A Chinese Word for Ten-Thousand-Myriad?
al
The English translation was published in the Playing-Card Vol. xxix
Num 3. I noticed the Cash denominations in the top suit were extremely
large. I understand that these large numbers were removed in the
process of evolution. I have 2 questions.
First, can anyone offer an explanation for the huge denominations for
a fourth suit initially? Then add a reason for its elimination if
possible.
Second, what were the Chinese single-syllable terms for “ten-thousand
myriad”, “thousand-myriad” and “hundred myriad”or “ten-myriad”?
+++++++++++
P.S. One-word Chinese terms are what I am looking for.
Julian Bradfield
> Second, what were the Chinese single-syllable terms for “ten-thousand
> myriad”, “thousand-myriad” and “hundred myriad”or “ten-myriad”?
According to the invaluable (Endymion) Wilkinson:
10,000 myriad, i.e. 10^8, was yi4 億, as it still is.
1000 myriad, i.e. 10^7, was jing1 經.
100 myriad, i.e. 10^6, was zhao4 兆 in pre-Qin times, but from the Qin
was just 百萬.
10 myriad, i.e. 10^5, was apparently also called 億. in pre-Qin times.
al
Thank you very much. 兆 is the word I was looking for.
兆 has the meaning I am looking for as well. 兆 means omen which relates
to divination.
I had suspected that those astronomical numerals had some purpose to
be in the deck initially. Their elimination caused a loss of "theme".
Lu Rong 38-card deck had a theme. Pan 40-card deck was reinforced with
Zero Cash and Half Cash and the taiji diagram for the One-Cash. It was
unwritten and therefore unnoticed and unknown.
Then someone unknowingly or otherwise eliminated 兆 and kept only 萬 and
2 other suits which show no connection to 兆.
That is an ominous sign indicating a mistake had been made.
As I see it, Ma Diao got mutilated since then and left with a 'money
base'.
Mahjong suffered the same fate, perhaps? It has one thing common to Ma
Diao, the 萬.
+++++++++++++
Mu-Tsun Tsai
> According to the invaluable (Endymion) Wilkinson:
> 1000 myriad, i.e. 10^7, was jing1 �g.
�g for 10^7 is pre-Qin usage, not modern (see below).
> 100 myriad, i.e. 10^6, was zhao4 �� in pre-Qin times, but from the Qin
> was just �ʸU.
> 10 myriad, i.e. 10^5, was apparently also called ��. in pre-Qin times.
Here are the modern usage (I'm a Chinese).
10^4 �U
10^8 ��
10^12 ��
10^16 �� (or rarely �g)
Basically, every 4 power of 10 will have a single-syllable.
After �� there are ��, ��, ��, ��, ��, ��... and so on.
For a power which is not divisible by 4, add a leading myriad like �Q, ��,
or �d.
For example, 10^5 is �Q�U.
For a better detailed introduction, see
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E6%95%B0%E5%AD%97
Mu-Tsun Tsai
> According to the invaluable (Endymion) Wilkinson:
Mu-Tsun Tsai
encoding.
You guys may try BIG5 with my posts, that should work.
I'll try solving this issue before my next post.
Julian Bradfield
[...]
Thanks for that. Unfortunately, you didn't specify the character
encoding in the article, so we can't read the Chinese.
I suppose you use Big5? Or were you using CNS?
Julian Bradfield
On 2009-07-02, Mu-Tsun Tsai <don....@ms5.url.com.tw> wrote:
>
>> According to the invaluable (Endymion) Wilkinson:
>> 10,000 myriad, i.e. 10^8, was yi4 億, as it still is.
>> 1000 myriad, i.e. 10^7, was jing1 經.
> 經 for 10^7 is pre-Qin usage, not modern (see below).
>
>> 100 myriad, i.e. 10^6, was zhao4 兆 in pre-Qin times, but from the Qin
>> was just 百萬.
>> 10 myriad, i.e. 10^5, was apparently also called 億. in pre-Qin times.
>
> Here are the modern usage (I'm a Chinese).
> 10^4 萬
> 10^8 億
> 10^12 兆
> 10^16 京 (or rarely 經)
> Basically, every 4 power of 10 will have a single-syllable.
