Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
al
NAQ #1
I read the following in mahjong history and I quote.
"Widely regarded as an important progenitor of mah-jongg is Matiao, or
Ma Diao... Matiao was a trick-taking game for four players, played with
four-suited money cards. Three of the four matiao suits resemble the
three suits of mah-jongg. Coins correspond to Dots; Coin Strings
correspond to Bams; Coin String Myriads correspond to Craks. The
composition of a matiao deck and the gameplay of matiao differ
significantly from the composition of a mah-jongg set and from the
gameplay of mah-jongg. Matiao, clearly, is not mah-jongg." (Sloper FAQ
11 History of Mahjong)
Questions:
- How many cards in a trick for this trick-taking matiao game? Is it 4
cards like in bridge or 3 cards as in mahjong?
- Where can one find drawings or pictures of the 4 suits of real
matiao cards? I have seen a modern version of money cards in
Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
- When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
Since I have not read any answers to the above questions, I assumed
the questions were never asked.
Alan Kwan
I think the passage you quoted answers your question.
Matiao is considered an ancestor of mahjong in the
"suit symbology" department.
In other words, the designs of the suits and the symbols
on the mahjong tiles were probably inherited from matiao.
But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
We assume the relationship because of the semblance
between the two.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
ithinc
> Questions:
> - How many cards in a trick for this trick-taking matiao game? Is it 4
> cards like in bridge or 3 cards as in mahjong?
It is like bridge.
> - Where can one find drawings or pictures of the 4 suits of real
> matiao cards?
In Du Yaquan's 1933 book "Bo shi", there's a drawing of three cards
from a madiao deck.
> I have seen a modern version of money cards in
> Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
> there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
What's the your meaning of "available" here?
> - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
For the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card madiao
deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)
ithinc
al
> Hi al,
>
> I think the passage you quoted answers your question.
> Matiao is considered an ancestor of mahjong in the
> "suit symbology" department.
The passage I quoted raised the questions, I thought.
I have not seen any real Matiao symbols for one thing. The "modern
version" of matiao card set in Sloperama is by far different from
mahjong. How and which symbol connects the two games?
> In other words, the designs of the suits and the symbols
> on the mahjong tiles were probably inherited from matiao.
What gives that assessment of probability? I cannot tell from the
design.
> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
you?
> We assume the relationship because of the semblance
> between the two.
>
That is an interesting statement. I quote again:
> > The composition of a matiao deck and the gameplay of matiao differ
> > significantly from the composition of a mah-jongg set and from the
> > gameplay of mah-jongg.
The semblance is not that much. Would you not agree?
That was the basis for my question.
>
> al wrote:
> > NEVER ASKED QUESTIONS (NAQ)
>
> > NAQ #1
> > I read the following in mahjong history and I quote.
>
> > "Widely regarded as an important progenitor of mah-jongg is Matiao, or
> > Ma Diao... Matiao was a trick-taking game for four players, played with
> > four-suited money cards. Three of the four matiao suits resemble the
> > three suits of mah-jongg. Coins correspond to Dots; Coin Strings
> > correspond to Bams; Coin String Myriads correspond to Craks. The
> > composition of a matiao deck and the gameplay of matiao differ
> > significantly from the composition of a mah-jongg set and from the
> > gameplay of mah-jongg. Matiao, clearly, is not mah-jongg." (Sloper FAQ
> > 11 History of Mahjong)
>
> > Questions:
> > - How many cards in a trick for this trick-taking matiao game? Is it 4
> > cards like in bridge or 3 cards as in mahjong?
>
Mahjong has tricks of 3 crds and Matiao has tricks of 4 cards. That is
a significant difference. Mahjong's 2-3-3-3 or 2-3-3-3-3 patterns are
unique.
> > - Where can one find drawings or pictures of the 4 suits of real
> > matiao cards? I have seen a modern version of money cards in
> > Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
> > there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
>
I looked at Andrew Lo's paper and found no drawings, only a bunch of
rules and terminology full of metaphors.
> > - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> > one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> > is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
>
Here is my key question: when one is hardly resemble the other (in
look and in heart, so to speak), yet one is regarded as an important
progenitor of the other.
Why and wherefore?
> > Since I have not read any answers to the above questions, I assumed
> > the questions were never asked.
>
> --
> "
>
> "
al
> On 10 10 , 5 07 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Questions:
> > - How many cards in a trick for this trick-taking matiao game? Is it 4
> > cards like in bridge or 3 cards as in mahjong?
>
> It is like bridge.
>
Mexican Conquian is not at all like mahjong. Conquian can have from 3
to 8 cards in a run, but not necessarily in the same suit. The need
for a pair is not there either. Furthermore, the symbols in the two
games are entirely different.
> > - Where can one find drawings or pictures of the 4 suits of real
> > matiao cards?
>
> In Du Yaquan's 1933 book "Bo shi", there's a drawing of three cards
> from a madiao deck.
>
Three cards? Are they anything like mahjong cards?
> > I have seen a modern version of money cards in
> > Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
> > there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
>
> What's the your meaning of "available" here?
>
I mean somewhere I can see the real Matiao cards.
> > - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> > one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> > is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
>
> For the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card madiao
> deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)
>
So the multiple of cards is the major development resemblance? The
difference in rules and game-play don't matter, are you saying?
What about Mo Hu Pai? It had 30 cards. It had the suits. It even had
the "kan" for a 3-card run. Did I miss something here?
> ithinc
Tom Sloper
>> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
"al" <al...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
> Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
> you?
While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this, that doesn't mean
we are all happily accepting of not knowing this. Still, though, it wouldn't
do to go around moping because we don't know this.
ithinc
> > In Du Yaquan's 1933 book "Bo shi", there's a drawing of three cards
> > from a madiao deck.
>
> Three cards? Are they anything like mahjong cards?
Yes, three cards. They have no correspondings in the majiang set.
> > > I have seen a modern version of money cards in
> > > Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
> > > there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
>
> > What's the your meaning of "available" here?
>
> I mean somewhere I can see the real Matiao cards.
Maybe you'll never see a real one.
> > > - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> > > one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> > > is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
>
> > For the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card madiao
> > deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)
>
> So the multiple of cards is the major development resemblance?
State your point clearly.
> The
> difference in rules and game-play don't matter, are you saying?
I didn't say so.
> What about Mo Hu Pai? It had 30 cards. It had the suits. It even had
> the "kan" for a 3-card run. Did I miss something here?
Mo Hu Pai was in the period of 60-card decks, according to Jin Xueshi.
ithinc
al
> On 10 11 , 4 31 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > In Du Yaquan's 1933 book "Bo shi", there's a drawing of three cards
> > > from a madiao deck.
>
> > Three cards? Are they anything like mahjong cards?
>
> Yes, three cards. They have no correspondings in the majiang set.
>
> > > > I have seen a modern version of money cards in
> > > > Sloperama. Is that the only available set comparable to matiao or is
> > > > there another that shows greater resemblance to mahjong?
>
> > > What's the your meaning of "available" here?
>
> > I mean somewhere I can see the real Matiao cards.
>
> Maybe you'll never see a real one.
>
You have seen three. That is good.
Since the three you saw do not correspond to any cards in mahjong. I
don't need to see them. It won't matter if I don't ever see a real
one.
> > > > - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> > > > one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> > > > is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
>
You just missed the real question above.
> > > For the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card madiao
> > > deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)
>
> > So the multiple of cards is the major development resemblance?
>
> State your point clearly.
>
Read my question carefully first.
> > The
> > difference in rules and game-play don't matter, are you saying?
>
> I didn't say so.
>
My question was why matiao and mahjong are different in so many
aspects, yet matiao is considered an important progenitor of mahjong.
Your answer was because the 120 (mahjong) is a multple of 30 (matiao).
You mentioned nothing else.
> > What about Mo Hu Pai? It had 30 cards. It had the suits. It even had
> > the "kan" for a 3-card run. Did I miss something here?
>
> Mo Hu Pai was in the period of 60-card decks, according to Jin Xueshi.
>
Then ( 60 --> 120) is even quicker.
> ithinc
al
wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
>
>
> > Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
> > you?
>
> While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this,
So, Tom, you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
"game-play mechanism" comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game. In that case, with all
the mind-power and logical thinking among the group, why do we have to
accept a hypothetical notion that mahjong comes from matiao? Tthey
are so different!
Are there other compelling reason for the claim?
>that doesn't mean
> we are all happily accepting of not knowing this.
This means you accept the statement ("matiao is considered an
important progenator of mahjong") grudgingly? You are not that happy
but do you believe it? If you are not sure, why do you not reject it?
> Still, though, it wouldn't
> do to go around moping because we don't know this.
Of course not....
ithinc
> So, 3 cards and the 3 cards do not look like any cards in mahjong.
There's never one having said majiang has direct connections with
madiao.
> You just missed the real question above.
Your question has been being answered.
> My question was why matiao and mahjong are different in so many
> aspects, yet matiao is considered an important progenitor of mahjong.
> Your answer was because the 120 (mahjong) is a multple of 30 (matiao).
> You mentioned nothing else.
My answer was "the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card
madiao deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)", not "the 120 (mahjong) is a
multple of 30 (matiao)".
ithinc
al
> On 10 11 , 7 03 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > So, 3 cards and the 3 cards do not look like any cards in mahjong.
>
> There's never one having said majiang has direct connections with
> madiao.
>
important progenitor of mahjong.
If that does not mean direct connection, what is the indirect
connection? Any one having said of any other relation besides 120
mahjong cards exactly 4 times 30 cards in matiao?
> > You just missed the real question above.
>
> Your question has been being answered.
>
Not with the answer you gave. Your answers are (1) matiao had 4-card
tricks (like in Bridge; different from mahjong) and (2) matio had
cards with designs different from mahjong (and you have seen 3 real
matiao cards in a book published 1933).
Basically your answers just said the two games (matiao and mahjong)
are different [significantly].
My question was basically why one is considered an important
progenitor of the other when they are different "in look & in heart"?
Now you tell me my question has been answered because "no one having
said... of a direct connection" between matio and mahjong.
What are you saying? what does "progenitor" mean ?
> > My question was why matiao and mahjong are different in so many
> > aspects, yet matiao is considered an important progenitor of mahjong.
> > Your answer was because the 120 (mahjong) is a multple of 30 (matiao).
> > You mentioned nothing else.
>
> My answer was "the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card
> madiao deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)", not "the 120 (mahjong) is a
> multple of 30 (matiao)".
>
But when the cards design and the game-play are entirely different,
what is the significance of the wording in your last sentence? The (40
-> 30, then 30 -> 60 and 120 is development process that was so
important?
> ithinc
ithinc
> On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 10 11 , 7 03 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > So, 3 cards and the 3 cards do not look like any cards in mahjong.
>
> > There's never one having said majiang has direct connections with
> > madiao.
>
> Then does the statement mean?
Which?
> It says matiao is considered an
> important progenitor of mahjong.
Are you asking why Tom says so?
> If that does not mean direct connection, what is the indirect
> connection? Any one having said of any other relation besides 120
> mahjong cards exactly 4 times 30 cards in matiao?
Anyone has said 120 mahjong cards besides you? Anyone has said 120
cards exactly 4 times 30 cards in matiao besides you? Why you always
take your own words as others' saying?
>
> > > You just missed the real question above.
>
> > Your question has been being answered.
>
> Not with the answer you gave. Your answers are (1) matiao had 4-card
> tricks (like in Bridge; different from mahjong) and (2) matio had
> cards with designs different from mahjong (and you have seen 3 real
> matiao cards in a book published 1933).
>
> Basically your answers just said the two games (matiao and mahjong)
> are different [significantly].
>
> My question was basically why one is considered an important
> progenitor of the other when they are different "in look & in heart"?
>
> Now you tell me my question has been answered because "no one having
> said... of a direct connection" between matio and mahjong.
>
> What are you saying? what does "progenitor" mean ?
What you quote here from my words is not related with your called "the
real question", so I won't comment on these. Don't try to mess a lot.
>
> > > My question was why matiao and mahjong are different in so many
> > > aspects, yet matiao is considered an important progenitor of mahjong.
> > > Your answer was because the 120 (mahjong) is a multple of 30 (matiao).
> > > You mentioned nothing else.
>
> > My answer was "the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card
> > madiao deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)", not "the 120 (mahjong) is a
> > multple of 30 (matiao)".
>
> But when the cards design and the game-play are entirely different,
> what is the significance of the wording in your last sentence? The (40
> -> 30, then 30 -> 60 and 120 is development process that was so
> important?
The development process indicates who's ancestor and who's son.
ithinc
al
> On 10 12 , 8 11 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 10 11 , 7 03 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > So, 3 cards and the 3 cards do not look like any cards in mahjong.
>
> > > There's never one having said majiang has direct connections with
> > > madiao.
>
> > Then does the statement mean?
>
> Which?
>
important progenitor of mahjong.
> > It says matiao is considered an
> > important progenitor of mahjong.
>
> Are you asking why Tom says so?
>
Is that only Tom's statement? It is part of mahjong History; as I
understand.
I have not read any question on it from the group. That was why I
asked.
In fact, the question is titled Never Asked Question (NAQ).
>From the discussions my learning has been to check for evidence and
apply critical thinking. I am doing just that, regardless whose
statement it is.
> > If that does not mean direct connection, what is the indirect
> > connection? Any one having said of any other relation besides 120
> > mahjong cards exactly 4 times 30 cards in matiao?
>
> Anyone has said 120 mahjong cards besides you? Anyone has said 120
> cards exactly 4 times 30 cards in matiao besides you? Why you always
> take your own words as others' saying?
>
When you give cryptic answers, you get short and simple abbreviated
answers back. The importance was not in the numbers of cards, but the
relative size of the sets. So I follow your development idea.
Your accusation that I "always take [my] own words as other's saying"
is groundless and ridiculous if not stupid.
>
>
> > > > You just missed the real question above.
>
> > > Your question has been being answered.
>
> > Not with the answer you gave. Your answers are (1) matiao had 4-card
> > tricks (like in Bridge; different from mahjong) and (2) matio had
> > cards with designs different from mahjong (and you have seen 3 real
> > matiao cards in a book published 1933).
>
> > Basically your answers just said the two games (matiao and mahjong)
> > are different [significantly].
>
> > My question was basically why one is considered an important
> > progenitor of the other when they are different "in look & in heart"?
