Mahjong terminology
ithinc
清(Qing, Pure): Qing means hands without Honors. Su is also called
Qing now.
凑(Cou, patchy): Cou means hands with Honors, opposite to Qing. Now it
is called Hun.
素(Su, onefold): Su means One-Suited patterns. Now it is called Qing.
混(Hun, Mixed): Hun means Two-Suited patterns. Cou is also called Hun
now.
花(Hua, colored or variegated or mixed): Hua means Three-Suited
patterns.
So Pure should be used with hands without Honors or One-Suited patterns
and Mixed should be used with hands with Honors or Two-Suited patterns.
But now in English terms Mixed is used with both Two-Suited and
Three-Suited patterns. Mixed Three Stepping Chows(Hun San Bu) in
Chinese mahjong local variants used to mean Two-Suited Three Stepping
Chows, but now in English it is Three-Suited Three Stepping Chows. I
think a new term should be choosed either for Three-Suited patterns
instead of Mixed, or for hands with Honors and Two-Suited patterns.
In my latest opinion:
All Chows could be named Simple Hand, or Pure Chow Hand.
All Terminals could be named Pure Terminals, or remain All Terminals.
All Terminals or Honors could be Mixed Terminals, or All Unios.
Full Flush could be Pure One Suit.
Half Flush could be Mixed One Suit.
One Voided Suit could be Two Suits. In traditional Chinese mahjong,
there're two kinds of Two Suits, Pure Two Suits(two suits without
honors) or Mixed Two Suits(two suits with honors).
ithinc
Chinese local variants or Japanese variant, Pure All Linked to
Terminals and Mixed All Linked to Terminals.
Morten Andersen
Official Chinese most European players have gotten used to the terminology used
by Ryan Morris in the Takeshobo booklet. Changing this terminology would
cause a great deal of confusion and doesn't serve any purpose in my
opinion.
-Morten Andersen
tsloper
>In Chinese mahjong variants, there're five concepts for score patterns:
Only five? You didn't mention anything about honors-only patterns, or
number-based patterns.
>清(Qing, Pure): Qing means hands without Honors. Su is also called
>Qing now.
I assume "honors" does not include terminals in this concept? And it's
very confusing "su is also qing" - does that mean "su" and "qing" can
be used interchangeably?
>凑(Cou, patchy): Cou means hands with Honors, opposite to Qing. Now it
>is called Hun.
Very confusing. "Cou" = "hun" and the two terms are interchangeable?
>花(Hua, colored or variegated or mixed): Hua means Three-Suited
>patterns.
And it also means "flower." Very confusing!
>So Pure should be used with hands without Honors or One-Suited patterns
>and Mixed should be used with hands with Honors or Two-Suited patterns.
>But now in English terms Mixed is used with both Two-Suited and
>Three-Suited patterns.
The term "mixed" has been used in English mah-jongg terminology since
1920 - before your father was born, and maybe before your grandfather
was born! It's not a new thing. It's always been used in reference to a
hand with multiple suits, and there's no way we are going to change
now.
>All Chows could be named Simple Hand, or Pure Chow Hand.
No.
>All Terminals could be named Pure Terminals, or remain All Terminals.
Remain All Terminals.
>All Terminals or Honors could be Mixed Terminals, or All Unios.
No.
>Full Flush could be Pure One Suit.
I would have preferred to call this simply "pure" but after the OIRB
was published, it became known as Full Flush, and we're stuck with it
now.
>Half Flush could be Mixed One Suit.
No!
>One Voided Suit could be Two Suits. In traditional Chinese mahjong,
there're two kinds of Two Suits, Pure Two Suits(two suits without
honors) or Mixed Two Suits(two suits with honors).
No, thanks.
ithinc
information. I'll shut up and stand by.
Anyone who will continue can reach me by mail.
tsloper
>I just want to transfer the information.
I think information about Chinese terminology is interesting.
Clarification about the things you told us (and which I called
confusing) would be nice.
