Looking for cheap MahJong Set
Cathy Wong
any one know where I can get a cheap mahjong set?
I just want it for occasional use... Thanks!
Happy New Year!
Cathy
Nath Krishmaratala
> any one know where I can get a cheap mahjong set?
> I just want it for occasional use... Thanks!
The cheapest sets (but still very good quality) are sold in chinatowns.
For less than 25$, you can get one of those Hong Kong made sets :
http://thomasstamps.bizland.com/MAHJONGF.JPG
Ebay is another good source, but beware of exagerate claims (ivory, old
vintage,...) and prices (shipping charges).
curtis
Quite neat! It may be what you're looking for....
Check it out: http://www.mini-mahjong.com
Tom Sloper
> This site got a pretty mahjong set in a great bargain.
FYI, The posts from "Cathy" and "Curtis" were posted from the same computer,
an hour apart - the classic "Question and Response" spamming technique.
(^_^)
See the similarity between path information in "Cathy's" post...
Path:...128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsgate.netvigator.com!imsp212
.netvigator.com!not-for-mail
From: "Cathy Wong" <cath...@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:19:27 +0800
...and in Curtis' post:
Path:...128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsgate.netvigator.com!imsp212
.netvigator.com!not-for-mail
From: "curtis" <webm...@mini-mahjong.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:22:24 +0800
For what it's worth, Curtis' site has now been added to FAQ 4b.
Cheers - Tom
--
Tom Sloper - Game Designer, Producer, Consultant, Author, Speaker.
- Sloperama Productions. Services for game developers and publishers;
"Making Games Fun, And Getting Them Done."
http://www.sloperama.com/business.html.
- 20+ web pages of helpful information and bulletin boards for game industry
aspirants; a new article every month. http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html.
- The Mah-Jongg FAQs. 100+ web pages of information and bulletin boards
about the game of mah-jongg. http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html
Nath Krishmaratala
> FYI, The posts from "Cathy" and "Curtis" were posted from the same computer,
> an hour apart - the classic "Question and Response" spamming technique.
Thank you, Tom.
By the way, the same sets, as sold on Cathy's site for $14.95, are
available for about 5$ on ebay.
examples: http://tinyurl.com/2suf5
Tom Sloper
>
> By the way, the same sets, as sold on Cathy's site for $14.95, are
> available for about 5$ on ebay.
(^_^)
Tom
Vegard Krog Petersen
> "curtis" <webm...@mini-mahjong.com> wrote
>
>>This site got a pretty mahjong set in a great bargain.
> an hour apart - the classic "Question and Response" spamming technique.
> (^_^)
>
> Cheers - Tom
I could not resist; qoute from customers:
"..they look grogeous."
"...although your product variety is not very board,.."
"..so hard to find those things on retial, thanks!"
Comments from customers in USA. Native americans can't be writing that
bad English. They must be faked....English is not my native language,
but even I can see these comments are made up and not real..
regards
--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway
My sites:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire: http://home.halden.net/vkp/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solitaire MahJongg: http://home.halden.net/vkp/vkp/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fishy site (fishing games): http://home.no/vkp32/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb: http://home.halden.net/frhald.havfiskeklubb/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nath Krishmaratala
> Comments from customers in USA. Native americans can't be writing that
> bad English. They must be faked....English is not my native language,
> but even I can see these comments are made up and not real..
Give him a break. It's not easy to blend in when you are a Chinese guy
lost in the middle of Texas. Since opening his website in September,
business hasn't been...hmmm...really booming. He starts to worry. It all
seemed much more easier when he taught of transforming his Lincoln ave
apartment into a legitimate commerce. Now, he must do something. He must
push luck his side. He needs a little lie, here and there, to turn
things around. After all, nobody will notice. He is too clever for that.
You'll see. Someday,(hopefully before the renewal of his web hosting
plan, next September) this operation will generate easy money...a lot of
it. Now, it only a question of finding the right gimmick to lure in the
customers. It can't go wrong. Think of it. If only they let him sell 1$
dice cups and 50¢ worth of dice for 10$ (not counting shipping
charges!), he'll become rich in no time. He is bound to succeed.
curtis
I didn't know why it sounds bad english, they are not
native maybe? But they are real and i try to keep them
as orginal as they can, but sometimes they don't fit in
context... you know.. it's difficult to ask people write
things for you sometimes... and I'm in the middle of
replacing that space though...
anyway, i enjoy the mj set a lot too.. i think it's great
to have one that's really handy and can be placed in the car.