>
> > Now you tell me my question has been answered because "no one having
> > said... of a direct connection" between matio and mahjong.
>
> > What are you saying? what does "progenitor" mean ?
>
> What you quote here from my words is not related with your called "the
> real question", so I won't comment on these. Don't try to mess a lot.
>
Then why did you give out words that did not relate to my question?
What purpose did that serve?
>
>
> > > > My question was why matiao and mahjong are different in so many
> > > > aspects, yet matiao is considered an important progenitor of mahjong.
> > > > Your answer was because the 120 (mahjong) is a multple of 30 (matiao).
> > > > You mentioned nothing else.
>
> > > My answer was "the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card
> > > madiao deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)", not "the 120 (mahjong) is a
> > > multple of 30 (matiao)".
>
That means the same. Sure 40 goes to 30 when one suit was eliminated.
Then 30 4 times to 120. So 120 is a multiple of 30. (120 refers to
mahjong and 30 refers to mahtiao in the development). Given the brief
description, the interpretation is correct.
> > But when the cards design and the game-play are entirely different,
> > what is the significance of the wording in your last sentence? The (40
> > -> 30, then 30 -> 60 and 120 is development process that was so
> > important?
>
> The development process indicates who's ancestor and who's son.
>
So that is what the "statement" and the words "important progenitor"
mean to you. That is your answer; (40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120) is the basis
for conclusion.
> ithinc
Tom Sloper
>>>> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
Allan wrote:
>>> Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
>>> you?
Tom Sloper wrote:
>> While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this,
Allan wrote:
>So, Tom, you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
>"game-play mechanism" comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
>indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game.
And you'd be wrong to infer that, actually. The reason why none of us knows
where mahjong's gameplay mechanic comes from is because two highly similar
games using the same mechanic appeared on the scene at about the same time,
and none of us knows which was first.
Rummy and mahjong both seem to have originated around the middle of the 19th
century, and no game scholar has managed yet to identify which one might
have led to the other. You can read about this in David Parlett's book, A
History Of Card Games. Parlett is active on the playing-cards newsgroup, in
fact.
Mahjong's symbols or "indicia" share highly similar characteristics with
money-suited cards such as matiao. Mahjong's shape and form seems rooted in
dominoes and dice. And mahjong's gameplay is highly similar to rummy, which
seems to have originated about the same time that mahjong did.
I've said nothing new here - it's all in the work of Parlett, Lo, and
Stanwick.
Cheers
Tom
al
wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >>>> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
> Allan wrote:
> >>> Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
> >>> you?
> Tom Sloper wrote:
> >> While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this,
> Allan wrote:
> >So, Tom, you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
> >"game-play mechanism" comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
> >indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game.
>
> And you'd be wrong to infer that, actually. The reason why none of us knows
> where mahjong's gameplay mechanic comes from is because two highly similar
> games using the same mechanic appeared on the scene at about the same time,
> and none of us knows which was first.
>
What I read and how I understand is different from your
interpretation, Tom.
Do you want to list the similarities first or should I list the
differences (between the games rummy and mahjong)?
> Rummy and mahjong both seem to have originated around the middle of the 19th
> century, and no game scholar has managed yet to identify which one might
> have led to the other. You can read about this in David Parlett's book, A
> History Of Card Games. Parlett is active on the playing-cards newsgroup, in
> fact.
I would stay on the comparison of the two games for now. Historical
dates can be considered later.
>
> Mahjong's symbols or "indicia" share highly similar characteristics with
> money-suited cards such as matiao. Mahjong's shape and form seems rooted in
> dominoes and dice. And mahjong's gameplay is highly similar to rummy, which
> seems to have originated about the same time that mahjong did.
>
I disagree with you on both counts. We get to the specifics to clear
up statements above step by step.
I remember reading the mention of significant difference between
matiao and mahjong in symbols and game play. I thought rummy is very
different. I will have to itemize the specifics.
+++++++++++++++
al
wrote:
> >>>> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
> Allan wrote:
> >>> Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
> >>> you?
> Tom Sloper wrote:
> >> While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this,
> Allan wrote:
> >So, Tom, you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
> >"game-play mechanism" comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
> >indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game.
>
> And you'd be wrong to infer that, actually.
May be not...I did check up rummy via Ask Sam. I have a detailed
comparison at the end of this post. Have a look and see.
> The reason why none of us knows
> where mahjong's gameplay mechanic comes from is because two highly similar
> games using the same mechanic appeared on the scene at about the same time,
> and none of us knows which was first.
>
Assuming what you said is true that two games "highly similar" in game
play mechanics and that similarity created the problem of deciding
which comes first.
Does that imply there have been only two games like that? And they
appeared about the same (in mid 19th century?) Wonder why that should
be such a problem, I thought earlier games, Mo he and Peng He Pai,
have greater similarity to mahjong.
> Rummy and mahjong both seem to have originated around the middle of the 19th
> century, and no game scholar has managed yet to identify which one might
> have led to the other.
[snip]
>
But should that matter so much? Our discussion is on the relation of
matiao and mahjong.
> Mahjong's symbols or "indicia" share highly similar characteristics with
> money-suited cards such as matiao. Mahjong's shape and form seems rooted in
> dominoes and dice. And mahjong's gameplay is highly similar to rummy, which
> seems to have originated about the same time that mahjong did.
>
ou have brought the three gmes together here. You are confusing me.
> I've said nothing new here - it's all in the work of Parlett, Lo, and
> Stanwick.
In that case, I have something new for you check out. I am sure what
exactly were said or written by Parlett, Lo and Stanwick, but I have
found what is below from a brief reading on the web.
> Cheers
> Tom
Here is what I found...
"Rummy is really a family of card games". Same may be said about
mahjong.
Players
Rummy: 2 to 6 players.
Mahjong: 4 or less.
Deck
Rummy :Standard 52-card deck. King high; Ace low. Cards in 4 suits;
ranked.
Mahjong: Regular 136-tile set; 3 symbols-suits and 1 words-suit; not
ranked.
Goal
To be the first to play ("meld") all of cards in a hand.
To be the first to complete a sub-set pattern of 2-3-3-3-3 cards or
tiles.
(This is significant difference)
Setup
Rummy: Shuffle the deck and choose a dealer. Deal cards to all the
players as follows:
With two players, 10 cards each.
With three or four players, 7 cards each.
With five or six players, 6 cards each.
Cards not dealt are placed face down as the draw pile. Turn the top
card face up and set it next to the draw pile; this cardis the star of
the discard pile.
In mahjong, regardless how many players, each hand is always 13 cards;
the 14th card completes the over-all sub-set pattern of 2-3-3-3-3).
This rule distinguishes mahjong from all other games. So the setup in
mahjong is definitely different from that in rummy.
Rummy Game play
On his turn, each player must follow this sequence:
(1) He must draw one card, either from the top of the draw pile or the
top of the discard pile. (This rule is essentially same in mahjong.
For the first player, the dealer, the discard pile would be empty in
mahjong, draw is the only option).
(2) He may (if he wants to) play a meld of cards (a "Melds" is a group
of 3 or 4 of a kind, or a run of 3 or more cards of a same suit) or
add to another player's meld (referred to as "Laying Off").
Here are some differences between rummy and mahjong in terms of game
play.
Mahjong does not allow runs of more than 3 cards like rummy and
players can not "lay-off" a card whereby adding card to an existing
"meld" on the table. In mahjong a player keeps a total of 13 cards
(open and hidden) of his own at all times except when there is a sub-
set of fully 4 same cards of one suit. A pair of "eyes" is a
requirement not in rummy. It's only in mahjong. Seasons & Flowers are
also exceptions for mahjong.
Scoring
Rummy: When a player goes out, the round is scored. Unlike mahjong,
all of the cards remaining in other players' hands are credited to the
winner of the hand in rummy.
Mahjong: Only players ' own hand(s) count.
Winning
Rummy: The first player to reach a predetermined target number of
points (such as 150), or to have the most points after a predetermined
number of hands are played, is the winner.
Mahjong: the game goes around with the change of Winds. Total winnings
counted at the end of play after a minimum of 16 hands usually.
Summary: to say rummy and mahjong as similar games is either over-
simplification or lack of insight of either one or both games.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Sloper
> Here are some differences between rummy and mahjong in terms of game
> play.
I'm well aware of the differences. The similarities are significant to most
serious scholars of the game.
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>From what I read, the only similarity is the word "meld". The actual
mechanics of "meld" is different in the rummy. Mahjong meld is 3,
except "kong"; not in rummy.
Rummy allows "lay-off"; not mahjong.
number of cards different, symbols different, set-up different,
counting different, goal is different...
Did I miss something? What other similarity?
al
wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >>>> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
> Allan wrote:
> >>> Any idea where else that might be? Just somewhere is acceptable to
> >>> you?
> Tom Sloper wrote:
> >> While none of us is particularly happy not knowing this,
> Allan wrote:
> >So, Tom, you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
> >"game-play mechanism" comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
> >indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game.
>
> And you'd be wrong to infer that, actually. The reason why none of us knows
> where mahjong's gameplay mechanic comes from is because two highly similar
> games using the same mechanic appeared on the scene at about the same time,
> and none of us knows which was first.
>
> Rummy and mahjong both seem to have originated around the middle of the 19th
> century, and no game scholar has managed yet to identify which one might
> have led to the other. You can read about this in David Parlett's book, A
> History Of Card Games. Parlett is active on the playing-cards newsgroup, in
> fact.
>
time. Due to some similarities between them, scholars could not decide
which came first. That is how I understand your explanation.
Did the scholars consider that matiao was supposed to be ancestor in
the Ming dynasty (1368 -1644)? I wonder why that was not a factor.
> Mahjong's symbols or "indicia" share highly similar characteristics with
> money-suited cards such as matiao. Mahjong's shape and form seems rooted in
> dominoes and dice. And mahjong's gameplay is highly similar to rummy, which
> seems to have originated about the same time that mahjong did.
>
I have replied to you on that.
Rummy has game-play very different from mahjong as I can see, Tom.
I listed in my last post their comparative characteristics and
analyzed them.
> I've said nothing new here - it's all in the work of Parlett, Lo, and
> Stanwick.
I would be interested to know what factors they used in their studies
on the topic, rummy vs. mahjong.
> Cheers
> Tom
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
Hello, Tom,
What are the significant similarities you alluded to in your reply?
Particularly those that are significant to the most serious scholars.
I thought you would have mentioned them for my curiosity and interest
.
Are you saying the claim that matiao being an important progenitor of
mahjong was from those serious scholars? (You had said "accepting
it...) Are they dead or alive? None has offered any answer or
clarification to the question.
I think I detected something significant that can support your
statement. Can you tell me first something about the matiao card pack
you have in FAQ#11 "modern version"? Who arranged those cards for your
web page? How certain are you that the cards are placed in the correct
suits? That's all for now.
Cheers...
al
wrote:
>
> Mahjong's symbols or "indicia" share highly similar characteristics with
> money-suited cards such as matiao.
Can you be specific here, Tom?
I don't share your view.
++++++++++
Mahjong's shape and form seems rooted in
> dominoes and dice.
"Seems rooted" mens how?
Dominoes (like Heaven Nine) have pips.
Dice have pips.
Mahjong has 4 suits of cards. All symbols are much more than pips. So
I don't understand your extrapolation.
+++++++++++
And mahjong's gameplay is highly similar to rummy, which
> seems to have originated about the same time that mahjong did.
Again, this is not so. I listed all the differences in a separate
post.
>
> I've said nothing new here - it's all in the work of Parlett, Lo, and
> Stanwick.
What exactly did these people say? You read what they had said?
We are here in search of knowledge and asking questions is the way to
do it. But you have not discussed your claims. How can you be certain
what you recorded is accurate?
> Cheers
> Tom
al
>
> > Questions:
> > - How many cards in a trick for this trick-taking matiao game? Is it 4
> > cards like in bridge or 3 cards as in mahjong?
>
> It is like bridge.
>
different from mahjong with 3-card tricks. When game-play is
different, then the rules of play are different.
As the compiler of the rule-book said, the "principles are in the
rules" (for Matiao.) The principles for trick forming as in mahjong
are different from the principles for trick-taking in matiao.
In mahjong, players all try to change their cards in hand to a
pattern, 2-3-3 (or 2-3-3-3-3 later when the set increased to larger
number of cards). In matiao, the approach involves aggression and over-
taking by exercise of power and ranks. THE TWO GMES HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL
BASIC DIFFERENCES.
The question is how do they relate?
> > - Where can one find drawings or pictures of the 4 suits of real
> > matiao cards?
>
> In Du Yaquan's 1933 book "Bo shi", there's a drawing of three cards
> from a madiao deck.
>
Which 3 cards? How do they match Lo's translation in The-Playing-
Cards?
>
> > - When the composition and game-play are significantly different from
> > one another, and if one is clearly not the other, why and how matiao
> > is regarded an important progenitor of mahjong?
>
> For the 120 card deck is a development based on the 40 card madiao
> deck.(40 -> 30 -> 60 -> 120)
>
Why do you think Mo Hu Pai could not have come in on its own with 30
cards from the start? Who has the documentation to show it was
otherwise?
++++++++++
> ithinc
al
>
> I think the passage you quoted answers your question.
> Matiao is considered an ancestor of mahjong in the
> "suit symbology" department.
I just noticed an interesting mention of a "suit symbology"
department here. Is this a part of the Group's organization structure?
I mean there are members in that department specialize in symbols
research?
> In other words, the designs of the suits and the symbols
> on the mahjong tiles were probably inherited from matiao.
Could the question "probably or not" be referred to the "department"?
> But the game play mechanism came from somewhere else.
>From my reading, I found Mo Hu and Peng Hu had similar game-plays.
You must already knew that.
> We assume the relationship because of the semblance
> between the two.
>
I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
game-play?
I recall I was told that the "moey-base" or "cash-base" had been long
established through extensive studies. I looked to mataio for
evidence. I don't think it's there.
>
++++++++++++++
>
> al wrote:
> > NEVER ASKED QUESTIONS (NAQ)
>
> > NAQ #1
> > I read the following in mahjong history and I quote.