> After 京 there are 垓, 秭, 穰, 溝, 澗, 正... and so on.
> For a power which is not divisible by 4, add a leading myriad like 十, 百,
> or 千.
> For example, 10^5 is 十萬.
al
> Here is Mu-Tsun's article with the characters:
>
Thanks to you Julian and Mu-Tsun.
If you have an explanation for the choice of such astronomical scale
in the denominations of Po Gu Ti Pai and Shui-Hu Ti Pai (photo 40 and
photo 39 in Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (Japan 1999),
please post it.
Would you know also what Po Gu is in Chinese?
++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> If you have an explanation for the choice of such astronomical scale
> in the denominations of Po Gu Ti Pai and Shui-Hu Ti Pai (photo 40 and
> photo 39 in Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (Japan 1999),
> please post it.
Remember Mu-Tsun was giving you the modern usage. The relevant usage
is the Ming usage, not 20th century.
> Would you know also what Po Gu is in Chinese?
Why don't you just read it from the Japanese text? 博古 (bo2 gu3 in
Mandarin).
al
> On 2009-07-02, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > If you have an explanation for the choice of such astronomical scale
> > in the denominations of Po Gu Ti Pai and Shui-Hu Ti Pai (photo 40 and
> > photo 39 in Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (Japan 1999),
> > please post it.
>
> Remember Mu-Tsun was giving you the modern usage. The relevant usage
> is the Ming usage, not 20th century.
>
Any mathematician-historian can provide some background details?
What I was most interested was the application of these large numbers
in the game.
These huge numerals are represented by unfamiliar terms. Ordinary
folks probably cannot appreciate beyond 10,000. The term myriad is
used and myriad just means a very large quantity.
Yet there was 'seil' 10^6, then 10^7 and 10^8 as denominations for the
cards in old card games, among a wen which had a value of a fraction
of a cent. I doubt that the cards in those games intended for real
monetary amounts. People do not deal with large numbers in olden time.
Those numbers are symbolic.
In addition, each amount had a nickname! How you figure that?
I believe the large numbers likely had some implication to the
vastness of Heaven.
I thought I read names of stars associated with some big numbers. Have
you?
That would be another hint of divination connection. Cards in Ming had
"principle and purpose", remember? It looks more and more evident that
somebody eliminated the high-number suit without the knowledge of the
game's "principle and purpose". Who is to say he didn't mix up the
suit names too?
Again, anybody has explanation for the 4th suit in old card games and
why the personification applied to the high-ranking cards?
> > Would you know also what Po Gu is in Chinese?
>
> Why don't you just read it from the Japanese text? 博古 (bo2 gu3 in
> Mandarin).
Thanks. I did.
I noticed the title is Po Gu Yezi.
I wonder why 'yezi'. Yezi or 'ye' itself can mean a page of a book.
To me the cards look more like pages from a book or a loose-leaf
binder rather than leaves from a tree.
A footnote 5 in TPC-V31 N2 has a description of background on leaf.
Why should that history relate so closely to the rectangular page-like
cards? I don't know. Can any one make some connections?
+++++++++++
al
>
> > If you have an explanation for the choice of such astronomical scale
> > in the denominations of Po Gu Ti Pai and Shui-Hu Ti Pai (photo 40 and
> > photo 39 in Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (Japan 1999),
> > please post it.
>
> Remember Mu-Tsun was giving you the modern usage. The relevant usage
> is the Ming usage, not 20th century.
>
numbers were used.
Also why and who dropped them. There had to be reason for putting them
in at first and reason for taking them out afterward.
I think I found a plausible explanation in Dao De Jing.
Obviously all those big numbers did not intend to quantify actual
amounts of money. They are metaphors for bigness.
The quote from Kangxi dictionary holds my explanation for the concept
to include the big numbers in a suit of cards.
《老子·道德經》域中有四大，道大，天大，地大，王亦大。
Then, of course, ignorance was the cause for their elimination.
++++++++++++++
P.S. I should include a simple version of translation for the above.
It says:
The universe has four BIGs. Dao is BIG. Heavens is BIG. Earth is BIG.