The set is quite pretty itself. eBay is always cheaper
than outside b/c they don't have much overhead, but
just be careful of the hidden high-shipping cost!
And thanks for your time of visiting my site! I'm gonna add
some more Mahjong set to it, maybe some regular-size one.
Any comment are welcome! Any mj sets are in great demand?
Happy new year!
curtis
PS the classic technique seems still create good attention though ^_^
"Vegard Krog Petersen" <vegard_kro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btcfne$j5o$1...@news.tdcnorge.no...
Nath Krishmaratala
> Hi guys,
Hi Curtis,
If you have the chance, send my regards to Chuen. (^_~)
> I didn't know why it sounds bad english, they are not
> native maybe? But they are real and i try to keep them
> as orginal as they can, but sometimes they don't fit in
> context... you know.. it's difficult to ask people write
> things for you sometimes... and I'm in the middle of
> replacing that space though...
LOL. Hurry! Maybe if you act fast enough nobody will notice they are
lies written by you and everybody will forget about your dishonest
attempt to make cheap advertisement for products you sell three times
their market value.
By the way, this forum is archived by Google. So we have a *permanent*
record of everybody who pulled stunts on us. If you want to redeemed
yourself, start by been fully honest.
> eBay is always cheaper than outside b/c they don't
> have much overhead
LOL. Interesting... You essentially told us to never buy outside of eBay
because merchants like you are fundamentally unable to sell goods at a
good price.
> Any comment are welcome! Any mj sets are in great demand?
If you are not able to sell mah-jong sets at a better price than eBay,
then you should try importing difficult to find items instead :
automatic mah-jong tables and accessories; foldable mah-jong tables;
mah-jong rubber mats; sets with Japanese, Korean or Singapore tiles.; etc.
Some product ideas :
http://www.central-iron.com.sg/product_others.htm
http://www.jyantaku.com/~matsuoka/matsuoka111/radio.htm
http://www.santakii.co.jp/hai.htm
http://www.be-s.co.jp/Mah-jong/Top.html
> Happy new year!
Good luck with your business (you'll need it)
Vegard Krog Petersen
> "..they look grogeous."
> "...although your product variety is not very board,.."
> "..so hard to find those things on retial, thanks!"
>
> Comments from customers in USA. Native americans can't be writing that
> bad English. They must be faked....English is not my native language,
> but even I can see these comments are made up and not real..
>> "curtis" <webm...@mini-mahjong.com> wrote
>> I didn't know why it sounds bad english, they are not
>> native maybe? But they are real and i try to keep them
>> as orginal as they can, but sometimes they don't fit in
>> context... you know.. it's difficult to ask people write
>> things for you sometimes... and I'm in the middle of
>> replacing that space though...
He has removed the quotes -
James Whitaker -- Des Moines, USA
Cady Halter --Victoria, Canada
Sarah W. Johnson --Buffalo, USA
Seems very 'native' (don't mean indians!) american names to me...
You're perhaps to 'rough' sometimes for me, Nath, but I liked
your comments in this thread :-)
And:
"Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago"
Tom, where are you? :-)
with regards
vegard
Nath Krishmaratala
> You're perhaps to 'rough' sometimes for me, Nath, but I liked
> your comments in this thread :-)
Thank you. (^_^)
Yes, you are right. I can be very severe, strict and harsh especially
with someone who thinks it's okay to cheat, lie and misrepresent himself
to make a buck. If one's taking liberties with truth and honesty, I give
myself the permission to slap him down. After all, if someone is so
special that he decides ethical rules don't apply to his business
relationships, I shall not bother him with details like sensitivity to
what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others.
But, of course, if he changes his ways, I'll change mine too.
Tom Sloper
>> Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago
vegard wrote:
>Tom, where are you? :-)
OK, well, so "very popular" is a relative term - it's more popular than
hanafuda and less popular than bridge (not that I know anybody who plays
bridge).
And he forgot the ambiguizing phrase "a little over a" between "China" and
"hundred."
Satisfied?