>
> > "Widely regarded as an important progenitor of mah-jongg is Matiao, or
> > Ma Diao... Matiao was a trick-taking game for four players, played with
> > four-suited money cards. Three of the four matiao suits resemble the
> > three suits of mah-jongg. Coins correspond to Dots; Coin Strings
> > correspond to Bams; Coin String Myriads correspond to Craks. The
> > composition of a matiao deck and the gameplay of matiao differ
> > significantly from the composition of a mah-jongg set and from the
> > gameplay of mah-jongg. Matiao, clearly, is not mah-jongg." (Sloper FAQ
> > 11 History of Mahjong)
> [..]
> --
[..]
Cheers....
al
>
The line below is for illustration purpose.
>[ Mr. Kwan,]
I noticed this morning in my post of Oct. 29th (last night), I made
this same mistake. I typed my line behind a > mark, which attributed
my words to you. It was I who read the brief history of Mo Hu and Peng
Hu Pai. Sorry about that. My eye-sight is getting worse, so I see.
My sentence split in two parts, but I did not notice then.
I just wanted to clear it up for the record.
>
>
> > [..]
Cheers,
al
mstanwick
> On Oct 9, 8:25 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
> are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
> have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
> game-play?
For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of
Cash. As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
denominations have been represented.
> I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> established through extensive studies.
Where and who told you that?
Regards
al
> On Oct 30, 1:20?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 8:25 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
> > are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
> > have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
> > game-play?
>
> For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
> cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of
> Cash. As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
> in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
> denominations have been represented.
There is more to that, Michael.
Put it simply. Cash was not cash just as Mouse is not mouse.
>
> > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > established through extensive studies.
>
> Where and who told you that?
>
I can quote you just two , but I have more if you want.
"For the past 80 years, all serious historical research concluded
mahjong is closely link, a descendent of money card games..." This is
from a post of April 5, 2997.
Another was in a post by Mr. Kwan on April 4, 2007 (that was why I
followed up with a question to him). It said: "the majority of
scholarly view is that , the current tile set did descent from a
Chinese card game with money symbols."
For good measure, I have included this for you.
"Every single historical evidence we have point toward money cards as
the origin of mahjong." That is a part of a post of April 4 (Why a
Sparrow).
You and I had many discussions on the money-base symbolism. We
disagreed on the meanings of Prunner's card-pack. I seem to recall
that is where I saw those salami-like bolts of threads which I had
interpreted as a symbol for the textile industry (not strings of
cash), a big fish as a symbol of abundance of riches from the sea, as
well as 2 bats for good fortune (nothing to do with cash). Unless my
memory failed me, only one suit of cards with cash ( pictures of
coins) and cash was a SYMBOL of riches.
We argued about the "ten thousand". Now it makes sense to me in terms
of I-Ching. I had alwyas thought it was a disproportionate amount
compared to the 1-Cash (which is one-tenth of a cent). But it was
considered a strong link because of identical written form even though
it has multiple meanings.
> Regards
Cheers.....al
++++++++
mstanwick
> Put it simply. Cash was not cash just as Mouse is not mouse.
Wrong. Your reasons for doubt are too superficial.
> > > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > > established through extensive studies.
>
> > Where and who told you that?
>
> I can quote you just two , but I have more if you want.
> "For the past 80 years, all serious historical research concluded
> mahjong is closely link, a descendent of money card games..." This is
> from a post of April 5, 2997.
Please cite the name of the thread and who posted it.
> Another was in a post by Mr. Kwan on April 4, 2007 (that was why I
> followed up with a question to him). It said: "the majority of
> scholarly view is that , the current tile set did descent from a
> Chinese card game with money symbols."
> For good measure, I have included this for you.
> "Every single historical evidence we have point toward money cards as
> the origin of mahjong." That is a part of a post of April 4 (Why a
> Sparrow).
Thank you. If by 'established' you mean that the hyp[othesis has been
accepted uncritically and been accepted as certainty, then that would
be totally incorrect.
None of the posts above suggest that view of 'established'. All
suggest (by words such as 'research', 'scholarly' and 'evidence') that
a particular view has been put forward as a result of academic
research that entails certain criteria of evidence and logic.
> We argued about the "ten thousand". Now it makes sense to me in terms
> of I-Ching. I had alwyas thought it was a disproportionate amount
> compared to the 1-Cash (which is one-tenth of a cent). But it was
> considered a strong link because of identical written form even though
> it has multiple meanings.
Wrong. It was considered a strong piece of evidence because of the
context in which it appeared. Go back and check for yourself.
Regards
al
> On Nov 1, 4:18?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Put it simply. Cash was not cash just as Mouse is not mouse.
>
> Wrong. Your reasons for doubt are too superficial.
>
superficial. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
> > > > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > > > established through extensive studies.
>
> > > Where and who told you that?
>
> >[..]
>
> Please cite the name of the thread and who posted it.
>
> > Another was in a post by Mr. Kwan on April 4, 2007 (that was why I
> > followed up with a question to him). It said: "the majority of
> > scholarly view is that , the current tile set did descent from a
> > Chinese card game with money symbols."
> > For good measure, I have included this for you.
> > "Every single historical evidence we have point toward money cards as
> > the origin of mahjong." That is a part of a post of April 4 (Why a
> > Sparrow).
>
> Thank you. If by 'established' you mean that the hyp[othesis has been
> accepted uncritically and been accepted as certainty, then that would
> be totally incorrect.
>
Whatever you say, Michael. I got the impression that cash was pretty
much a "sure thing".
It never sit well with me because I even learned the game as a teen
ager back in China never used that term.
> None of the posts above suggest that view of 'established'. All
> suggest (by words such as 'research', 'scholarly' and 'evidence') that
> a particular view has been put forward as a result of academic
> research that entails certain criteria of evidence and logic.
>
"Every single historical evidence... point toward money cards
as...origin of mahjong" is a statement that just meant what you
explained above. It was not intended to mean "established" whatever.
> > We argued about the "ten thousand". Now it makes sense to me in terms
> > of I-Ching. I had alwyas thought it was a disproportionate amount
> > compared to the 1-Cash (which is one-tenth of a cent). But it was
> > considered a strong link because of identical written form even though
> > it has multiple meanings.
>
> Wrong. It was considered a strong piece of evidence because of the
> context in which it appeared. Go back and check for yourself.
>
The context in this case is with the assumption of 'CASH' and the
extension to Strings of cash; therefore ten thousand more cash. Logic
is fine, if and only if the assumption was correct. And I think it is
incorrect, Michael.
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers...al
mstanwick
> > Wrong. Your reasons for doubt are too superficial.
>
> You seem very sure about that. I thought it was simple rather than
> superficial. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
Your reasons are not supported by evidence from within the context of
playing card nor between playing cards and other subject areas. The
lack of direct supportive evidence severely weakens your reasons.
Hence they lack rigour. Hence they are supericial.
> > > > > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > > > > established through extensive studies.
> > Please cite the name of the thread and who posted it.
Please answer this request.
> > Thank you. If by 'established' you mean that the hypothesis has been
> > accepted uncritically and been accepted as certainty, then that would
> > be totally incorrect.
>
> Whatever you say, Michael. I got the impression that cash was pretty
> much a "sure thing".
Your impression is wrong.
> It was not intended to mean "established" whatever.
Thank you.
> The context in this case is with the assumption of 'CASH' and the
> extension to Strings of cash; therefore ten thousand more cash. Logic
> is fine, if and only if the assumption was correct. And I think it is
> incorrect, Michael.
What is the "assumpton of 'Cash'"? I do not know what this refers to.
Regards
al
> On Nov 3, 5:52?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Wrong. Your reasons for doubt are too superficial.
>
>
>
> > You seem very sure about that. I thought it was simple rather than
> > superficial. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
>
> Your reasons are not supported by evidence from within the context of
> playing card nor between playing cards and other subject areas. The
> lack of direct supportive evidence severely weakens your reasons.
> Hence they lack rigour. Hence they are supericial.
>
Dose that mean any hypothesis, different from the existing hypotheses
that are supposedly "supported by evidence from within the context of
playing cards or between plying cards, is superficial?
Do 'superficial' hypots. have any validity that is worthy of
consideration?
What if the supporting base (such as possibly the cash-base) was built
on loose sands? How valid would the existing hypots be?
> > > > > > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > > > > > established through extensive studies.
> > > Please cite the name of the thread and who posted it.
>
> Please answer this request.
>
It is unnecessary. It was not a quote from yours.
> > > Thank you. If by 'established' you mean that the hypothesis has been
> > > accepted uncritically and been accepted as certainty, then that would
> > > be totally incorrect.
>
What are you saying here, Michael? You have argued vigorously for it.
You never accept it uncritically as certainty, is that what you mean?
What degree of certainty did you accept critically then?
> > Whatever you say, Michael. I got the impression that cash was pretty
> > much a "sure thing".
>
> Your impression is wrong.
>
> > It was not intended to mean "established" whatever.
>
> Thank you.
>
It was hard for me to tell by the way you have defended it.
> > The context in this case is with the assumption of 'CASH' and the
> > extension to Strings of cash; therefore ten thousand more cash. Logic
> > is fine, if and only if the assumption was correct. And I think it is
> > incorrect, Michael.
>
> What is the "assumpton of 'Cash'"? I do not know what this refers to.
>
Are we on the same discussion topic, Michael? The 'assumption of cash'
refers to the naming of the suit of cards with circle symbols.
You and many mahjong people assumed Wilkinson and others were correct
in calling those concentric circles 'cash'. Wilkinson and others
assumed their contacts gave the corrects names. Their contacts assumed
what they heard from their ancestors or senior players were correct,
(i.e. circles were cash). The fact of the matter is that 'cash' could
have been a result of step-wise assumptions for centuries. (A simple
evidence for that is the fact that other names have been attributed to
the same symbol; just like the Mouse is not a mouse).
> Regards
++++++++++++
Cheers......al
mstanwick
> > > It was not intended to mean "established" whatever.
> > Thank you.
> It was hard for me to tell by the way you have defended it.
No. Not defended. Explained.
The rest of the post is just another repetition of unsupported claims
that have been discussed and answered at length.
Regards
Julian Bradfield
others:
http://www.chineseleisure.org/majiang.htm
It discusses origins at some length; and babelfish is sufficient to
get a fair idea of what it's saying, for those of us who don't read
Chinese.
al
I went over the first part quickly. It reads much like typical mahjong
history on the web. Matiao is referred to as source / ancestral
origin.
The second part was too hard for me to read. I am unfamiliar with many
abbreviated words. Somebody may want to translate it for the group.
That would be appreciated.
Thanks...
al
>
> > On Oct 9, 8:25 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
> > are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
> > have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
> > game-play?
>
I am trying to clarify some items and follow up with some questions.
> For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
> cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of [cash]
The issue should be the reasonable representation of cash. After all
cash is the base of all three suits of cards in mahjong, as it is so
claimed. If it is cash in one then it's cash for the other two,
although the 4th suit has no logical association with cash whatsoever.
> Cash. As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
> in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
> denominations have been represented.
>
There may be many cash denominations in Prunner's catalogue, grouping
them into 3 suits in mahjong does not automatically make the
denominations reasonable.
You don't mean there was a denomination in Prunner for myriad cash, do
you?
> > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > established through extensive studies.
>
> Where and who told you that?
>
I have given a reply to you on this. The response in posting indicated
very few people, besides you and me, have read the document which
serves as reference for the cash base for mahjong. (Dan has page 89
since then).
> Regards
++++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
[snip]
> I am trying to clarify some items
"Clarifying some items" does not equal posting some assertions
discussed at answered at length in many other posts.
> and follow up with some questions.
[snip]
> You don't mean there was a denomination in Prunner for myriad cash, do
> you?
Yes.
al
> On Nov 15, 3:49�am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I am trying to clarify some items
>
> "Clarifying some items" does not equal posting some assertions
> discussed at answered at length in many other posts.
>
and keep saying something I am unsure about. This way at least you
know what I think. You tell me where I am wrong, then I can agree or
disagree with you after clarification.
> > and follow up with some questions.
>
> [snip]
>
> > You don't mean there was a denomination in Prunner for myriad cash, do
> > you?
>
> Yes.
What I meant to ask was if there specifically myriad (10000) CASH.
Was cash included explicitly?
I mentioned the fact that Chinese MJ players do not refer to 'wan' as
myriad-cash. If Prunner had it, he copied it from Western historians'
transliteration. I suspect it is similar in the case of "walls" (added
for descriptive purpose. 'Honor' cards belong to the westernized
category as well. Chinese MJ players do not use such term. That is my
own experience.
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > "Clarifying some items" does not equal posting some assertions
> > discussed at answered at length in many other posts.
Correction; Should have read " "Clarifying some items" is equal
posting some assertions discussed at answered at length in many other
posts.
> Assertion you called it is what I speak as I believe in. No use saying
> and keep saying something I am unsure about. This way at least you
> know what I think. You tell me where I am wrong, then I can agree or
> disagree with you after clarification.
Assertion without evidence. Explained and discussed at length ad
nauseum.
> What I meant to ask was if there specifically myriad (10000) CASH.
> Was cash included explicitly?
Yes.
> If Prunner had it, he copied it from Western historians' transliteration.
Another baseless assertion. There will be no more replies to this type
of statement above. Make a claim?; then cite some documentary evidence
to support it.
Regards
al
> On Nov 15, 8:51�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "Clarifying some items" does not equal posting some assertions
> > > discussed at answered at length in many other posts.
>
> Correction; Should have read " "Clarifying some items" is equal
> posting some assertions discussed at answered at length in many other
> posts.
>
> > Assertion you called it is what I speak as I believe in. No use saying
> > and keep saying something I am unsure about. This way at least you
> > know what I think. You tell me where I am wrong, then I can agree or
> > disagree with you after clarification.
>
You seem to condemn any one making a statement of assertion. It is no
sin for being sure of one's opinion.
> Assertion without evidence. Explained and discussed at length ad
> nauseum.
>
You have ignored evidence from way back with "deaf ears and blank
eyes".
Most recently, I told you the evidence of a card-set with a whole suit
of taiji symbols diagrams in place of coin-like circles.
What has been your response to that assertion with evidence? There is
a whole page showing the taiji circle diagrams on every card in a
suit. No cash!
The page is from Takeshobe Mah-jong Museum Catalogue. Check it out.
Where is objectivity in the pursuit of knowledge?
> > [..]
>
> Regards
mstanwick
> Trouble is you avoided some key items, Michael.