But the other information (about what terms you think all
English-speaking players should switch to, without regard for the
practices that have been developed over the past 86 years) is less
interesting. We've already had several folks try to tell us what terms
we should be using instead of the ones we've been using, and we weren't
too interested in those suggestions either. See FAQ 6.
Cofa Tsui
news:1143838275....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
emmm...
Well, perhaps unless those changes are from a government body. Examples:
- CMCR - Rules that are so different from those developed over the past 86
years;
- The term "hu" from CMCR;
- There could be some changes that I am not aware of.
And/Or, something influential is being introduced, and such "something" is
free for copying:
- CMCR being claimed to be "CMCR" but in so many other names.
The point is: Things could always change or the possibilities of change are
always there. Wonder how it could be so sure about the opposite?
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Morten Andersen
> always there. Wonder how it could be so sure about the opposite?
The question is not wether things COULD change. It's wether they SHOULD.
There is absolutely no reason (as far as I can see) to change well-known
terminology. I could start calling chows for pungs and the other way
around but it would get pretty confusing in a discussion.
-Morten Andersen.
Cofa Tsui
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@ask.diku.dk...
>> The point is: Things could always change or the possibilities of change
>> are
>> always there. Wonder how it could be so sure about the opposite?
>
> The question is not wether things COULD change. It's wether they SHOULD.
But who decides whether it should or should not? I quoted some facts
(existing or happening) in my previous post. Don't you agree with any of
those?
> There is absolutely no reason (as far as I can see) to change well-known
> terminology.
When the cause is there, "mahjong", "go out", etc., etc., cound be replaced
by "hu" or "win". Who could be so sure there is absolutely no reason any
"well-known terminology" could not be changed?
I could start calling chows for pungs and the other way
> around but it would get pretty confusing in a discussion.
Calling chows for pungs may not be a good change. But there are certainly
always good causes for changes. I think changes to the "well-known
terminology" is always possible, and the possibilities come with the NEEDS.
Some ten plus years ago nobody seemed to believe a world unified mahjong was
possible and that's when I believed the otherwise. Today, I predict that PAI
will be used to replace TILE and CARD in mahjong games in the long run and
it is based on a good cause. Facing the needs and seriously deal with it is
truly what us mahjong lovers really should do.
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Morten Andersen
>
> But who decides whether it should or should not? I quoted some facts
> (existing or happening) in my previous post. Don't you agree with any of
> those?
I agree that the term 'hu' has been newly introduced and I agree that
Chinese Official are known by several names.
> When the cause is there, "mahjong", "go out", etc., etc., cound be replaced
> by "hu" or "win". Who could be so sure there is absolutely no reason any
> "well-known terminology" could not be changed?
Then give me a reason instead of saying there could be one.
> Calling chows for pungs may not be a good change. But there are certainly
> always good causes for changes. I think changes to the "well-known
> terminology" is always possible, and the possibilities come with the NEEDS.
But there is no need as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Some ten plus years ago nobody seemed to believe a world unified mahjong was
> possible and that's when I believed the otherwise. Today, I predict that PAI
> will be used to replace TILE and CARD in mahjong games in the long run and
> it is based on a good cause. Facing the needs and seriously deal with it is
> truly what us mahjong lovers really should do.
>
I see a need for a unified set of rules (which we almost have today). I
see the need to clarify those rules and make sure they are consistent. But
I still fail to see the purpose(or need) in inventing a new terminology
when the one we are using now will do just fine.
-Morten Andersen
Cofa Tsui
>>
>> But who decides whether it should or should not? I quoted some facts
>> (existing or happening) in my previous post. Don't you agree with any of
>> those?
>
> I agree that the term 'hu' has been newly introduced and I agree that
> Chinese Official are known by several names.
Good! And they are changes, don't you agree as well?
>
>> When the cause is there, "mahjong", "go out", etc., etc., cound be
>> replaced
>> by "hu" or "win". Who could be so sure there is absolutely no reason any
>> "well-known terminology" could not be changed?
>
> Then give me a reason instead of saying there could be one.
Mine is a general statement to say that "absolutely no reason" is not true.