King also BIG.
al
Thank you for your help.
Julian solved the problem.
You said "pre-Qin". That is about 200 BC. Right?
Why did they have large numbers like that? Any ides?
I looked at the scale towards the lower end. To my surprise, I found
this:
空虛 or 虛空 = 10^-20 and that is known and can be referred to as Void or
Emptiness.
+++++++++++
南伯子葵
there are several term systems in ancient chinese.
1, "万(wan4)" is 10^4.
2, 10 system, 十(10) 百(100)千(1000) 万(10^4) 亿(10^5) 兆(10^6) 京(10^7) 垓
(10^8) 秭(10^9) 穰(10^10) 沟(10^11) 涧(10^12) 正(10^13) 载(10^14) 报(10^15)
3.10000 system ,万(10^4) 亿(10^8) 兆(10^12) 京(10^16) 垓(10^20)...
4. square system ,万(10^4) 亿(10^8) 兆(10^16) 京(10^32)
now, in china mainland, 万 is 10^4, 兆 is 10^6(million, only use in
physics, Mhz eg.), 亿is 10^9(万万)，the other single-syllable terms arenot
be used.
in taiwan，兆 is 10^15(万亿).
ithinc
億、經、兆 were never used in the old Chinese playing card games. Ten-
Thousand-Myriad in Chinese Playing Cards is 千萬(貫) in Chinese.
al
+++++++++++++
Amazing! Thank you...
al
You are assuming the earliest known deck has all the known
denominations including the earliest
numbering system. That may not be the case if we have not seen the
true earliest deck of cards.
Is it not possible that a one-word system was initially used on some
decks of cards we have never found? And is it not possible that the
one-word system was difficult to rank in order and it got replaced by
numerical values like 10-myriad-guan and 100-myriad-guan? Not
impossible; I think.
Po Gu Ti pai has few old terms, on page 39 of Illustrated Book of
Mahjong Museum.
+++++++++++++
I might have answered my own question on why the highest fourth suit
of cards was eliminated.
ithinc
> You are assuming the earliest known deck has all the known
> denominations including the earliest
> numbering system. That may not be the case if we have not seen the
> true earliest deck of cards.
>
> Is it not possible that a one-word system was initially used on some
> decks of cards we have never found? And is it not possible that the
> one-word system was difficult to rank in order and it got replaced by
> numerical values like 10-myriad-guan and 100-myriad-guan? Not
> impossible; I think.
Please show us one deck.
> Po Gu Ti pai has few old terms, on page 39 of Illustrated Book of
> Mahjong Museum.
白描水浒叶子（1616年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Bmsh.htm
水浒叶子（1633年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Sh.htm
博古叶子（1651年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Buogu.htm
al
京 is one card in my picture book.
'Void' and 'Limitless' also in same deck. They are part of the
numbering system I just learned.
By the way, 博古 (Po Gu) is on page 38 of the Illustrated Book of
Mahjong Museum (1999 Japan).
ithinc
> On Jul 6, 11:36 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 11:17 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > You are assuming the earliest known deck has all the known
> > > denominations including the earliest
> > > numbering system. That may not be the case if we have not seen the
> > > true earliest deck of cards.
>
> > > Is it not possible that a one-word system was initially used on some
> > > decks of cards we have never found? And is it not possible that the
> > > one-word system was difficult to rank in order and it got replaced by
> > > numerical values like 10-myriad-guan and 100-myriad-guan? Not
> > > impossible; I think.
>
> > Please show us one deck.
>
> > > Po Gu Ti pai has few old terms, on page 39 of Illustrated Book of
> > > Mahjong Museum.
>
> > 白描水浒叶子（1616年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Bmsh.htm
> > 水浒叶子（1633年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Sh.htm
> > 博古叶子（1651年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Buogu.htm
>
> +++++++++++++++++
> 京 is one card in my picture book.
> 'Void' and 'Limitless' also in same deck. They are part of the
> numbering system I just learned.
> By the way, 博古 (Po Gu) is on page 38 of the Illustrated Book of
> Mahjong Museum (1999 Japan).
