have had any clues about the new symbols and partly by
> translators who didn't know much better.
This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
> I don't know how to explain, Michael. A "cake" is a sizable item of
> food stuff. How can it get mixed up with a deck of playing cards?
Already explained in recent past posts.
> One time, cash was referred to as one-tenth of a cent or one-
> thousandth of a dollar. Now the silver-cake is substituted in its
> place in the name of Cash.
Please reread recent past posts.
al
Julian, although this is my first lesson in Chinese linguistics, and
it is not that simple, but I understand what you are talking about.
Furthermore I agree with the changes. In Latin, there are root words.
In Chines there are the equivalents. The word morpheme is new to me,
but I can appreciate how it can be part of many many word and
sometimes a word in itself. Interesting...I am behind time!
See if I understand properly. We used to have radicals; now we have
radicals and morphemes. How about the word 'complete'? It has a a
radical 'man' (yan) as its top part and 'king' (wong) below that. Each
of the parts can be a morpheme, as man and king (yan and wong) can
join with other radicals and morphemes to make other words. Is that
what morpheme means?
++++++++++
Cheers......al
Julian Bradfield
> See if I understand properly. We used to have radicals; now we have
> radicals and morphemes. How about the word 'complete'? It has a a
> radical 'man' (yan) as its top part and 'king' (wong) below that. Each
> of the parts can be a morpheme, as man and king (yan and wong) can
> join with other radicals and morphemes to make other words. Is that
> what morpheme means?
Linguists deal with the spoken language, so for them the word you're
referring to is just the sound quan2 (in Mandarin), and is a single
morpheme.
However, you're right in seeing an analogy between words and
morphemes, on the one hand, and characters and radicals on the other.
Characters are made by combining components, and some of these
components can stand by themselves, whereas others are only ever seen
in combination with something else. However, in writing characters,
some of the components carry meaning, some carry pronunciation
information, and some carry neither; in the analysis of spoken
language, a morpheme is something which carries some meaning
(grammatical or semantic), and has a pronunciation.
Almost certainly some linguist or other has called the parts of a
Chinese character XXXemes, but I don't know what XXX is!
Tom Sloper
>I seem to recall reading tarot cards were the earliest. Is
>that for sure?
Tarot cards were not the first type of playing cards. You can read about
tarot's predecessor games in
- David Parlett's book "A History of Card Games" and in
- my own book and in
- FAQ 11h and in
- the journal of the International Playing-Card Society and in
- "Asian Games: The Art of Contest"
If you're going to engage in a debate about matters of historical origins,
you have to make a serious effort to educate yourself on the topic under
debate.
Chinese money-suited cards are older than tarot, and Persian mamluk cards
are as well. As far as I know, it has not yet been established which of
those is the earliest form of playing cards, having led to the other. I tend
to think the Chinese cards were the first, but I'm not prepared to debate
that notion with anyone.
Tom Sloper
al
Good enough for now...
It has been an eye-opener for me. Thanks.
+++++++
Cheers....al
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
Well, i got to tell you. I had your book along with Millington's and
two others in my cart at Amazon. But when it came to pay for the
purchase, it was taking through so many hoops and loops, I gave it up.
May be that was where I read a brief mention of tarot cards in your
FAQ 11h. I will visit it again.
Thanks.
++++++++
Cheers.....al
Edwin Phua
> > Chinese words polysyllabic? I can not think of one, Julian. What would
> > be an example?
>
> To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
> Chinese dictionary:
>
> 骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> 粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
> 豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
> 娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
>
> > But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
>
> The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
> are polysyllabic.
From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at 字
zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books
on Chinese linguistics is 蝴蝶 (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While 蝶
can be used independently to signify butterfly, 蝴 is never used
independently (from what I know).
Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
Traditionally, it has been 和 (he2), but in more modern times, there
are two other major ways of writing this: 胡 (hu2; other meaning is
reckless, foolish); and 湖 (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
for the suit in mahjong: 同; 铜 (both tong2 in Mandarin); amd 筒 (tong3
in Mandarin).
Additionally, I am most curious about Al's actual dialect/regional
language (方言). His romanisation of terms (for example, mhan, nghan,
huong, ghim) does not seem standardised, and I had a hard time trying
to figure out the possible pronunciation.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
al
> On Dec 6, 2:26 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > But I do not think it can be stated with certainty that tong with the
> > > bamboo radical was used as slang involving mis-communication.