Wrong. Asked and answered at length ad nauseum in many other posts.
> You seem to condemn any one making a statement of assertion.
Wrong. "... a statement of [an unsupported] assertion.
> It is no sin for being sure of one's opinion.
Wrong. "It is a sin for being sure of one's [baseless (unsupported)]
opinion".
> What has been your response to that assertion with evidence? There is
> a whole page showing the taiji circle diagrams on every card in a
> suit. No cash!
I am aware of this card set. There are trigrams also underneath the
taiji symbols on each cash card and undrneath the 'rod' like symbols
on each strings card.
There is no date for this card set but it appears to be modern since
an old wood block (Ching) is shown over the page.
What is the assertion you are making, that this card set is meant to
support?
Regards
al
> On Nov 15, 10:35�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> ]//]
> > What has been your response to that assertion with evidence? There is
> > a whole page showing the taiji circle diagrams on every card in a
> > suit. No cash!
>
> I am aware of this card set. There are trigrams also underneath the
> taiji symbols on each cash card and undrneath the 'rod' like symbols
> on each strings card.
>
The Chinese writing on that page refer to the "cash card" as [hong],
Pipe, tube 管，筒. Note that the radical is the bamboo sign, non-metallic
.
"Rod like" as you described, do you mean the top row of cards with
drawings of long tapered objects like scarfs with pointed tips?
> There is no date for this card set but it appears to be modern since
> an old wood block (Ching) is shown over the page.
>
I am not sure what you mean by an "old wood block", Michael. How does
it indicate the card set as being "modern"?
Any inference can be drawn from the possibility that the design is
that of a modern version of matiao?
> What is the assertion you are making, that this card set is meant to
> support?
>
Just a possibility that matiao game-design might have had at least a
remote link to symbols and concepts in the Book of Changes, like taiji
diagram, trigrams and devination.
What do you make of it? No date: therefore no good?
The catalogue has no indication of approx. period? Does the validity
of the card-set's existence depend entirely on a fixed date ?
Where can I go from here?
> Regards
++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> Which is "cash card" you refer to, the same card as the taiji card?
Yes. The middle row of cards.
> The Chinese writing on that page refer to the "cash card" as [hong],
> Pipe, tube 管，筒. Note that the radical is the bamboo sign, non-metallic
Yes.
> "Rod like" as you described, do you mean the top row of cards with
> drawings of long tapered objects like scarfs with pointed tips?
Yes.
> I am not sure what you mean by an "old wood block", Michael. How does
> it indicate the card set as being "modern"?
The caption says "Old Wood Block in Ching Eras". The mention of an
older age is not on the other cards. Therefore they could be modern or
younger.
> Any inference can be drawn from the possibility that the design is
> that of a modern version of matiao?
It is not madiao. My understanding is that ma diao is a four suited
card game. All the woodblocks and their prints are of three suited
decks of cards.
The Japanese MJ Museum may be using the generic name 'ma diao' to
refer to the style of cash-suited cards.
> > What is the assertion you are making, that this card set is meant to
> > support?
> Just a possibility that matiao game-design might have had at least a
> remote link to symbols and concepts in the Book of Changes, like taiji
> diagram, trigrams and devination.
Cards are not from madiao game. Cannot argue in reverse time. You need
to establish age of the cards/woodblock. Argue from the earliest
documentary evidence. If Pan's deck actually sported these symbols
then you can argue your point. Unfortunately, Pan's deck did not sport
those symbols.
> What do you make of it? No date: therefore no good?
I am friends with one of the compilers of the book. He has said there
are errors in it. There are also accurate descriptions etc as well.
> The catalogue has no indication of approx. period? Does the validity
> of the card-set's existence depend entirely on a fixed date ?
The validity of using it in an argument such as yours, yes.
> Where can I go from here?
That is for you to decide.
Regards
al
> On Nov 16, 1:44 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what you mean by an "old wood block", Michael. How does
> > it indicate the card set as being "modern"?
>
> The caption says "Old Wood Block in Ching Eras". The mention of an
> older age is not on the other cards. Therefore they could be modern or
> younger.
>
OK. I don't have that part of the page.
You meant the Ching dynasty.
How does that compare to the modern version of matiao in FAQ #11, any
clue?
There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
about that.
Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
> > Any inference can be drawn from the possibility that the design is
> > that of a modern version of matiao?
>
> It is not madiao. My understanding is that ma diao is a four suited
> card game. All the woodblocks and their prints are of three suited
> decks of cards.
>
Not even a "modern version"?
> The Japanese MJ Museum may be using the generic name 'ma diao' to
> refer to the style of cash-suited cards.
>
What now? Japanese matiao may be not matiao?
> > > What is the assertion you are making, that this card set is meant to
> > > support?
> > Just a possibility that matiao game-design might have had at least a
> > remote link to symbols and concepts in the Book of Changes, like taiji
> > diagram, trigrams and devination.
>
> Cards are not from madiao game. Cannot argue in reverse time. You need
> to establish age of the cards/woodblock. Argue from the earliest
> documentary evidence. If Pan's deck actually sported these symbols
> then you can argue your point. Unfortunately, Pan's deck did not sport
> those symbols.
>
I don't need to trace back to Pan's matiao set. Pan's may be the
earliest to show that taiji symbols . If there are later games or
later versions of "modern" matiao or japanese matiao also show the use
of taiji symbols, that would support my conjecture that mahjong could
be one of the games using taiji symbols in its design.
I did not say mahjong is descendant of matiao. I didn't even notice
those taiji signs until very recently. My (Origin of Mahjong Design)
post of 9/27 made no reference to matiao because it did not occur to
me then that I would find taiji symbols in Lo's paper which I only
took a quick look after I got it from you. I found the signs , much to
my delight, only when Dan & Julian asking questions.
The useful inference I can draw from the taiji symbols is that other
games have based their structure design on I-Ching concepts, as old
matiao and new matiao or whatever. Mahjong is much more refined piece
of work than those old cards.
> > What do you make of it? No date: therefore no good?
>
> I am friends with one of the compilers of the book. He has said there
> are errors in it. There are also accurate descriptions etc as well.
>
So some cross reference is needed to verify. Is that what you are
warning me?
What other catalogue available as secondary source?
> > The catalogue has no indication of approx. period? Does the validity
> > of the card-set's existence depend entirely on a fixed date ?
>
> The validity of using it in an argument such as yours, yes.
>
You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
that how you see it?
> > [..]
> [..]
> Regards
+++++++++++
Yhanks, Michael,
Cheers......al
mstanwick
> How does that compare to the modern version of matiao in FAQ #11, any
> clue?
According to Lo, the game of ma diao disappeared in the late 19th
century. I am not aware of any four suited money packs apart from the
Hakka cards.
FAQ 11 shows a 3 suited deck.
> There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> about that.
> Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
Yes.
> Not even a "modern version"?
No modern version exists that I am aware of (apart from Hakka cards).
> > The Japanese MJ Museum may be using the generic name 'ma diao' to
> > refer to the style of cash-suited cards.
>
> What now? Japanese matiao may be not matiao?
No. Ma tiao or ma diao was played with a 4 suited money deck. All the
pictures in the book are of 3 suited varieties. Where did you get
"Japanese ma tiao"?
> Pan's may be the earliest to show that taiji symbols. If there are later games or
> later versions of "modern" matiao or japanese matiao also show the use
> of taiji symbols, that would support my conjecture that mahjong could
> be one of the games using taiji symbols in its design.
Wrong. Pan's deck only had, probably, a taiji symbol on the 1 cash. If
MJ developed from an earlier version of a card game deck then it is
the earlier versions you need to be accessing to support your ideas.
> I did not say mahjong is descendant of matiao. I didn't even notice
> those taiji signs until very recently.[snip]
One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
cash.
> The useful inference I can draw from the taiji symbols is that other
> games have based their structure design on I-Ching concepts, as old
> matiao and new matiao or whatever. Mahjong is much more refined piece
> of work than those old cards.
Wrong. Only one taiji symbol, perhaps. Inferring from one instance to
a general instance is fallacious. Appearance of one symbol or even
many symbols does not infer structure design based on I-Ching
concepts, in any way whatsoever.
> So some cross reference is needed to verify. Is that what you are
> warning me?
No point. The inferences to verify are fallacious.
> What other catalogue available as secondary source?
Get Prunner. But it is in German.
> You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
> say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
> not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
> that how you see it?
I have no idea what this means.
Regards
al
> On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > How does that compare to the modern version of matiao in FAQ #11, any
> > clue?
>
> According to Lo, the game of ma diao disappeared in the late 19th
> century. I am not aware of any four suited money packs apart from the
> Hakka cards.
>
> FAQ 11 shows a 3 suited deck.
>
> > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > about that.
> > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Not even a "modern version"?
>
> No modern version exists that I am aware of (apart from Hakka cards).
>
I just said FAQ #11 shows a "modern version" of matiao.
And you said you are not aware of any in existence.
Do you mean the 3-suited set is not a modern version of the 4-suited
matiao?
> > > The Japanese MJ Museum may be using the generic name 'ma diao' to
> > > refer to the style of cash-suited cards.
>
> > What now? Japanese matiao may be not matiao?
>
> No. Ma tiao or ma diao was played with a 4 suited money deck. All the
> pictures in the book are of 3 suited varieties. Where did you get
> "Japanese ma tiao"?
>
The disappearance of the 4-suited matiao and the appearance of the 3-
suited variety means nothing? I thought there was an evolution hypot.
of 40 ---> 30 and then 30 X 4 in the game of "money-cards", mahjong.
From 40 ---> 30 could be the modernization process?
As for Japanese matiao, you had mentioned about their use of generic
name.
> > Pan's may be the earliest to show that taiji symbols. If there are later games or
> > later versions of "modern" matiao or japanese matiao also show the use
> > of taiji symbols, that would support my conjecture that mahjong could
> > be one of the games using taiji symbols in its design.
>
> Wrong. Pan's deck only had, probably, a taiji symbol on the 1 cash. If
> MJ developed from an earlier version of a card game deck then it is
> the earlier versions you need to be accessing to support your ideas.
>
No. I am fixing it to any time frame as yet. I am trying to establish
a conceptual connection first.
> > I did not say mahjong is descendant of matiao. I didn't even notice
> > those taiji signs until very recently.[snip]
>
> One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
> cash.
>
The taiji symbol saays a lot, Michael. In addition, there is ZERO-
CASH.
Taiji is the symbol of creation of the universe from 'nothingness'.
The two signs together represent the essence of all.
Comparison to this is like flying the national flag for any country.
It leases little doubt as to the nationality of the people.
Remember what Feng had said why the 40-cards were created? Emptiness
if I recall correctly. He had something to say there, though it was
not so clear.
> > The useful inference I can draw from the taiji symbols is that other
> > games have based their structure design on I-Ching concepts, as old
> > matiao and new matiao or whatever. Mahjong is much more refined piece
> > of work than those old cards.
>
> Wrong. Only one taiji symbol, perhaps. Inferring from one instance to
> a general instance is fallacious. Appearance of one symbol or even
> many symbols does not infer structure design based on I-Ching
> concepts, in any way whatsoever.
>
Disagree. More than one symbol for one thing, as I just explained.
They are key conceptual symbols for another.
That is actually more than your Cash-Hypot. All you have is a sign of
cash from somewhere and the rest were extensions of it. Is that
fallacious or not?
> > [..]
>
> > You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
> > say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
> > not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
> > that how you see it?
>
> I have no idea what this means.
>
I will have to explain better. Put it simpler, I would say it this
way. I wanted only to show that I-Ching symbols and/or concepts did
get used in game design. Then my next step is to show how they might
have been applied in mahjong structure design and in game-play.
By the way it is an intellectual exercise only. It will change
nothing. The game will be played just the way it is. How many Chinese
people in China will ever be aware of your cash-hypot? Like I told
you, they don't call it a cash-symbol.
> Regards
+++++++++
Cheers.....al
Tom Sloper
>I just said FAQ #11 shows a "modern version" of matiao.
Not correct. FAQ 11b has an image (3suitgps.jpg) that depicts "A modern deck
of money cards." Matiao is a game played with a form of money-suited cards.
The caption under that image in FAQ 11b does not refer to the depicted cards
as "matiao."
If you're talking about a different image somewhere in FAQ 11 (a very large,
many-part FAQ), then I need to know exactly which image, and exactly where
in FAQ 11 it resides.
BTW, I used a different image of money-suited cards in my book - an image I
made myself from cards I bought in Tianjin. Perhaps the cards I bought are
what Michael has taken to calling "Hakka cards"?
Tom
al
> On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
> cash.
>
155 of the book, "A Short introduction to Daoism" by James Mller,
2003.
"taiji [or tai Chi] Supreme Ridgepole; the center of the heavens;
Supreme Ultimate the foundational metaphysical principle."
This symbol embodies the yin/yang opposites of creation of "ten-
thousand things" in the universe.
This one symbol represent the process of constant changes in nature.
This one symbol is equivalent to today's atomic theory of matter
(negative and positive charges in balance and / or seeking
equilibrium).
> > The useful inference I can draw from the taiji symbols is that other
> > games have based their structure design on I-Ching concepts, as old
> > matiao and new matiao or whatever. Mahjong is much more refined piece
> > of work than those old cards.
>
> Wrong. Only one taiji symbol, perhaps. Inferring from one instance to
> a general instance is fallacious. Appearance of one symbol or even
> many symbols does not infer structure design based on I-Ching
> concepts, in any way whatsoever.
>
One good essential symbol is all that is needed, Michael. The meaning
of the symbol and the proper application of it is what can determine
the validity and soundness of the design and its explanation.
Remember ? The "principles are in the rules" [of play].
> > So some cross reference is needed to verify. Is that what you are
> > warning me?
>
> No point. The inferences to verify are fallacious.
>
I respectfully disagree, Michael.
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> > [//]
>
>[..]
>
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > > about that.
> > > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> > Yes.
I should have said "Yes, I looked at the FAQ 11 picture". I did not
see taiji or trigrams in that set.
> I just said FAQ #11 shows a "modern version" �of matiao.
NOT of matiao.
> And you said you are not aware of any in existence.
> Do you mean the 3-suited set is not a modern version of the 4-suited
> matiao?
The three suited deck was a modification of the four suited deck. The
3 suited deck is not a 'version' - unless you define 'version' - of
matiao cards in the sense that they are not a 3 suited matiao deck. A
matiao deck contained 4 suits.