People using "hu" instead of "mahjong", "go out" because CMCR is from a
government body, and is influential. This is driven by the needs. The needs
to copy things of the CMCR, when CMCR seems to have no one to manage it (see
also the bottom).
>
>> Calling chows for pungs may not be a good change. But there are certainly
>> always good causes for changes. I think changes to the "well-known
>> terminology" is always possible, and the possibilities come with the
>> NEEDS.
>
> But there is no need as far as I'm concerned.
(See bottom.)
>
>>
>> Some ten plus years ago nobody seemed to believe a world unified mahjong
>> was
>> possible and that's when I believed the otherwise. Today, I predict that
>> PAI
>> will be used to replace TILE and CARD in mahjong games in the long run
>> and
>> it is based on a good cause. Facing the needs and seriously deal with it
>> is
>> truly what us mahjong lovers really should do.
>>
>
> I see a need for a unified set of rules (which we almost have today). I
> see the need to clarify those rules and make sure they are consistent. But
> I still fail to see the purpose(or need) in inventing a new terminology
> when the one we are using now will do just fine.
The "needs" don't mean there is the necessity of inventing new terminology
(however, inventing is still a possibility). But I am sure there would be
the necessity of unifying the terminology. Since thus far mahjong
terminology has been evolving without a proper system (or control, standard,
management, however you call it), a unified system will mean the necessity
of changing some "well-known" terms and phrases. So the changes would come
with the needs of a unified set of rules.
You might think or believe you are now having a unified set of rules by
copying or modifying CMCR and giving your set a new name. All "things" you
use in the set will inevitably face the need for change if the government
body of CMCR decides to take up its duty to modify and improve the rules, to
provide standardized terms and phrases in foreign languages respecting the
CMCR.
After all, I just think that using "absolute" to deny any interest in or
possibility of changes in mahjong terminology may not stand, and that the
possibilities of changes are always there.
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krismaratala
> possible and that's when I believed the otherwise.
Standardisation of Mahjong is not a new concept, and surely not your
invention. Continuously, from the 1920's, there always been someone
trying to convince others to use his own set of rules and only his. All
those attempts failed and are destined to fail since they are only
rooted in selfish greed. You are one in a long serie of many.
> Today, I predict that PAI will be used to replace TILE and CARD
> in mahjong games in the long run and it is based on a good cause.
Sorry, but nobody needs nor wants to reform the English language only
because you are clinging to your dream of selling your trademarked
mahjong and become insanely rich. Promoting your awkward terminology
doesn't constitute an universal good cause, but your personal
obsession.
If anybody wanted to adopt your terminolgy by this time they would
have. Even you, who have every selfish reasons to use PAI instead TILE,
use the word TILE in every message you have published here and
elsewhere to make yourself understood by English speaking mahjong
enthousiasts.
John (Zi Rong) Low
discard, pong, chow, melds) and the Japanese ones (hai, sutehai, pon,
chi, mentsu) etc.
Using "Pai" for the English one is awkward, "Tile" is more obvious.
ithinc
> "ithinc" wrote:
>
> >In Chinese mahjong variants, there're five concepts for score patterns:
>
> Only five? You didn't mention anything about honors-only patterns, or
> number-based patterns.
>
Winds, few other variant patterns. For number-based patterns, 全(Quan,
All) maybe is what you need, such as 全带五(Quan Dai Wu, All Fives).
They are old style naming rules and not written rules. CMCR uses a
mixture of both old style and new style naming rules. For example,
一色三节高(Yi Se San Jie Gao, One-suited Three Jumping Pungs) in
old style is 清三节(Qing San Jie, Pure Three Jumping Pungs),
清龙(Qing Long, Pure Straight) in new style should be
一色三连顺(Yi Se San Lian Shun, One-suited Three Consecutive
Chows).
> >清(Qing, Pure): Qing means hands without Honors. Su is also called
> >Qing now.
>
> I assume "honors" does not include terminals in this concept? And it's
> very confusing "su is also qing" - does that mean "su" and "qing" can
> be used interchangeably?
>
Yes, honors doesn't include terminals.
No, if Su is used, it remains its original meaning. These terms in
Chinese are old terms. Su and Qing have evolved to one Qing.