> > You are quite right, Michael. So far what is there for certain?
>
> Describe what you mean by 'certain'.
>
[..]
>
> > > Himly's relatively early report observes tong2, which he says is an
> > > abbreviation for tong2 'copper'. He does not report tong with a
> > > 'bamboo' radical nor does he report tong with a 'metal' radical. In my
>
> > That was most likely taken by its sound;
>
> No. It was inscribed on one of the ma que tiles as 'tong hua'. Himly
> is very thorough in his reporting. he gives the two characters for
> 'tong hu' and even gives the colours they were painted in. The others
> were 'suo hua' and 'wan hua'.
>
gives the phonic feature to the word as well as the meaning.
'Tong hua' is (I think we discussed it before) was a wild-card for
that suit. 'hua' is not flower, but it means 'changeable' (the word,
flower, without the radical '++' on top).
> > but then there were more than
> > one thing that sounds close to it. We never know which is the right
> > one, because we cannot relate to a reference like a theme or central
> > idea of the game.
>
> Yes we do. Otherwise why would I claim it? My statements are
> supported, where necessary, by evidence. In other circumstances I use
> words that denote uncertainty or a degree of probability, where
> necessary.
>
Tong means one thing to you and Himly. I have heard it meant something
else to David Li (author). I have seen and read in Chinese book on
mahjong that has the term as a 'tube'.
You can claim you are right because you believed Himly was right. I
would say Himly got it from the people who might not have had the
correct name in the first place. That is why the uncertainty is always
there. So I thought.
> > This goes back to my estimation or contention that old card symbols
> > were arbitrarily transferred to ma que mostly by the old Chinese who
> > might not have had any clues about the new symbols and partly by
> > translators who didn't know much better.
>
> This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
> with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
>
It's human nature. Parallel situations are common.
> > [..]
> [..]
++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Dec 5, 5:21 pm, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > [..]
>
> > 骄惯 jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> > 粗略 cu1lue4 "superficial"
> > 豌豆 wan1dou4 "pea"
> > 娩年 wan3nian2 "old age"
>
> > > But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
>
> > The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
> > are polysyllabic.
>
> From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
> more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at 字
> zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books
字 (zi4) has no semantic meaning? What do you mean, Edwin?
> [The example I always see in books] on Chinese linguistics is 蝴蝶 (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While 蝶
> can be used independently to signify butterfly, 蝴 is never used
> independently (from what I know).
>
I was curious. I looked up 蝴 in my dictionary. It says 蝴 = 蝴 蝶. Then I
tried to find 蝶. It is not there. How strange?
I can see why 蝶 can be used by itself, because it tells me it's an
insect like a leaf. The meaning of 蝴 is unclear other than it's insect
related.
> Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> Traditionally, it has been 和 (he2), but in more modern times, there
> are two other major ways of writing this: 胡 (hu2; other meaning is
> reckless, foolish); and 湖 (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> for the suit in mahjong: 同; 铜 (both tong2 in Mandarin); amd 筒 (tong3
> in Mandarin).
>
Well, It's about time some one gets to appreciate the skepticism about
the naming of all the symbols in mahjong.
Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
of reference.
> Additionally, I am most curious about Al's actual dialect/regional
> language (方言). His romanisation of terms (for example, mhan, nghan,
> huong, ghim) does not seem standardised, and I had a hard time trying
> to figure out the possible pronunciation.
>
I am from Huoy Suun (I don't know how to indicate tone), very south of
Gongtong. I call mahjong as "mha deck". There is my accent. And as you
know, there are many accents in china. That is why I have doubts now
about every game name including Sparrow.
++++++++
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
++++++
heers......al
Edwin Phua
> On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
> > more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at 字
> > zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books
>
> 字 (zi4) has no semantic meaning? What do you mean, Edwin?
>
> > [The example I always see in books] on Chinese linguistics is 蝴蝶 (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While 蝶
> > can be used independently to signify butterfly, 蝴 is never used
> > independently (from what I know).
>
> I was curious. I looked up 蝴 in my dictionary. It says 蝴 = 蝴 蝶. Then I
> tried to find 蝶. It is not there. How strange?