> The disappearance of the 4-suited matiao and the appearance of the 3-
> suited variety means nothing? I thought there was an evolution hypot.
> of 40 ---> 30 and then 30 X 4 in the game of "money-cards", mahjong.
Correct.
> From 40 ---> 30 could be the modernization process?
Define 'modernization' in this context.
> As for Japanese matiao, you had mentioned about their use of generic
> name.
What are you talking about?
> > Wrong. Pan's deck only had, probably, a taiji symbol on the 1 cash. If
> > MJ developed from an earlier version of a card game deck then it is
> > the earlier versions you need to be accessing to support your ideas.
>
> No. I am fixing it to any time frame as yet. I am trying to establish
> a conceptual connection first.
What is a 'conceptual connection' in this context? What does it
contain? Describe it.
> > One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
> > cash.
>
> The taiji symbol saays a lot, Michael. In addition, there is ZERO-
> CASH.
> Taiji is the symbol of creation of the universe from 'nothingness'.
> The two signs together represent the essence of all.
> Comparison to this is like flying the national flag for any country.
> It leases little doubt as to the nationality of the people.
Irrelevant. Unless you can show with direct evidential support that
they were used in the way you claim they were used.
> Remember what Feng had said why the 40-cards were created? Emptiness
> if I recall correctly. He had something to say there, though it was
> not so clear.
Clearly. Emptiness and Nothingness. Although similar concepts, they
both have different meanings in the contexts in which they are used.
Reread Pan's description.
> Disagree. More than one symbol for one thing, as I just explained.
> They are key conceptual symbols for another.
What does those two sentences mean?
> That is actually more than your Cash-Hypot. All you have is a sign of
> cash from somewhere and the rest were extensions of it. Is that
> fallacious or not?
Your description of it is fallacious, yes. It is called a straw man
argument.
> I will have to explain better. Put it simpler, I would say it this
> way. I wanted only to show that I-Ching symbols and/or concepts did
> get used in game design.
Then define, clearly, what you mean by 'game design'.
> By the way it is an intellectual exercise only. It will change
> nothing. The game will be played just the way it is. How many Chinese
> people in China will ever be aware of your cash-hypot? Like I told
> you, they don't call it a cash-symbol.
Irrelevant. This is fallacious 'appeal to the masses'. Because
everyone else (according to you) is not aware of the cash hypothesis
(and stop calling in MY hypothesis) does not negate the usefulness and
validity and probable truthfulness of the hypothesis.
Further, it is irrelevant because the cash hypothesis' use is not
aimed at the way the game is played by playing public.
Regards
mstanwick
> BTW, I used a different image of money-suited cards in my book - an image I
> made myself from cards I bought in Tianjin. Perhaps the cards I bought are
> what Michael has taken to calling "Hakka cards"?
No. Hakka cards are of 4 suits. Check out this modern version;
http://www.pagat.com/multitrk/liukfu.html#cards
You can see the taiji symbol used on the aces.
Regards
mstanwick
> > One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
> > cash.
>
> This one symbol means a whole lot, Michael. Here is a quote from page
> 155 of the book, "A Short introduction to Daoism" by James Mller,
> 2003.
>
> "taiji [or tai Chi] �Supreme Ridgepole; the center of the heavens;
> Supreme Ultimate the foundational metaphysical principle."
Ok.
> This symbol embodies the yin/yang opposites of creation of "ten-
> thousand things" in the universe.
> This one symbol represent the process of constant changes in nature.
> This one symbol is equivalent to today's atomic theory of matter
> (negative and positive charges in balance and / or seeking
> equilibrium).
All irrelevant to this discussion. However, the last one is a strictly
pseudoscientific statement. I have discussed with pseudoscientists -
both religious and secular -
all my adult life, and this type of statement is oftyen trotted out in
one guise or another.
As a brief aside (due to the 'off topic" nature of the subject) this
shows an underlying lack of understanding of informal logic. "This one
symbol" is in no way whatsoever equivalent to todays atomic theory of
matter etc. The latter is a set of scientific statements derived from
the scientific method. "This one symbol" is the result of a type of
metaphysical thought completely and utterly different to the
scientific method. There is no equivalence in the methods at all.
None. Therefore there is no equivalence in their outcomes either.
None.
> One good essential symbol is all that is needed, Michael. The meaning
> of the symbol and the proper application of it is what can determine
> the validity and soundness �of the design and its explanation.
The "proper application" - what does that mean?
> > No point. The inferences to verify are fallacious.
>
> I respectfully disagree, Michael.
Totally irrelevant, until you give some very good reasonable
explanations for why you disagree. That is being respectful, in a
discussion.
Regards
al
>
> > Which is "cash card" you refer to, the same card as the taiji card?
>
> Yes. The middle row of cards.
>
called "cash cards"? This defies logic.
> > The Chinese writing on that page refer to the "cash card" as [hong],
> > Pipe, tube 管，筒. Note that the radical is the bamboo sign, non-metallic
>
> Yes.
>
That is all your answer to that? The people in the place of the game's
origin call the symbol other than CASH. You insist that those people
are wrong all this time. I am not sure what it is, ignorance or
arrogance, Michael.
In view of the fact that Chinese call the circular symbols through
the years and they still do, I am tempted to say the CASH term is like
an oxymoron.
> > "Rod like" as you described, do you mean the top row of cards with
> > drawings of long tapered objects like scarfs with pointed tips?
>
> Yes.
>
Those don't look rod-like. That sharp tip looks too dangerous to be
any form of solid material.
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> > Any inference can be drawn from the possibility that the design is
> > that of a modern version of matiao?
>
> It is not madiao. My understanding is that ma diao is a four suited
> card game. All the woodblocks and their prints are of three suited
> decks of cards.
>
Let me see if I understand your intent. Matiao is a 4-suited card game
only. Any 3-suited card game is not matiao.
So even as taiji symbols are on the cards of a 3-suited card game, it
does not follow that taiji always associates with matiao.
Is that what you tried to say?
> The Japanese MJ Museum may be using the generic name 'ma diao' to
> refer to the style of cash-suited cards.
>
Are you trying to say Japanese ma diao may not belong to the 4-suited
matiao?
Something else with 4 suits of cards and more matiao-like is needed,is
that it?
> > > What is the assertion you are making, that this card set is meant to
> > > support?
> > Just a possibility that matiao game-design might have had at least a
> > remote link to symbols and concepts in the Book of Changes, like taiji
> > diagram, trigrams and devination.
>
> Cards are not from madiao game. Cannot argue in reverse time. You need
> to establish age of the cards/woodblock. Argue from the earliest
> documentary evidence. If Pan's deck actually sported these symbols
> then you can argue your point. Unfortunately, Pan's deck did not sport
> those symbols.
>
I have stated clearly previously. Timing is not the question. In fact
the presence of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-
Ching and taiji. To show how the connections manifest in the game is
my next step in my hypot.
There is enough in Pan's game to describe a taiji diagram on page 89
of Lo's paper. "1-Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand
ultimate). (From 1 Cash to 9 Cash, I describe what is depicted. The
sizes of the object are not in order.)
Note that Cash is capitalized. Why, because it is not like cash?
Note carefully he said "from 1-Cash to 9-Cash....the sizes of the
objects are not in order". What are the "objects"? Could they be
similar to the suit of taiji diagrams on all the cards from 1-Cash to
9-Cash? Lo's "object" seems to be common for all cards from 1-Cash to
9-Cash.
> > What do you make of it? No date: therefore no good?
>
> I am friends with one of the compilers of the book. He has said there
> are errors in it. There are also accurate descriptions etc as well.
>
OK. That is obviously more hurdles.
> > The catalogue has no indication of approx. period? Does the validity
> > of the card-set's existence depend entirely on a fixed date ?
>
> The validity of using it in an argument such as yours, yes.
>
I did say that I wanted only to establish the evidence of taiji
application as card game symbols. I have found evidence of such in
Lo's paper on matiao. I have also found evidence taiji symbols used in
(modified) 3-suited card game.
Now you tell me unless the card set has a definite date and it's
proven not in error, the evidence found is invalid. You are over-
zealous, Michael. Did you apply the same rigor to the Cash-hypothesis?
Show me how you went about it, so I can learn your methodical
development of it.
> > [..]
>
> Regards
+++++++++++
The following is quote of your post earlier.
"For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of
Cash. As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
denominations have been represented."
Your explanation for the disparity in the denomination ofthe 3 Cash
suits was the fact that Prunner had those denominations of Cash in his
calalogue.
Does that not sound like saying "becuse those denominations did exist,
therefore they can be used here? That seems logical, but is it not
fallacious?
++++++++
Cheers....al
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> >I just said FAQ #11 shows a "modern version" of matiao.
>
> Not correct. FAQ 11b has an image (3suitgps.jpg) that depicts "A modern deck
> of money cards." Matiao is a game played with a form of money-suited cards.
> The caption under that image in FAQ 11b does not refer to the depicted cards
> as "matiao."
>
matiao, partly because early reference was made to matiao as being an
"important progenitor" of mahjong and partly because matiao has been
maintained as money-suited.
Is there a name for that money-suited card game in your FAQ #11?
How about a reference time frame for it? The info would be useful.
> If you're talking about a different image somewhere in FAQ 11 (a very large,
> many-part FAQ), then I need to know exactly which image, and exactly where
> in FAQ 11 it resides.
> [..]
I saw the card set only there. That is where readers can go to a web
site and create a duplicate cards set.
The taiji yin-yang symbol is right at the middle of the deck. Next to
the big fish is a double happiness indicating wedding union. A pair of
big naked eyes there too!
> Tom
++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Nov 16, 10:45�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > > > about that.
> > > > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> I should have said "Yes, I looked at the FAQ 11 picture". I did not
> see taiji or trigrams in that set.
>
there. It is on the middle card in the middle row.
The title in FAQ#11 is "a Modern deck of money-cards..."
A big fish is at the left lower corner. There is a symbol of matrimony
in double happiness. The taiji sign is on that same row to the right.
> > [..][..]
> [..]
> > > [..]
>
> What is a 'conceptual connection' in this context? What does it
> contain? Describe it.
>
The game is a sub-set formation with an objective of a cards pattern
of 2-3-3 initially where 2= a pair and 3 = a run.
An I-Ching connection is in the yin-yang being represented by a pair
and the trigrams are the 3-some sub-sets resulted from the interaction
of yin and yang.
The game play is a process of continual response to changing external
conditions induced by "discards and draws". That is what Book of
Changes about.
A pair is a requisite for a winning hand. Conceptually that is yin-
yang opposites of creation as symbolized by the taiji circle diagram.
Further evidence is the term common in all regions and throughout
history called "the eyes'.
A run can not exceed 3 (corresponding to the trigram of 3 lines in I-
Ching).
Counting on the base of 2 (i.e. 2 times the score for each fann).
And so on...
> > > One taiji symbol, perhaps, on a card that represents the rank of 1
> > > cash.
>
> > The taiji symbol saays a lot, Michael. In addition, there is ZERO-
> > CASH.
> > Taiji is the symbol of creation of the universe from 'nothingness'.
> > The two signs together represent the essence of all.
> > [..]
>
> Irrelevant. Unless you can show with direct evidential support that
> they were used in the way you claim they were used.
>
It is still far more relevant than anything I have read. I challenge
you to show me something better explain the game symbols, its
structure and rules of play.
> > Remember what Feng had said why the 40-cards were created? Emptiness
> > if I recall correctly. He had something to say there, though it was
> > not so clear.
>
> Clearly. Emptiness and Nothingness. Although similar concepts, they
> both have different meanings in the contexts in which they are used.
> Reread Pan's description.
>
Different? How much of a difference?
Regardless, Feng indicated a conceptual context.
You can point out Pan's words that are in dispute if you want.
> > [..]
> [..]
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> > I will have to explain better. Put it simpler, I would say it this
> > way. I wanted only to show that I-Ching symbols and/or concepts did
> > get used in game design.
>
> Then define, clearly, what you mean by 'game design'.
>
I have given an answer above. Let me recap briefly below:
(1) sub-set pattern 2-3-3 and later 2-3-3-3-3
(2) one pair (eyes) as requisite for a winning hand (yin/yang symbol)
(3) sub-set of a run must be 3 cards only (trigrams from yin/yang)
(4) game-play is a process of continual change (pattern forming by
draw and discard, not trick-taking.)
so on and so forth...Now look at it objectively, can you blaming me
for pursuing the idea? What can the "Cash-based" or ""money-suited"
concept explain any part of the mahjong game? Nothing!
> > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> Regards
++++++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> But why? There is not the faintest sign of CASH? Why are they still
> called "cash cards"? This defies logic.
No. There was - and is - a convention or tradition of putting other
symbols onto the particular cards of a particular suit. This occurred
early in maque development and it is still occuring today. Please
refer to my articles about the Sheng set for an example of an early
instant.
> That is all your answer to that? The people in the place of the game's
> origin call the symbol other than CASH. You insist that those people
> are wrong all this time. I am not sure what it is, ignorance or
> arrogance, Michael.
Careful. Make your comments about my statements - not about me. Any
more of that nonsense and I will stop this correspondence.
The reply was brief as you were making a statement about what the
book's description said. You were not making an inference of any kind.
I do not insist anything about 'those people'. I am primarily
interested in the origin of the symbols on the cards. That means that
I am concerned about very early references about that subject. Modern
or recent deck references would be relevant if there were a very close
similarity of the whole modern deck and very early decks. Then
comaprisons could be made and inferences drawn.
> In view of the fact that Chinese call the circular symbols �through
> the years and they still do, I am tempted to say the CASH term is like
> an oxymoron.
'Temptation' is irrelevant. Sound argument is not. The statement above
provides no sound argumentation. Therefore the reasoning behing the
statement cannot be evaluated.
> [snip] Matiao is a 4-suited card game
> only.
As I understand it, yes.
> Any 3-suited card game is not matiao.
Correct.
> So even as taiji symbols are on the cards of a 3-suited card game, it
> does not follow that taiji always associates with matiao.
This is an acceptable inference. But I did not make it.
> Are you trying to say Japanese ma diao may not belong to the 4-suited
> matiao?
The Japanese MJ Museum description uses the term 'matiao', but shows 3
suited decks only. A matiao deck, as I understand it, consists of 4
suits.