> >凑(Cou, patchy): Cou means hands with Honors, opposite to Qing. Now it
> >is called Hun.
>
> Very confusing. "Cou" = "hun" and the two terms are interchangeable?
>
No. Cou is mostly replaced by Hun, while the original meaning of Hun is
nearly ignored, for two-suited patterns are not neat.
> >花(Hua, colored or variegated or mixed): Hua means Three-Suited
> >patterns.
>
> And it also means "flower." Very confusing!
>
Chinese word has rich meanings. Hua here is an adjective and not the
noun "Flower". Another example, Jokers in Chinese local mahjong
variants(such as Ningbo Mahjong, Fuzhou Mahjong, etc) are also called
混(Hun).
Morten Andersen
>> Chinese Official are known by several names.
>
> Good! And they are changes, don't you agree as well?
The term 'hu' may be considered a change to the terminology, but people
know what you are talking about wether you say 'hu' or 'mahjong'.
I don't think the fact that a set of rules are known by several names can
be considered a change but it doesn't matter that's not what I'm
complaining about.
> Mine is a general statement to say that "absolutely no reason" is not true.
OK so there are no absolutes. That's just a matter of rhetorics.
Do you truly believe that we should change the terminology as suggested or
are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
>
> The "needs" don't mean there is the necessity of inventing new terminology
> (however, inventing is still a possibility). But I am sure there would be
> the necessity of unifying the terminology. Since thus far mahjong
> terminology has been evolving without a proper system (or control, standard,
> management, however you call it), a unified system will mean the necessity
> of changing some "well-known" terms and phrases. So the changes would come
> with the needs of a unified set of rules.
I agree, a unified terminology is needed(And I think we have one in most
cases when discussing Official Chinese). I'm saying that such a
terminology should be based on the already well-established and well-known
terminolgy.
>
> You might think or believe you are now having a unified set of rules by
> copying or modifying CMCR and giving your set a new name. All "things" you
> use in the set will inevitably face the need for change if the government
> body of CMCR decides to take up its duty to modify and improve the rules, to
> provide standardized terms and phrases in foreign languages respecting the
> CMCR.
I don't think we have a unified set of rules just yet as there are still a
few things that need to be clarified. We are getting there though.
> After all, I just think that using "absolute" to deny any interest in or
> possibility of changes in mahjong terminology may not stand, and that the
> possibilities of changes are always there.
You are very right I don't have any interest in fixing something I don't
think is broken. If you think there is something wrong with the
terminology please be specific instead of just making general
philosophical statements about the ever-changing nature of the world.
-Morten Andersen.
Cofa Tsui
>>> Chinese Official are known by several names.
>>
>> Good! And they are changes, don't you agree as well?
>
> The term 'hu' may be considered a change to the terminology, but people
> know what you are talking about wether you say 'hu' or 'mahjong'.
> I don't think the fact that a set of rules are known by several names can
> be considered a change but it doesn't matter that's not what I'm
> complaining about.
Oh, for the second part, I mean CMCR itself is a change, compared to so many
variants developed over the past 86 years...
>> Mine is a general statement to say that "absolutely no reason" is not
>> true.
>
> OK so there are no absolutes. That's just a matter of rhetorics.
> Do you truly believe that we should change the terminology as suggested or
> are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
In my opinion changes really are necessary when the time comes (not just for
argument, and please see bottom)...
>>
>> The "needs" don't mean there is the necessity of inventing new
>> terminology
>> (however, inventing is still a possibility). But I am sure there would be
>> the necessity of unifying the terminology. Since thus far mahjong
>> terminology has been evolving without a proper system (or control,
>> standard,
>> management, however you call it), a unified system will mean the
>> necessity
>> of changing some "well-known" terms and phrases. So the changes would
>> come
>> with the needs of a unified set of rules.
>
> I agree, a unified terminology is needed(And I think we have one in most
> cases when discussing Official Chinese). I'm saying that such a
> terminology should be based on the already well-established and well-known
> terminolgy.