> I can see why 蝶 can be used by itself, because it tells me it's an
> insect like a leaf. The meaning of 蝴 is unclear other than it's insect
> related.
Ah, that is my fault. I made an error composing the sentence earlier.
It should read:"... look at zi4 *that* has no semantic *value*. 字 zi4
are the individual characters we are familiar with, and most of the
time, in all Chinese languages, each character has the equivalence of
a word, i.e. each zi4 has some meaning. However, a lot of new words
are created by compounding them, putting two zi4 together to form a 词
ci2. There have already been some examples given. However, there are
some zi4 that have no meaning at all on their own, and are always
bound to other zi4 to form meaningful ci2.
I am not sure what dictionary you use, Al, but most 词典 ci2dian3 should
have entries on characters (since this is primarily the way to search)
but actual ci2 are sorted according to the head zi4. Hence, you will
find 蝴蝶 hu2die3 and its meaning under the character 蝴 hu2, and not
under 蝶 die2. However, under the 蝶 die2 entry, the meaning (i.e.
butterfly) of the single character will/may be given, but not under 蝴
hu2, since this character has no semantic value. This may depend on
the dictionary, some are better than others.
Apologies for furthering the digression.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
who is not a Chinese language expert
mstanwick
> > > > So far what is there for certain?
> > Describe what you mean by 'certain'.
> "Certain" means 'for sure', 'no doubt', 'fixed' etc.
Then you know already. Certainty does not necessarily entail accuracy.
Therefore, we are after the best hypotheses or explanations, to
systematise and unify our disparate knowledge of a subject.
Not being certain is a major plus, since it means that any explanation
has an in-built capability of being modified or abandoned. Correcting
explaantions as new evidence comes along means that they may become
more accurate and more powerful at unifying our knowledge.
> Copper automatically has the radical (metal) attached; the 'tong' part
> gives the phonic feature to the word as well as the meaning.
My Chinese research colleague has commented to me some time ago that
Bing3 appears on old playing cards without the (food) radical. The
'radicalless' bing3 was and is used to denote the 'radicalled' bing3
'cake'. Similarly, he also informed me that it is not strange to find
'hua' without its radical. But the original hua did have the meaning
'flower'. It just so happens that the 'radicalless' hua serves to
denote the tile's function.
Similarly with Tong.
> 'Tong hua' is (I think we discussed it before) was a wild-card for
> that suit. 'hua' is not flower, but it means 'changeable' (the word,
> flower, without the radical '++' on top).
That is correct.
> Tong means one thing to you and Himly. I have heard it meant something
> else to David Li (author). I have seen and read in Chinese book on
> mahjong that has the term as a 'tube'.
Both are correct.
> You can claim you are right because you believed Himly was right.
Himly offers an analysis in which maque is placed within the context
of money suited playing cards. Stop using the word 'belief' when
referring to my ideas. I have asked you before.
> I would say Himly got it from the people who might not have had the
> correct name in the first place. That is why the uncertainty is always
> there. So I thought.
You need evidence to back up the 1st claim. But the 2nd is correct.
> > This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
> > with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
>
> It's human nature. Parallel situations are common.
Please give an example that is related to the thread.
mstanwick
> On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> > correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> > Traditionally, it has been 和 (he2), but in more modern times, there
> > are two other major ways of writing this: 胡 (hu2; other meaning is
> > reckless, foolish); and 湖 (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> > can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> > for the suit in mahjong: 同; 铜 (both tong2 in Mandarin); and 筒 (tong3
> > in Mandarin).
I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
their use?
The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
dispute. Can you enlighten me?
Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
context.
> Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> of reference.
Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.
There is good evidence that ma que is firmly in the playing card camp.
Further, there are good reasons it is in the money suited playing card
camp. Within that context the early terms used for the suits can be
explained with reference to that context.
al
> On Dec 6, 7:30�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>[.]
> Not being certain is a major plus, since it means that any explanation
> has an in-built capability of being modified or abandoned. Correcting
> explaantions as new evidence comes along means that they may become
> more accurate and more powerful at unifying our knowledge.
>
and Galileo ??
> > Copper automatically has the radical (metal) attached; the 'tong' part
> > gives the phonic feature to the word as well as the meaning.