Therefore one possible explanation for the discrepency may be that
they are talking about a style of cards - be they in 4 or 3 suited
decks.
> I have stated clearly previously. Timing is not the question. In fact
> the presence of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-
> Ching and taiji. To show how the connections manifest in the game is
> my next step in my hypot.
No. Wrong. The fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature
of the connection. This has not been established beyond reasonable
doubt. No evidence supporting or verifying the nature of the
connection has been offered.
> There is enough in Pan's game to describe a taiji diagram
I agree. The size of the taiji diagram on the 1 Cash is not known.
> Note that Cash is capitalized. Why, because it is not like cash?
You have lost me. Explain what you mean.
> Note carefully he said "from 1-Cash to 9-Cash....the sizes of the
> objects are not in order". What are the "objects"? Could they be
> similar to the suit of taiji diagrams on all the cards from 1-Cash to
> 9-Cash? Lo's "object" seems to be common for all cards from 1-Cash to
> 9-Cash.
'Objects' is a reference term to something in the description - the
objects used for the Cash representations IMO.
> I did say that I wanted only to establish the evidence of taiji
> application as card game symbols. I have found evidence of such in
> Lo's paper on matiao.
No. Wrong. You have found evidence of taiji symbols being used in one
suit of a 3 suited money deck and on one card in a 4 suited madiao
deck.
Define what you mean by "application as card game symbols".
> Show me how you went about it, so I can learn your methodical
> development of it.
No. My fees are too high and this group is not intended as a tutorial
forum.
Taiji and trigrams have been found on certain suits of money cards.
Fine. Attributing the I-Ching with a direct developmental connection
to maque or money cards is vastly premature.
> Your explanation for the disparity in the denomination ofthe 3 Cash
> suits was the fact that Prunner had those denominations of Cash in his
> calalogue.
> Does that not sound like saying "becuse those denominations did exist,
> therefore they can be used here? That seems logical, but is it not
> fallacious?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Regards
mstanwick
> I just checked again. Yes, Michael the yin-yang taiji diagram is
> there. It is on the middle card in the middle row.
Thank you. I see it now
> The title in FAQ#11 is "a Modern deck of money-cards..."
> A big fish is at the left lower corner. There is a symbol of matrimony
> in double happiness. The taiji sign is on that same row to the right.
I only see the taiji symbol in the center of the 5 cash in the middle
row.
[snip]
> > Irrelevant. Unless you can show with direct evidential support that
> > they were used in the way you claim they were used.
>
> It is still far more relevant than anything I have read. I challenge
> you to show me something better explain the game symbols, its
> structure and rules of play.
Irrelevant distraction to my request. I repeat; show with evidential
support that they were used in the way you claim they were used.
> You can point out Pan's words that are in dispute if you want.
[snip]
> What can the "Cash-based" or ""money-suited"
> concept explain any part of the mahjong game? Nothing!
That is because it does not have anything to say about the game-play -
aside from the fact that the game-play uses money cards.
This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. But the accusation above
is trotted out without any regard for the fact that the money-
derivation hypothesis has nothing to say about the game-play.
Regards
Tom Sloper
"al" <al...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
> Is there a name for that money-suited card game in your FAQ #11?
FAQ 11b. The "b" is important.
I suppose there might be several regional names. Not knowing those, I just
call the cards "money-suited cards."
> How about a reference time frame for it? The info would be useful.
Yes, it would. I'm not going to do your research for you. But I have posted
two other images of money-suited cards in FAQ 11b, with what timeframe
information I possess.
al
> On Nov 17, 10:44�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > But why? There is not the faintest sign of CASH? Why are they still
> > called "cash cards"? This defies logic.
>
> No. There was - and is - a convention or tradition of putting other
> symbols onto the particular cards of a particular suit. This occurred
>
So, by convention or tradition, you can put symbols onto cards and
call them circles, cakes, wheels or containers or Cash, as you like.
> > [..]
>
> ]..]
>
>[..]
>
> > [..]
>
> > [snip] Matiao is a 4-suited card game
> > only.
>
> As I understand it, yes.
>
> > Any 3-suited card game is not matiao.
>
> Correct.
>
> > So even as taiji symbols are on the cards of a 3-suited card game, it
> > does not follow that taiji always associates with matiao.
>
> This is an acceptable inference. But I did not make it.
>
I thought there was a stage at which the 4-suited game was trimmed to
3-suited format and then multiplied. What if taiji diagram was in that
3-suited deck? Does that not indicate taiji symbols were used in game
design (matiao or otherwise)?
> > Are you trying to say Japanese ma diao may not belong to the 4-suited
> > matiao?
>
> The Japanese MJ Museum description uses the term 'matiao', but shows 3
> suited decks only. A matiao deck, as I understand it, consists of 4
> suits.
>
A horse hanging up one leg may be 3-suited then?
> Therefore one possible explanation for the discrepency may be that
> they are talking about a style of cards - be they in 4 or 3 suited
> decks.
>
And taiji diagrams were there.
> > I have stated clearly previously. Timing is not the question. In fact
> > the presence of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-
> > Ching and taiji. To show how the connections manifest in the game is
> > my next step in my hypot.
>
> No. Wrong. The fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature
> of the connection. This has not been established beyond reasonable
> doubt. No evidence supporting or verifying the nature of the
> connection has been offered.
>
What is the "fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature of
the [money / cash] connection", Michael?
Has that been established beyond reasonable doubt? Supporting
evidence for the cash-base have been offered but they did not verify
the [cash] nature of the connection.
Why the same yardstick was not used on the Money / Cash premise?
> > There is enough in Pan's game to describe a taiji diagram
>
> I agree. The size of the taiji diagram on the 1 Cash is not known.
>
It was big enough for the translator to tell that as taiji diagram.
You don't mean it has to be certain size.
> > Note that Cash is capitalized. Why, because it is not like cash?
>
> You have lost me. Explain what you mean.
>
I meant Cash has a capital "C" indication of a proper name, possibly.
Like Johnny Cash?
> > Note carefully he said "from 1-Cash to 9-Cash....the sizes of the
> > objects are not in order". What are the "objects"? Could they be
> > similar to the suit of taiji diagrams on all the cards from 1-Cash to
> > 9-Cash? Lo's "object" seems to be common for all cards from 1-Cash to
> > 9-Cash.
>
> 'Objects' is a reference term to something in the description - the
> objects used for the Cash representations IMO.
>
I incline to wonder if those objects might be more taiji symbols of
different sizes, like those in the 3-suited set of Takeshobo Museum
set. I wish I could get Lo to clarify the picture.
> > I did say that I wanted only to establish the evidence of taiji
> > application as card game symbols. I have found evidence of such in
> > Lo's paper on matiao.
>
> No. Wrong. You have found evidence of taiji symbols being used in one
> suit of a 3 suited money deck and on one card in a 4 suited madiao
> deck.
>
You forgot, Michael, in the Cash-base hypot, all you found was a a
coin description on one page and a coin-like symbol on a suit of
cards.
> Define what you mean by "application as card game symbols".
>
> > Show me how you went about it, so I can learn your methodical
> > development of it.
>
> No. My fees are too high and this group is not intended as a tutorial
> forum.
>
I have to admit, Michael. I am not sure what this group consists of
and what its purpose is about.
> Taiji and trigrams have been found on certain suits of money cards.
> Fine. Attributing the I-Ching with a direct developmental connection
> to maque or money cards is vastly premature.
>
Why? There is such concept as deductive reasoning in preliminary
investigation.
> > Your explanation for the disparity in the denomination ofthe 3 Cash
> > suits was the fact that Prunner had those denominations of Cash in his
> > calalogue.
> > Does that not sound like saying "becuse those denominations did exist,
> > therefore they can be used here? That seems logical, but is it not
> > fallacious?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
I thought by bringing Prunner's range of denominations of money to the
table you thereby try to justify their presence in mahjong,
notwithstanding the ten-thousand to one ratio in the suits.
In other words, just because the denominations exist does not mean
they should be in the mahjong suits.
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > No. There was - and is - a convention or tradition of putting other
> > symbols onto the particular cards of a particular suit. This occurred
> > early in maque development and it is still occuring today.[..].
>
> So, by convention or tradition, you can put symbols onto cards and
> call them circles, cakes, wheels or containers or Cash, as you like.
No. Putting other symbols or representations onto cards that already
are representations of particular things - such as money.
> I thought there was a stage at which the 4-suited game was trimmed to
> 3-suited format and then multiplied.
Correct.
> What if taiji diagram was in that
> 3-suited deck? Does that not indicate taiji symbols were used in game
> design (matiao or otherwise)?
No.
> > The Japanese MJ Museum description uses the term 'matiao', but shows 3
> > suited decks only. A matiao deck, as I understand it, consists of 4
> > suits.
>
> A horse hanging up one leg may be 3-suited then?
No. It is 4 suits of fourty cards.
> > Therefore one possible explanation for the discrepency may be that
> > they are talking about a style of cards - be they in 4 or 3 suited
> > decks.
>
> And taiji diagrams were there.
In the 3 suited decks.
> > > I have stated clearly previously. Timing is not the question. In fact
> > > the presence of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-
> > > Ching and taiji. To show how the connections manifest in the game is
> > > my next step in my hypot.
>
> > No. Wrong. The fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature
> > of the connection. This has not been established beyond reasonable
> > doubt. No evidence supporting or verifying the nature of the
> > connection has been offered.
>
> What is the "fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature of
> the [money / cash] connection", Michael?
No. I was talking about YOUR argument. You said "In fact the presence
of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-Ching and taiji."
So can you describe tha nature of that connection??
> Has that been established beyond reasonable doubt? �Supporting
> evidence for the cash-base have been offered but they did not verify
> the [cash] nature of the connection.
Lu Rong's, Pan's and Feng's descriptions.
> Why the same yardstick was not used on the Money / Cash premise?
It has, otherwise I would not be saying it.
> > I agree. The size of the taiji diagram on the 1 Cash is not known.
>
> It was big enough for the translator to tell that as taiji diagram.
> You don't mean it has to be certain size.
No.
> > > Note that Cash is capitalized. Why, because it is not like cash?
>
> > You have lost me. Explain what you mean.
>
> I meant Cash has a capital "C" indication of a proper name, possibly.
> Like Johnny Cash?
I still don't understand the connection with 'not like cash'.
> I incline to wonder if those objects might be more taiji symbols of
> different sizes, like those in the 3-suited set of Takeshobo Museum
> set. I wish I could get Lo to clarify the picture.
I see what you mean. But no, I don't think so. Pan says "1 cash. Like
the diagram of the taiji...". "2 Cash. Like a waist drum." etc. As lo
said, he goes on to describe the arrangement of the cash
representations by relating them to known shaped objects.
> > No. Wrong. You have found evidence of taiji symbols being used in one
> > suit of a 3 suited money deck and on one card in a 4 suited madiao
> > deck.
>
> You forgot, Michael, in the Cash-base hypot, all you found was a a
> coin description on one page and a coin-like symbol on a suit of
> cards.
So my correction of your own description was correct then?
Your distracting retort is also wrong. Cash denominations are
described in all of Lo's articles. Pan describes a cash coin, Lu Rong
describes the denominations of cash as does Pan.
> I have to admit, Michael. I am not sure what this group consists of
> and what its purpose is about.
It consists of members who are people interested in all aspects of
maque/mahjong. Here they can post their ideas or thoughts about maque
without fear of ridicule or emotive attacks or bullying or any other
nasty type of nonsense. But it is not a teaching forum.
> > Taiji and trigrams have been found on certain suits of money cards.
> > Fine. Attributing the I-Ching with a direct developmental connection
> > to maque or money cards is vastly premature.
>
> Why? There is such concept as deductive reasoning in preliminary
> investigation.
What does that mean??
> I thought by bringing Prunner's range of denominations of money to the
> table you thereby try to justify their presence in mahjong,
> notwithstanding the ten-thousand to one ratio in the suits.
> In other words, just because the denominations exist does not mean
> they should be in the mahjong suits.
The money derivation hypothesis can explain the names of the suits -
cash, suo, wan and their representations. I have explained it so much
you cannot have failed to remeber what it claims to explain and how
and why. I have also explained the use of a ranking system and a value
system so you cannot have forgotten that either.
The hypothesis does not use the phrase 'should be in'. It seeks to
explain the representations and their names in terms of playing card
development and culture.
Regards
al
> On Nov 19, 5:07�am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >[..]
> [..]
>
> > I thought there was a stage at which the 4-suited game was trimmed to
> > 3-suited format and then multiplied.
>
> Correct.
>
> > What if taiji diagram was in that
> > 3-suited deck? Does that not indicate taiji symbols were used in game
> > design (matiao or otherwise)?
>
> No.
>
[..]
>
> > And taiji diagrams were there.
>
> In the 3 suited decks.
>
> > > > I have stated clearly previously. Timing is not the question. In fact
> > > > the presence of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-
> > > > Ching and taiji. To show how the connections manifest in the game is
> > > > my next step in my hypot.
>
> > > No. Wrong. The fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature
> > > of the connection. This has not been established beyond reasonable
> > > doubt. No evidence supporting or verifying the nature of the
> > > connection has been offered.
>
> > What is the "fundamental premise of the argument lies in the nature of
> > the [money / cash] connection", Michael?
>
> No. I was talking about YOUR argument. You said "In fact the presence
> of taiji symbol alone has proven the connection to I-Ching and taiji."
>
argument.
> So can you describe tha nature of that connection??
>
Perhaps I could suggest a review of my Nov. 17, 2007 post. Can you
tell if there are "connections"?
With reference to the Cash-Base"...
> > Has that been established beyond reasonable doubt? �Supporting
> > evidence for the cash-base have been offered but they did not verify
> > the [cash] nature of the connection.
That is in my view.
>
> Lu Rong's, Pan's and Feng's descriptions.
>
All descriptions were recorded from word of mouth. I have answered
that previously. One guy copied from the other. (parsimony is the
word, I think.)
> > Why the same yardstick was not used on the Money / Cash premise?
>
> It has, otherwise I would not be saying it.
>
How and where can I find the reference?
> > > I agree. The size of the taiji diagram on the 1 Cash is not known.
>
> > It was big enough for the translator to tell that as taiji diagram.
> > You don't mean it has to be certain size.
>
> No.