Whether basing on the already well established or well known terminology or
inventing new - They are both fine, just a matter of how the job is being
done.
[...]
>
>> After all, I just think that using "absolute" to deny any interest in or
>> possibility of changes in mahjong terminology may not stand, and that the
>> possibilities of changes are always there.
>
> You are very right I don't have any interest in fixing something I don't
> think is broken. If you think there is something wrong with the
> terminology please be specific instead of just making general
> philosophical statements about the ever-changing nature of the world.
Good! I must commend the way you discuss issues!
Even for the "well known" terminology there are still terms and phrases that
refer to the same things (dots and circles, pung and pong, some names for
some elements/patterns/hands). If we need a unified set of terminology, some
"well known" terms and phrases will have to be replaced (and this to someone
and in one way or the other, means change).
Some terms and phrases might need correction, clarification or improvement:
"element" vs. "hand"; self-draw vs. self-draw and win vs. selfmake;
discarder vs. discarder who allows others to win vs. chucker; pai vs. tile
vs. card etc.
Some terms that are very common among Chinese players but are not (or
rarely) used among the English speaking players: e.g. the combination of
Terminals and Honours (Yaojiu or Unios); selfmake; chucker etc.
These are just what I think of for now.
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
d_...@my-deja.com
ithinc wrote:
> In Chinese mahjong variants, there're five concepts for score patterns:
> 清(Qing, Pure): Qing means hands without Honors. Su is also called
> Qing now.
> 凑(Cou, patchy): Cou means hands with Honors, opposite to Qing. Now it
> is called Hun.
> 素(Su, onefold): Su means One-Suited patterns. Now it is called Qing.
> 混(Hun, Mixed): Hun means Two-Suited patterns. Cou is also called Hun
> now.
> 花(Hua, colored or variegated or mixed): Hua means Three-Suited
> patterns.
I think your explaination is confusing when you say "su is called qing
now" (as was pointed out by Tom). It would be great if you can give an
example of each concept. For example, what kind of hand would be
called Qing but not Su, and what kind of hand would be called Su but
not Qing, and what kind of hand would be called either Qing or Su, what
kind of hand used to be called Su but is now called Qing ... and so
on. Also give examples of each of the other concepts as well. I think
that would clarify what you were trying to explain greatly.
ithinc
English.
These concepts are age-old and some are not often used. I've not seen
written systemic materials about this. Maybe these concepts still exsit
in some local variants but I'm not sure. CMCR use a mixture of both
these old-style naming rules and some new-style naming rules.
Su is an old parlance and is now fully replaced by Qing. For example,
Pure Straight is called 素龙(Su Long) or 清龙(Qing Long). Some
other examples are 清三步(Qing San Bu, Pure Three Stepping Chows,
Pure Shifted Chows), 清三节(Qing San Jie, Pure Three Jumping Pungs,
Pure Shifted Pungs), etc. They can also be called 素三步(Su San Bu),
素三节(Su San Jie), etc.
Qing has another usage which means hands without honors, opposite to
Cou or Hun. It cannot be replaced by Su. For example, 清幺九(Qing
Yao Jiu, Pure Terminals, All Terminals), 清一色(Qing Yi Se, Pure One
Suit, Full Flush), etc.
Cou is also an old parlance and is now fully replaced by Hun. For
example, 混幺九(Hun Yao Jiu, Impure Terminals, All Terminals or
Honors) , 混一色(Hun Yi Se, Impure One Suit, Half Flush), etc. They
can also be called 凑幺九(Cou Yao Jiu), 凑一色(Cou Yi Se), etc.
Hun has another usage which means two-suited patterns and has no
examples in CMCR. It cannot be replaced by Cou. For example, 混龙(Hun
Long, Impure Dragon, Two-suited Straight), 混三步(Hun San Bu, Impure
Three Stepping Chows, Two-suited Three Stepping Chows).
Hua used to mean three-suited patterns, such as 花龙(Hua Long, Mixed
Dragon, Mixed Straight), 花步步高(Hua Bu Bu Gao, Mixed Three
Stepping Chows, Mixed Shifted Chows), etc.