>
> My Chinese research colleague has commented to me some time ago that
> Bing3 appears on old playing cards without the (food) radical. The
> 'radicalless' bing3 was and is used to denote the 'radicalled' bing3
> 'cake'. Similarly, he also informed me that it is not strange to find
> 'hua' without its radical. But the original hua did have the meaning
> 'flower'. It just so happens that the 'radicalless' hua serves to
> denote the tile's function.
>
The very fact that different versions existed proved that neither or
none of the variants had sufficient validity to be reliable.
Rationalization aside, bing normally refers to a small item cookie-
like in spoken or written Chinese. The largest beng (in my dialect) is
the moon-cake (like the cakes for the August Moon festival). I m not
sure what size of cakes you have in mind. (How many Chinese peasants
had seen a silver cake do you think? Also who do you think was the guy
who named it a silver cake/)
BTW, as far as I know, Chinese did not have birthday cakes in
celebrations for birthdays . For older people, they have a banquet if
they can afford it. Children seldom knew their birth-day. It was
believed to be bad luck for them to be aware of their age. I remember
I used to get a chicken drum-stick or a boiled egg on rare occasions.
I learned that it was my birthday treat much later when I became a
teen-ager.
As for the question of "flower or no-flower", a deciding factor is in
the way that card was used in game play and the rules for its use.
> Similarly with Tong.
>
> > 'Tong hua' is (I think we discussed it before) was a wild-card for
> > that suit. 'hua' is not flower, but it means 'changeable' (the word,
> > flower, without the radical '++' on top).
>
> That is correct.
>
> > Tong means one thing to you and Himly. I have heard it meant something
> > else to David Li (author). I have seen and read in Chinese book on
> > mahjong that has the term as a 'tube'.
>
> Both are correct.
>
> > You can claim you are right because you believed Himly was right.
>
> Himly offers an analysis in which maque is placed within the context
> of money suited playing cards. Stop using the word 'belief' when
> referring to my ideas. I have asked you before.
>
> > I would say Himly got it from the people who might not have had the
> > correct name in the first place. That is why the uncertainty is always
> > there. So I thought.
>
> You need evidence to back up the 1st claim. But the 2nd is correct.
>
My rebuttal is Himly needs evidence to convince me. His analysis was
based on hearsay, since no written first-hand reference was used
because first-hand data was unavailable in books. ( And I don't mean
novels).
> > > This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
> > > with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
>
> > It's human nature. Parallel situations are common.
>
> Please give an example that is related to the thread.
But I have repeated a modern day example many times, Michael. Let me
say it again: a computer mouse is NOT a house mouse. For lack of a new
name for an unfamiliar object, a common familiar name was given by its
appearance. Any extrapolation or extension from the pseudo-name is
erroneous projection (as in the case of Cash, String of Cash and
Myriad of Cash).
Michael, since there has been so much variant versions of symbol names
and symbol drawings, they alone will never be sufficient evidence to
demonstrate how mahjong originates. The "money-card" hypothesis is
based on one suit-name. In view of the contamination from dialectic-
hearsay and tampering from artistic and personal expressions through
the ages, the answer to mahjong origin lies in its relatively
consistent principles embedded in the rules of play. The symbols must
be relevant in context with the game over-all.
As a common-sense approach to the question, seeing all these Cash-
Money, one would seem to think there is a suggestion that the symbols
relate all to gambling. I assume playing a game for money, money and
money is gambling. But gambling had been often forbidden in the
history of China. Even the printing and issue of cards had to have
royal edict in olden time. How can one justify "Cash, Strings of Cash
and Myriads of Cash"?
The author of Mahjong was a creative genius. The game's symbols
simplified from I-Ching philosophy, yet can be interpreted and called
whatever people chose. they were coherent in context with the I-Ching
principles demonstrable in the rules of play. Best of all, it
indicates and implies no hint of gambling, suitable for scholars of
the day. (Note: The Book of Changes (I-Ching) was exempted from the
Book-Burning in the Chin dynasty). Mahjong is a game with a theme for
all time.
++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Dec 6, 8:42 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > > Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> > > correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> > > Traditionally, it has been 和 (he2), but in more modern times, there
> > > are two other major ways of writing this: 胡 (hu2; other meaning is
> > > reckless, foolish); and 湖 (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> > > can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> > > for the suit in mahjong: 同; 铜 (both tong2 in Mandarin); and 筒 (tong3
> > > in Mandarin).