>
Then the taiji diagram was valid.
> > > > [..]
>
> > I incline to wonder if those objects might be more taiji symbols of
> > different sizes, like those in the 3-suited set of Takeshobo Museum
> > set. I wish I could get Lo to clarify the picture.
>
> I see what you mean. But no, I don't think so. Pan says "1 cash. Like
> the diagram of the taiji...". "2 Cash. Like a waist drum." etc. As lo
> said, he goes on to describe the arrangement of the cash
> representations by relating them to known shaped objects.
>
"Waist drum" sounds like two round objects to me. Taiji diagrams are
round like waist drum.
Only the translator, a contact you consulted, could give a clear
answer.
++++++++
> > > [..] You have found evidence of taiji symbols being used in one
> > > suit of a 3 suited money deck and on one card in a 4 suited madiao
> > > deck.
>
If this was research activity as we might regard it to be, such
discovery would be of interest at least, if not significant. The taiji
symbol was never mentioned being used in any card or any game before
now, Michael. Correct me if I am wrong.
> > You forgot, Michael, in the Cash-base hypot, all you found was a a
> > coin description on one page and a coin-like symbol on a suit of
> > cards.
>
> So my correction of your own description was correct then?
>
You made it sound as though you wished you were right. However, I just
mentioned the 2-cash is a waist-drum which could mean the picture of 2
taiji diagrams. To prove you may be right, check with Lo. He is a
phone-call away from you.
> Your distracting retort is also wrong. Cash denominations are
> described in all of Lo's articles. Pan describes a cash coin, Lu Rong
> describes the denominations of cash as does Pan.
>
If they had gone on the wrong assumption, they could be all wrong. As
I cited example previously, the earth was flat for a long time and so
was the "common knowledge" that Earth was the center of the universe.
Parsimony.( Thanks Edwin.)
> > I have to admit, Michael. I am not sure what this group consists of
> > and what its purpose is about.
>
> It consists of members who are people interested in all aspects of
> maque/mahjong. Here they can post their ideas or thoughts about maque
> without fear of ridicule or emotive attacks or bullying or any other
> nasty type of nonsense. But it is not a teaching forum.
>
Thanks for clarifying this.
> > > Taiji and trigrams have been found on certain suits of money cards.
> > > Fine. Attributing the I-Ching with a direct developmental connection
> > > to maque or money cards is vastly premature.
>
> > Why? There is such concept as deductive reasoning in preliminary
> > investigation.
>
> What does that mean??
>
Read my Nov. 17 post. It is the reverse of inductive, as I understand.
> > I thought by bringing Prunner's range of denominations of money to the
> > table you thereby try to justify their presence in mahjong,
> > notwithstanding the ten-thousand to one ratio in the suits.
> > In other words, just because the denominations exist does not mean
> > they should be in the mahjong suits.
>
> The money derivation hypothesis can explain the names of the suits -
> cash, suo, wan and their representations. I have explained it so much
> you cannot have failed to remeber what it claims to explain and how
> and why. I have also explained the use of a ranking system and a value
> system so you cannot have forgotten that either.
>
Not forgetting, Michael, but disagreeing, still.
You see? My contention is that the "cash, suo and wan" do not
represent what you assumed them to be or you have been told or read.
The very fact that the circular shape has been called with different
names is a proof of that. What is suo? Axle, stick or rope or string?
Wan is 10000 of what coins or food items or just things?
How does Cash explain the presence of Winds and Seasons / Flowers?
The whole cash-base is a false assumption. That is what I tried to
tell you.
> [..]
>
> Regards
++++++++++
Read my Nov. 17 2007 post. It covered the important points that are
central to the argument. I will have more to say about the symbols in
mahjong. The game is a coherent piece of work.
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > > What if taiji diagram was in that
> > > 3-suited deck? Does that not indicate taiji symbols were used in game
> > > design (matiao or otherwise)?
>
> > No.
>
> Why not? Taiji image is used whatever name of the game.
Just because the taiji symbol was in a 3 suited deck does not mean
anthing beyond that - unless there is more evidence to indicate
anything beyond that.
> I need to see what you mean by applying it to the "cash-base"
> argument.
You have completely lost me here.
> Perhaps I could suggest a review of my Nov. 17, 2007 post. Can you
> tell if there are "connections"?
Only superficial ones.
> All descriptions were recorded from word of mouth. I have answered
> that previously. One guy copied from the other. (parsimony is the
> word, I think.)
No it isn't. And stop making baseless comments about word-of-mouth.
You have no evidence whatsoever that was the case. It may have been
word-of-mouth and it may not have been word-of-mouth. I want you to
put up the evidence you have that comes from that time that tells you
it was word-of-mouth. You provide evidence to convince me one way or
the other.
> How and where can I find the reference?
I told you. Read Lo's articles. They are the earliest references.
> Then the taiji diagram was valid
Valid for what?? What do you mean?
> > I see what you mean. But no, I don't think so. Pan says "1 cash. Like
> > the diagram of the taiji...". "2 Cash. Like a waist drum." etc. As lo
> > said, he goes on to describe the arrangement of the cash
> > representations by relating them to known shaped objects.
>
> "Waist drum" sounds like two round objects to me. Taiji diagrams are
> round like waist drum.
So are cash symbols. Oh, and the symbols or representations are on
cards that have denominations of Cash.
> Only the translator, a contact you consulted, could give a clear answer.
Then you contact him. Do your own researching.
> If this was research activity as we might regard it to be, such
> discovery would be of interest at least, if not significant. The taiji
> symbol was never mentioned being used in any card or any game before
> now, Michael. Correct me if I am wrong.
I think Prunner might have mentioned it - might i am not sure. But
what is your point? Many other symbols appear on the money-suited
cards as well.
> You made it sound as though you wished you were right. However, I just
> mentioned the 2-cash is a waist-drum which could mean the picture of 2
> taiji diagrams. To prove you may be right, check with Lo. He is a
> phone-call away from you.
You want me to prove that Pan's "2 cash" is a 2 cash???
Further, the use of symbols in place of cash representations is and
has been a tradition in card-making as I told you before.
But you want your waist drum claim to be verified or refuted by me
contacting Lo to refute or verify that the 2 cash is or is not a 2
cash as Pan described. There is no indication that Pan was describing
taiji symbols for the rest of the suit. So you go and check with Lo
whether you claim is verified or refuted.
> If they had gone on the wrong assumption, they could be all wrong. As
> I cited example previously, the earth was flat for a long time and so
> was the "common knowledge" that Earth was the center of the universe.
> Parsimony.( Thanks Edwin.)
You want to admit this IF argument into a discussion??? YOU give
EVIDENCE for an argument NOT an IF.
> > > Why? There is such concept as deductive reasoning in preliminary
> > > investigation.
>
> > What does that mean??
>
> Read my Nov. 17 post. It is the reverse of inductive, as I understand.
I read your posts. I still have no idea what you mean - even after
reading them. What do you mean??
> The whole cash-base is a false assumption. That is what I tried to
> tell you.
Yes. Without evidence and without convincing logic.
Since you obviously have different views that we have endlessly
discussed and i have no more to add, then this discussion is also
pointless.
Goodbye.
Regards
al
> On Nov 19, 3:16�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Starting over...
> Since you obviously have different views that we have endlessly
> discussed and i have no more to add, then this discussion is also
> pointless.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> Regards
+++++++++++
> Michael
++++++++++++++++++++++
Analysis of Michael’s explanation for the cash-suited hypot.
I asked Edwin back in April, 2007 “Are you a cash-based believer?”
Michael, you replied. And I quote.
++++++++++++++
“Please be assured that in my case at least, it is not a matter of
belief. In my case it just so happens that the depiction of the three
suits of ma que conform to the predictions of the money-suit
derivation hypothesis (containing the 'strings of cash hypothesis as
well) [..].
Another of the predictions, of the money suit derivation hypothesis,
is that there must be some depiction-conformity from any of the three
ma que suits (of which the 'bamboo' suit is an integral part) with the
three money suits of the pasteboard cards.
This is precisely what we find - in the myriads suit. The symbols used
for the ma que myriads suit are exactly those symbols found in the
myriads of cash suit of the money-suited pasteboard cards from the
same period."
++++++++++++
So, "the depiction of the 3 mahjong suits conform to the prediction of
the three money-suit derivation hypothesis."
Prediction or is it extrapolation? What the situation consists of was
that Cash in Matiao and "string" in Matiao were transposed to mahjong
based on one name in mahjong for the circle coined Cash and two names
in Matiao, Cash and Strings. Coincidence? What if the circle in either
mahjong or matiao was non-cash?
No prediction for the fourth suits that has the Winds and Zhong-Fa-
Bai? Cash hypot has justification for the appearance of an extra suit
of cards of words?
Bamboo was part of the prediction? That is interesting. How come? What
did bamboo have to do with cash?
Myriad is hardly a prediction though, it is seen used as superlative
adjective for some large quantity of anything, money, food or people.
Its appearance is likely coincidental.
One important point is the conditional nature of the situation that
the predictions are only as good as the assumption that mahjong's
circles are also Cash, even if matiao's were Cash as described and
translated in writing.
The major weakness of the Cash hypot for mahjong and its prediction
exercise is the absence of account or consideration for the fourth
suit in mahjong. What was the significance of such addition? It was
not in matiao or any other game.
++++++++++
Cheers......al
al
> On Oct 30, 1:20?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
Hello, Michael,
It's a good time to review some the posts to appreciate the continuity
and details in the threads.
I noticed this one.
> > On Oct 9, 8:25 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
> > are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
> > have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
> > game-play?
>
> For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
> cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of
> Cash. As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
> in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
> denominations have been represented.
>
Since you jumped in so quick. I never did get an answer direct from
the person I asked the question. I can only assume that his reply was
not affirmative.
> > I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
> > established through extensive studies.
>
> Where and who told you that?
>
I gave you the post dates and the exact quotes.
+++++++++
> Regards
+++++++++++
I also just read about the fact that the only 3 matiao cards in Du
Yaquan's 1933 book have no correspondences in mahjong. So, I still
have my doubts about the progenity between mahjong and matiao.
++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> According to Lo, the game of ma diao disappeared in the late 19th
> century. I am not aware of any four suited money packs apart from the
> Hakka cards.
>
> FAQ 11 shows a 3 suited deck.
>
> > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > about that.
> > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> Yes.
> [..]
>
> > You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
> > say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
> > not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
> > that how you see it?
>
> I have no idea what this means.
>
in I-Ching. Now I can show them. http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.hyml
As the coins are for divination, strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash
then be no more.
Strings and myriad mean different symbols in I-Ching divination. That
makes MJ I-Ching based. When did mahjong come into being and what
changes took place have yet to be determined or estimated yet. That
was what I meant, besides the 2-3-3-3-3 pattern.
+++++++++++
> Regards
+++++++++
Cheers......al
al
> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
now.
> > >[..]
> [..]
>
> > > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > > about that.
> > > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> > Yes.
> > > You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
> > > say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
> > > not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
> > > that how you see it?
>
> > I have no idea what this means.
>
> What that means is the circles in mahjong are "coins" for divination
> in I-Ching. Now I can show them [to you as evidence].
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
I found a coin with concentric circles. The round little hole in the
middle looks much like the 'tong'.
Now we can say the symbols (external characteristics) and the internal
characteristics (roles and play) of mahjong correlate in terms of Book
of Changes. Many unique features of mahjong can now be explained.
I guess the problem is to educate readers on the Book. It was not
possible in the past hundreds of years!
> [..]
>
> +++++++++
Cheers......al
al
> On Oct 30, 1:20?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 8:25 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > I have studied the Mataio symbols very carefully in Lo's paper. They
> > are different from mahjong (very much different). Did you actually
> > have a chance to examine or research on mataio "money" symbols and
> > game-play?
>
Ming Games, because he replied earlier to my question (if mahjong and
ma diao were related).
BTW I never did get a direct answer whether he had read it or not.
But this was your quick answer.
> For those interested, the issue is not the actual representations of
> cash per se but the fact that the representations are of forms of
> Cash.
Does that not sound like saying [the issue is not the actual charge
per se, but the fact that an alleged crime was reported]? Or it sound
more like :
[The issue is not the actual crime per se, but the fact that a charge
was alleged]?
Either way, it's no-explanation or invalid explanation for the marked
differences between the symbols in mahjong and those in ma diao.
In Lo's translation, the term "Cash" was used throughout. I can't help
but wonder where and how he got that. He never showed what a Zero Cash
looked like. He did say the 1-Cash was a taiji diagram [the yin-yang
symbol], but who knows what a Half-Cash was like? Was a Half-Cash (a
Broken-Cash) broken from a 1-Cash into halves or an octagon or how was
it broken up? He also chose a hundred Cash to a String. Wilkinson said
it was a thousand Cash to a String.
This notion of Cash Money just does not add up. The fact it sticks is
truly puzzling to me. It was even based on false information.
According to Wilkinson in Origin of Chinese Games, "Everyone knows
the sapeck of China, a round coin of brass and copper, with a square
hole in its center. It is as a rule very badly cast, and it is worth
just now about 1/15th of a cent. This coin, then is the unit of the
kun p'ai."
I have never seen a bad cast copper coin. How many people did?
How Wilkinson can justify his claim that "as a rule", they were "badly
cast", I don't know. Could the Cash (chien) be so badly cast that they
did not have the square holes? If so, then they were not copper coins
of cash money and they could have been coins for divination. Look at
the hole-less divination coin at the lower right corner on the web
page.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
Furthermore, who has seen square holes in mahjong Circles? No aquare
holes in mahjong circles. Yet mahjong concentric circles are called
Cash, contrary to factual physical observation. People are hanging on
to it, because some Western scholar had said and written it so.
BTW, Cash = 1/15 of a cent is a mistake. I don't know if that was
Wilkinson's typo or a more serious error.
> As has been cited in past posts, there is much evidence (given
> in Prunners catalogue) of the different ways in which the various cash
> denominations have been represented.
>
As replied in earlier posts, the representation is out of proportion.
I recall reading Wilkinson's own remark about the incongruity of
supposed denominations.
The appearance of various denominations in a cataloge does not
necessarily justify or support their grouping in disproportionate
amounts like those as claimed in the 3 mahjong suits. The meaning of
"evidence" has been evidently stretched.