The deck of 博古叶子, painted by Chen Hongshou who was a well-known
painter in the Chinese history, has been printed in several books.
al
> On Jul 8, 12:00 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:36 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 11:17 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > You are assuming the earliest known deck has all the known
> > > > denominations including the earliest
> > > > numbering system. That may not be the case if we have not seen the
> > > > true earliest deck of cards.
>
> > > > Is it not possible that a one-word system was initially used on some
> > > > decks of cards we have never found? And is it not possible that the
> > > > one-word system was difficult to rank in order and it got replaced by
> > > > numerical values like 10-myriad-guan and 100-myriad-guan? Not
> > > > impossible; I think.
>
> > > Please show us one deck.
>
> > > > Po Gu Ti pai has few old terms, on page 39 of Illustrated Book of
> > > > Mahjong Museum.
>
> > > 白描水浒叶子（1616年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Bmsh.htm
> > > 水浒叶子（1633年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Sh.htm
> > > 博古叶子（1651年）http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/Buogu.htm
>
> > +++++++++++++++++
> > 京 is one card in my picture book.
>
> You're wrong again. The card is "京萬贯“, not "京".
>
"Is it not possible that a one-word system was initially used on some
decks of cards we have never found? And is it not possible that the
one-word system was difficult to rank in order and it got replaced by
numerical values like 10-myriad-guan and 100-myriad-guan? Not
impossible; I think."
I am right, because it was possible. You do not know for sure what has
gone before 1600. Your conclusion is based what you read of 400 years
of playing-card records. Chinese history is older.
+++++++++++++
> > 'Void' and 'Limitless' also in same deck. They are part of the
> > numbering system I just learned.
> > By the way, 博古 (Po Gu) is on page 38 of the Illustrated Book of
> > Mahjong Museum (1999 Japan).
That is an indication that some of those extreme numbers had been used
in old card games.
>
> The deck of 博古叶子, painted by Chen Hongshou who was a well-known
> painter in the Chinese history, has been printed in several books.
What is your message here? Painting of cards can be done at later time
and not necessarily accurate to what the true picture was at the time
when people played the game? What are telling me?
If that is what you mean to say, then I agree. And that raises a valid
question: like 'what was 'Tong' in the first place. The 'abbreviation'
discussed recently did more than simplification; it was mutilation to
the point the real version became unrecognizable. Tong's meaning can
now only be inferred from what was recorded by a westerner in
conversation with people in China about 150 years.
My point I try to put to you is that what you have in 'history' may
not hold a truly complete picture. You do not have the total
information to occupy a supreme position in deciding who and what is
wrong.
I maintain a holistic concept for the mahjong game. MDH proponents
treat it piece-meal. So our views bound to differ. I believe mahjong
was born-whole in a sense that all pieces in it correlate. MDH offers
no explanation for why and how the money got brown in by the winds.
Our concept on mahjong is philosophically different. You feel you have
the answer to the game's origin and evolution, but I do not give
credence to 'the 'money-derived-hypothesis'.
By the way, MDH guys talk of 'documented evidence' so often, they seem
to really believe in them totally. Cards history is not natural
history, it is man-made. For example, a Chinese novel that has
description of games is not like a piece fossil. Language usage and
phraseology varies.
However, your knowledge is admirable.
++++++++++
Cheers...
P.S. what is a possible reason for the reduction from 40 cards to 30
cards for ma diao?
Why the top suit got dropped?
ithinc
> > > 京 is one card in my picture book.
>
> > You're wrong again. The card is "京萬贯“, not "京".
>
> That is not how I see it. This is what I said.
> > > 'Void' and 'Limitless' also in same deck. They are part of the
> > > numbering system I just learned.
> > > By the way, 博古 (Po Gu) is on page 38 of the Illustrated Book of
> > > Mahjong Museum (1999 Japan).
>
> > The deck of 博古叶子, painted by Chen Hongshou who was a well-known
> > painter in the Chinese history, has been printed in several books.
>
> What is your message here? Painting of cards can be done at later time
> and not necessarily accurate to what the true picture was at the time
> when people played the game? What are telling me?
I was just telling you 博古叶子 is not only in "the Illustrated Book of
Mahjong Museum (1999 Japan)". People can access it easily. It has been
embodied in Middle School art textbook.