>
> I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
>
understand what he was saying clearly.
> In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
> correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
> over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
> various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
> However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
> their use?
>
> The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
> this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
> dispute. Can you enlighten me?
>
Let me raise one question for you relating to the confusion of sound
and word (meaning). Is 'diao' dropping or hanging? How about ma? Is it
hemp or horse?
> Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
> do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
> is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
> context.
>
> > Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> > information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> > renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> > of reference.
>
> Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
> renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.
In this above statement, you have implied two points.
(1) the base for Himly's Cash-base hypothesis could be invalid and
unreliable.
(2) mahjong is based on and similar to all Chinese card games (which
constitute its frame of reference)
Point (1) weakens the Cash-base position.
Point (2) has claims that are contrary to factual situation. Symbols
different, formats different, rues different, set-up different,
counting system very different and more... Chinese card games can
hardly be frame of reference for mahjong.
> There is good evidence that ma que is firmly in the playing card camp.
> Further, there are good reasons it is in the money suited playing card
> camp. Within that context the early terms used for the suits can be
> explained with reference to that context.
My simple answer is "no way". My simple refrain is " Cash is no cash;
Mouse is no mouse".
There were strings of fish (not Cash) for an entire suit. There were
nothing but taiji circle diagrams in a whole suit (not Cash). There
were human faces on each card of the Myriad suit (not Cash).
How and why or what is the connection between ma que (mahjong) and the
paper card games? I may guess your answer to be likely : refer to post
xx.
Obviously, we disagree.
++++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> > I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
>
>
> > In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
> > correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
> > over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
> > various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
> > However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
> > their use?
>
> > The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
> > this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
> > dispute. Can you enlighten me?
>
> Let me raise one question for you relating to the confusion of sound
> and word (meaning). Is 'diao' dropping or hanging? How about ma? Is it
> hemp or horse?
You have missed the point of my questions. My questions relate to the
term 'dispute' and it seemingly relying on the idea of 'confusion'. I
want to know what are the claims being made about 'tong' that entail a
'dispute'.
>
> > Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
> > do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
> > is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
> > context.
>
> > > Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> > > information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> > > renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> > > of reference.
>
> > Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
> > renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.
>
> In this above statement, you have implied two points.
> (1) the base for Himly's Cash-base hypothesis could be invalid and
> unreliable.
Wrong again. My statement was saying that you were claiming hearsay
(as in unreliable) actually was the case with Himly's observations, as
were the dialectic variations etc etc. I was pointing out that these
are unsupported claims.
Sure they may have been there at Himly's experiences. Sure, there may
be other possible explanations of that time for his observations, but
if there are, then they better have some support that makes them
strong enough to counter Himly's observations.
> (2) mahjong is based on and similar to all Chinese card games (which
> constitute its frame of reference)
This is a baseless (dare I say willful?) misrepresentation of what I
said. I said Chinese playing cards are the frame of reference.
> Point (1) weakens the Cash-base position.
Wrong. Only actual cases of evidential data that contradict key points
of the explaantion would weaken it. Possible alternative scenarios are
just that - possible. I have explained before about possible and
actual. Possible does not mean actual.
> Point (2) has claims that are contrary to factual situation. Symbols
> different, formats different, rules different, set-up different,
> counting system very different and more... Chinese card games can
> hardly be frame of reference for mahjong.
Superficial objections readily explained with reference to money cards
that had representations of money denominations that were modified
though abstraction etc, dependant on region. Similarly with maque -
three suits, with one suit represetation identical to money cards,
names of two suits identical to money cards and both referring to
denominations of money - see Pan. 3rd suit name explained with few
assumptions as being related to money. Rules slightly different to
peng he - consistent with a new game -play as are scoring etc etc.
Money suited system, four suits, three suits, quadruplication, mo he
pai, peng he pai..... All discussed at length.
> My simple answer is "no way". My simple refrain is " Cash is no cash;
> Mouse is no mouse".
[snip]
> How and why or what is the connection between ma que (mahjong) and the
> paper card games? I may guess your answer to be likely : refer to post
> xx.
Incredible. I am afraid I can do nothing for your bad memory. So I
will not refer you to look at past discussions on this very topic.
> Obviously, we disagree.
I have serious objections to the reasons and evidence that support
your claims.