Besides, is a String a hundred or a thousand Cash? If it did not
matter in difference of amounts, then the whole money notion was
WORTHLESS.
++++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > >[..]
>
> > According to Lo, the game of ma diao disappeared in the late 19th
> > century. I am not aware of any four suited money packs apart from the
> > Hakka cards.
>
diao? Was that in The Playing-Card? What happened? Did Lo mention
anything more? Could there be a coincidence of ma diao and mahjong,
the disappearance of one and the appearance of the other?
> > FAQ 11 shows a 3 suited deck.
>
> > > There is yaiji and trigrams in that mtiao set. I think I mentioned
> > > about that.
> > > Even yin and yang symbols showed up in that set. Did you look at them?
>
> > Yes.
But it means notyjing?
> > [..]
>
> > > You may not have the correct understanding of my argument. I simple
> > > say that the mahjong game design is based on I-Ching concepts. I have
> > > not fixed any date to it. Age of the game is not in my argument. Is
> > > that how you see it?
>
> > I have no idea what this means.
>
Simply put, it means I wanted to show "WHAT", not "WHEN". In other
words, my presentation now is only a part of the whole argument.
Put it in another way, it is like when you were saying that your Cash-
Base does not concern itself with the suit of word-cards (ESWN and
zhong-Fa-Bai, as yet.
> What that means is the circles in mahjong are [or could be] "coins" for divination
> in I-Ching. Now I can show them.
I do not know when Mahjong was created, although it was there for some
time before Westerners found it.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.hyml
>
But if...
> As the coins are for divination, strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash
> then be no more.
> [..] That
> makes MJ I-Ching based. When did mahjong come into being and what
> changes took place have yet to be determined or estimated yet. That
> was what I meant, besides the 2-3-3-3-3 pattern.
> +++++++++++
You probably have read the meaning of "suo3": a rope or more obscured,
like, to "search,ask,demand,exact". The infinitive is a stronger link
to I-Ching divination than coins. In fact I found the concentric
circles totally "un-cashed". They are symbols of TIME and cyclical
CHANGES.
>
Cheers....al
> +++++++++
> Cheers......al
al
> On Dec 19 2007, 10:18 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
I find it hard to see how Ma Daio and Mah-Jong are related.
Ma-Diao is a trick-taking game and a trick consists of 4 cards (page
117 The Playing-Card, Volume XXIX, Number 3).
Mah-Jong is NOT a trick-taking game. Mah-Jong is pattern-forming game.
Its objective pattern is 2.3.3.3.3 where 3’s are sub-sets of 3 cards
in a sequence or all clones.
The two games have basic difference in design concept and rules of
play.
In Ma-Diao each of 40 cards is ranked within and across suits.
In Mah-Jong, cards are ordered within each suit but 136 cards NOT
ranked.
Ma Daio and Mah-Jong sound similar.
But don’t be fooled. The relation is not in the name and it is not
that one is more correct than the other. as I come to understand, they
both are incorrect
Ma in Ma Daio means horse. It was claimed.
Mah in Mah-Jong means hemp. So they say.
Take your pick: “horse hanging a leg” for ma daio or a “hempen bird”
for mah-jong.
Neither name correlate with game-play.
THEN HOW do THE TWO GAME STILL RELATE?
Western historians claim there is a common money-base.
If you can see a common money-base, then that is as far as the
relation goes.
I don’t agree with the perception and interpretation of a money-base
in Mah-Jong, but I see a connection among other symbols such as taiji
(yin-yang) diagram and a suit of line-graphs commonly referred to as
“strings”.
The commonality I see between Ma Daio and Mah-Jong is I-Ching in their
original designs whose “purpose and application” gotten lost “when
drinking cards” came along even before the Late Ming period. (Refer to
articles in The Playing-Card).
> > > >[..]
>
> [..]
>
> > What that means is the circles in mahjong are [or could be] "coins" for divination
> > in I-Ching.[..]
> I do not know when Mahjong was created, although it was there for some
> time before Westerners found it.
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.hyml
>
> But if...
>
> > As the coins are for divination, ]strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash
> > then become meaningless].
> > [..] That
> > makes [Mah-Jong] I-Ching based. [..]
Since Ma Daio has Taiji diagram, then yin-yang concept is the common
link with Mah-Jong's bamboo strips [Captain Mauger, 1915] for
divination.
> > +++++++++++
>
> You probably have read the meaning of "suo3": a r[..] more obscured,
> like, to "search,ask,demand,exact" [answers]. The infinitive [to seek] is a stronger link
> to I-Ching divination than coins. In fact I found the concentric
> circles as [..] symbols of TIME and cyclical
> CHANGES.
>
Cheers....al
> > +++++++++
al
> On Jan 31, 10:18 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 19 2007, 10:18 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Ma-Daio and Mah-Jong related? That was the question.
It still is a question. Now there might be an explanation.
>
> I find it hard to see how Ma Daio and Mah-Jong are related.
>
> Ma-Diao is a trick-taking game and a trick consists of 4 cards (page
> 117 The Playing-Card, Volume XXIX, Number 3).
> Mah-Jong is NOT a trick-taking game. Mah-Jong is pattern-forming game.
> Its objective pattern is 2.3.3.3.3 where 3’s are sub-sets of 3 cards
> in a sequence or all clones.
> The two games have basic difference in design concept and rules of
> play.
They could have been related since way back before Ming.
It just occurred to me. Pan and Feng wrote manuals for the game, but
they didn't say they created the game during their time.
When Pan and Feng had to re-write the instruction manuals for the
game, that means the game Ma Diao had been there before their time;
and no indication how long ago.
Here is an interesting thought. A Late Ming game was actually a PRE-
Ming game.
>
> In Ma-Diao each of 40 cards is ranked within and across suits.
> In Mah-Jong, cards are ordered within each suit but 136 cards NOT
> ranked.
>
The way Ma Diao was played as translated was after the arrival of
cards games for drinking. Then Vice Minister Wang Daokun (1525-1593)
changed the rules to winning money for scores. That is to say Ma Diao
lost its 'purpose and application' like many other games as mentioned
in page 87 Vol 31 Number 2.
So, it is possible, Ma Diao as described during Ming period was not
the original version. Given that, then it would be a likelihood the
two games Ma Diao and Mahjong might have had a link in view of the
taiji diagram and references to Grand Ultimate and Emptiness Supreme
etc.
> [..]
> The commonality I see between Ma Daio and Mah-Jong is I-Ching in their
> original designs whose “purpose and application” gotten lost “when
> drinking cards” came along even before the Late Ming period. (Refer to
> articles in The Playing-Card).
> [..]
> > [..]
>
> > > What that means is the circles in mahjong are [or could be] "coins" for divination
> > > in I-Ching.[..][..]
> > http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.hyml
>
> > > As the coins are for divination, ]strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash
> > > then become meaningless].
>
> > > That makes [Mah-Jong] I-Ching based. [..]
>
> Since Ma Daio has Taiji diagram, then yin-yang concept is the common
> link with Mah-Jong's bamboo strips [Captain Mauger, 1915] for
> divination.
>
Ma Diao and Mahjong do seem to relate a long way back in history. As
pointed out, Ma Diao was played in Ming but it is older than Ming
(1368-1644). It is not known how old exactly. Similarly Mahjong was
played in Ching, but we don't know how it is either.
+++++++++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Mar 28, 9:54 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 10:18 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 19 2007, 10:18 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 5:21�pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Ma-Daio and Mah-Jong related? That was the question.
>
> It still is a question. Now there might be an explanation.
>
I wrote this back on October 11, 2007.
+++++++++++
"So, [..], you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
'game-play mechanism' comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game. In that case, with
all
the mind-power and logical thinking among the group, why do we have
to
accept a hypothetical notion that mahjong comes from matiao? Tthey
are so different!
Are there other compelling reason for the claim?"
+++++++++++++++++
I don't recall what reply I got. It was not satisfactory, because the
question is not yet resolved.
>
> > I find it hard to see how Ma Daio and Mah-Jong are related.
>
> > Ma-Diao is a trick-taking game and a trick consists of 4 cards (page
> > 117 The Playing-Card, Volume XXIX, Number 3).
Ma Daio got changed. Along with many other games, after wine drinking
card games introduced, ma Daio "purpose and application" were
drastically altered.
> > Mah-Jong is NOT a trick-taking game. Mah-Jong is pattern-forming game.
> > Its objective pattern is 2.3.3.3.3 where 3’s are sub-sets of 3 cards
> > in a sequence or all clones.
> > The two games have basic difference in design concept and rules of
> > play.
True. But what if the mahjong mode of play was the older oearlier one
and Ma Daio of Ming period per Pan and Feng was the altered version?
>
> They [the two games] could have been related since way back before Ming.
> [..]. Pan and Feng wrote manuals for the game, [..]
> When Pan and Feng had to re-write the instruction manuals for the
> game, that means the game Ma Diao had been there before their time;
> and no indication how long ago.
A game played in Ming (1368-1644) could have been a game from Liang
(502-557).
>
> Here is an interesting thought. A Late Ming game was actually a PRE-
> Ming game.
Very likely...since the original or initial paper has disappeared or
disintegrated.
>
> >[..]
>
> The way Ma Diao was played as translated was after the arrival of
> cards games for drinking. Then Vice Minister Wang Daokun (1525-1593)
> changed the rules to winning money for scores. That is to say Ma Diao
> lost its 'purpose and application' like many other games as mentioned
> in page 87 Vol 31 Number 2.
Also on page 87, "Not only does he put them [the rich and brash] to
shame, for one has to be able to use cash once it is gathered". It was
then real gambling.
>
> So, it is possible, Ma Diao as described during Ming period was not
> the original version. Given that, then it would be a likelihood the
> two games Ma Diao and Mahjong might have had a link in view of the
> taiji diagram and references to Grand Ultimate and Emptiness Supreme
> etc.
Those symbols can be seen in the web page below.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
> > [..]
> > The commonality I see between Ma Daio and Mah-Jong is I-Ching in their
> > original designs [..] (Refer to articles in The Playing-Card).[..]
> > Since Ma Daio has Taiji diagram, then yin-yang concept is the common
> > link with Mah-Jong's bamboo strips [Captain Mauger, 1915] for
> > divination.
Bamboo strips were part of the tool kit.
>
> Ma Diao and Mahjong do seem to relate a long way back in history. As
> pointed out, Ma Diao was played in Ming but it is older than Ming
> (1368-1644). It is not known how old exactly. Similarly Mahjong was
> played in Ching, but we don't know how [old] it is either.
> +++++++++++++++++
Anybody has any idea for a link, even the faintest, between Ma Daio
and Mahjong? Let's hear it.
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On May 21, 8:48 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Mar 28, 9:54 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 10:18 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 19 2007, 10:18 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Nov 16, 4:21 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 5:21 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Ma-Daio and Mah-Jong related? That was the question.
>
> > It still is a question. Now there might be an explanation.
>
> There may be an explanation yet.
But Himly, Wilkinson, or other historians did not write it.
>
> I wrote this back on October 11, 2007.
> +++++++++++
> "So, [..], you are saying nobody in our group knows where the mahjong
> 'game-play mechanism' comes from. I suppose I can infer from what you
> indicated that mahjong is a one-of-a-kind game. In that case, with
> all
> the mind-power and logical thinking among the group, why do we have
> to
> accept a hypothetical notion that mahjong comes from matiao? Tthey
> are so different!
> Are there other compelling reason for the claim?"
Again. There was no reply.
> +++++++++++++++++
> I don't recall what reply I got. It was not satisfactory, because the
> question is not yet resolved.
> > > I find it hard to see how Ma Daio and Mah-Jong are related.
>
> > > Ma-Diao is a trick-taking game and a trick consists of 4 cards (page
> > > 117 The Playing-Card, Volume XXIX, Number 3).
Mahjong is NOT a trick-taking game.
>
> Ma Daio got changed. Along with many other games, after wine drinking
> card games introduced, ma Daio "purpose and application" were
>
> > > [..]
> > > The two games have basic difference in design concept and rules of
> > > play.
Reconsideration: different in game-play, but maybe not in design
concept.
> [..]
> > They [the two games] could have been related since way back before Ming.
> > [..]. Pan and Feng wrote manuals for the game, [..]
People had been playing Ma Daio for a period we do not know how long.
Calling Ma Daio a Late Ming game is a misnomer.
+++++++++++++++
> > When Pan and Feng had to re-write the instruction manuals for the
> > game, that means the game Ma Diao had been there before their time;
> > and no indication how long ago.
>
> A game played in Ming (1368-1644) could have been a game from Liang
>
> > Here is an interesting thought. A Late Ming game was actually a PRE-
>
> Very likely...since the original or initial paper has disappeared or
> disintegrated.
> [..]
> > the original version. Given that, then it would be a likelihood the
> > two games Ma Diao and Mahjong might have had a link in view of the
> > taiji diagram and references to Grand Ultimate and Emptiness Supreme
> > etc.
mahjong. Trigrams look like "strings". a trigram is a graph of 3
lines!
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
++++++++++++++++++
> > [..]
> > > The commonality I see between Ma Daio and Mah-Jong is I-Ching in their
> > > original designs [..] (Refer to articles in The Playing-Card).[..]
> > > Since Ma Daio has Taiji diagram, then yin-yang concept is the common
> > > divination.
http://i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipity/uploads/slips.serendipityThumb.jpg
Similar strips of bamboo were used by fortune tellers on the streets
of Hong Kong, as I can remember when I was there many years ago.
> [..]
> http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi
> > Ma Diao and Mahjong do seem to relate a long way back in history. As
> > pointed out, Ma Diao was played in Ming but it is older than Ming
> > (1368-1644). It is not known how old exactly. Similarly Mahjong was
> > played in Ching, but we don't know how [old] it is either.
Likewise, diamond was found about 5000 years ago, but that is not the
actual age of the stone.
> > +++++++++++++++++
>
> Anybody has any [other] idea for a link, even the faintest, between Ma Daio
> and Mahjong? Let's hear it.
> +++++++++++++
Cheers....al
P.S. Here is a quote from earlier post. " Cash denominations are
described in all of Lo's articles. Pan describes a cash coin, Lu Rong
describes the denominations of cash as does Pan." There is the
authoritative voice of history spoken.
It's almost like a bible believer saying "those were forbidden fruits
in the Garden of Eden". The good book says so.