> My point I try to put to you is that what you have in 'history' may
> not hold a truly complete picture. You do not have the total
> information to occupy a supreme position in deciding who and what is
> wrong.
Yes, you're right that I cannot judge everything. But I can judge
something. You should contradict me with evidences, not these lot of
nonsense.
> P.S. what is a possible reason for the reduction from 40 cards to 30
> cards for ma diao?
> Why the top suit got dropped?
BTW, your PS is off topic. And I don't plan to discuss this topic with
you until you accept the fact. And let me tell you, mahjong in many
places has been a 108-tile game.
ithinc
> > P.S. what is a possible reason for the reduction from 40 cards to 30
> > cards for ma diao?
> > Why the top suit got dropped?
>
> BTW, your PS is off topic. And I don't plan to discuss this topic with
> you until you accept the fact. And let me tell you, mahjong in many
> places has been a 108-tile game.
of Playing Cards for nearly 20 years, which is based on the 54-card
deck of Internaional Playing Cards. The 125-card deck is used to play
a dedicated game. It's composed of:
4 each of 1-9 of hearts, spades, and clubs, 4*9*3=108
3 each of J, Q, K of hearts, 3*3=9
1 each of J, Q, K of clubs, 1*3=3
3 of Red Joker, 3*1=3
2 of Black Joker, 2*1=2.
al
What is the point?
stanwic...@googlemail.com
>
> If that is what you mean to say, then I agree. And that raises a valid
> question: like 'what was 'Tong' in the first place. The 'abbreviation'
> discussed recently did more than simplification; it was mutilation to
> the point the real version became unrecognizable. Tong's meaning can
> now only be inferred from what was recorded by a westerner in
> conversation with people in China about 150 years.
>
> My point I try to put to you is that what you have in 'history' may
> not hold a truly complete picture. You do not have the total
> information to occupy a supreme position in deciding who and what is
> wrong.
No. But we can decide what is reasonable belief and what isn't.
Indeed we may find more 'history' - either confirming or disconfirming
our ideas.
But this possibility doesn't give us any reason for believing your
ideas are reasonable.
Why? Because reasonable beliefs are based on actual evidence - and it
is actual evidence that is totally lacking in your propositions.
Casting doubt on evidence is fine - provided that doubt is reasonable.
Your doubt is totally unreasonable because it is completely lacking in
proper evidence.
> I maintain a holistic concept for the mahjong game. MDH proponents
> treat it piece-meal. So our views bound to differ. I believe mahjong
> was born-whole in a sense that all pieces in it correlate. MDH offers
> no explanation for why and how the money got brown in by the winds.
> Our concept on mahjong is philosophically different.
It is not philosophically different.
Your explanation is completely devoid of any directly supporting
evidence.
The reason there is no explanation for the other tile groups is that
we have no evidence with which to formulate an explanation.
I could guess the big flying spaghetti monster added them and it would
be just as valid as your guesswork because it is just an assertion
based on no evidence.
> the answer to the game's origin and evolution, but I do not give
> credence to 'the 'money-derived-hypothesis'.
But your opinion is meaningless, isn't it? You offer no evidence to
support your opinion.
> By the way, MDH guys talk of 'documented evidence' so often, they seem
> to really believe in them totally. Cards history is not natural
> history, it is man-made. For example, a Chinese novel that has
> description of games is not like a piece fossil. Language usage and
> phraseology varies.
Casting evidenceless doubt is NOT evidence against something.
al
The "fact" is that a deck of cards does not have to copy anything from
Ma Diao. Obviously...
Your example is perfect proof of that. Ma Diao had nothing to do with
this deck of cards you just showed. Correct?
ithinc
> The "fact" is that a deck of cards does not have to copy anything from
> Ma Diao. Obviously...
>
> Your example is perfect proof of that. Ma Diao had nothing to do with
> this deck of cards you just showed. Correct?
al
My conclusion from your example deck of cards is simply logical. A
tile set
did not have to copy anything from Ma Diao.
Ma Diao had nothing to do with the example tile set you showed.
If you cannot accept a simple obvious fact like that, I have no
respect for people like that either.