Tom
Vegard Krog Petersen
:-)
--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway
My sites:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire: http://home.halden.net/vkp/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solitaire MahJongg: http://home.halden.net/vkp/vkp/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fishy site (fishing games): http://home.no/vkp32/index.html
curtis
I kinda quit the discussion earlier as I think it's quite off the point
but something may be worth knowing is that one of my customers
has quite bad impression on the newsgroup already of not
addressing the value and usefulness of the mini mahjong set.
I think people are smart enough to shop around to compare
and make their own decision. Mahjong players are smart, right? ^_^
I guess more people bought the set these two days kinda prove that.
And thanks Tom of being not bias and put mini-mahjong.com on the
FAQ already. So fast!! Thanks! Also, I added links to American style
mahjong too, guess it'll serve my vistors better.
Anyway, hope you don't mind me leaving the discussion. I think I
better concentrate finding more great mahjong products and sets.
Hope everyone have a Happy New Year!
Regards,
curtis
http://www.mini-mahjong.com
"Nath Krishmaratala" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:YfqKb.7861$G1.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Cofa Tsui
Hi Nath,
To be honest, I find nothing wrong with the mini-mahjong site, although the
"question and answer" technique (as discovered by Tom), and perhaps those
"testimonials", are unnecessary.
For the testimonials, I personally would treat them as true as the principle
"one is innocent unless proven guilty" shall apply, at least I believe so.
Of course, when you reach the point if you have to make a decision based on
those testimonials, the principle "caveat emptor" (buyer be aware) shall
apply.
For the pricing, it is totally business decision and their customers
(visitors) can compare and make their own choice.
I might miss something you have that I don't, but I also think that your
story (or are they all *facts*) describing Curtis and his store is also not
necessary.
Hope you don't mind my saying these. I just try to be friendly. I am sure
this group is still a friendly one.
Best regards,
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> To be honest, I find nothing wrong with the mini-mahjong site, although the
> "question and answer" technique (as discovered by Tom), and perhaps those
> "testimonials", are unnecessary.
The State of Texas as other words than "unnecessary" to describe those
"techniques" and "testimonials" : Unlawful Deceptive Trade Practices.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/bc/bc0001700.html#bc018.17.46
> I might miss something you have that I don't, but I also think that your
> story (or are they all *facts*) describing Curtis and his store is also not
> necessary.
Stating some hard facts about the real identity of Curtis was a really
effective way to let him know we are not fooled by him and still let him
enough room to amend his ways and preserve his privacy.
> Hope you don't mind my saying these. I just try to be friendly.
Don't worry, Cofa, my opinion of you won't change that easily. (^_^)
Nath Krishmaratala
> but something may be worth knowing is that one of my customers
> has quite bad impression on the newsgroup already of not
> addressing the value and usefulness of the mini mahjong set.
Yes, we get that complain all the time. Why we stubbornly refuse to talk
about the products you sell at exorbitant prices and promote by using
deceptive marketing techniques is a complete mystery. We receive so much
requests every day from imaginary customers like yours that we are even
considering opening a new newsgroup only for that crucial matter.
> I think people are smart enough to shop around to compare
> and make their own decision.
Then, it must very frustrating pulling scams like yours knowing they are
doomed to fail.
> Mahjong players are smart, right? ^_^
What? You doubt of it? Oh, sorry. It must be one of those retorical
questions to coax opinions and suspend jugement while you serve us
another lie...oops...carefully tailored truth.
> I guess more people bought the set these two days kinda prove that.
What an amazing demonstration of logic! I shall mark this day on my
calendar. Because, on this day, you made the irrefutable proof that
nobody would dare contest the intelligence of mah-jong players is the
natural consequence of you pretending to have sold a lot of your
merchandise. Really an extraordinary tour de force!
> Anyway, hope you don't mind me leaving the discussion.
Flee, Mr Lee. Flee as you have never fled.
Cofa Tsui
news:btfbhm$ku3$1...@news.tdcnorge.no...
> Tom Sloper wrote:
>
> > Curtis Cathy Chuen wrote:
> > >>Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago
> >
> > vegard wrote:
> >>>Tom, where are you? :-)
> >
> > OK, well, so "very popular" is a relative term - it's more popular than
> > hanafuda and less popular than bridge (not that I know anybody who plays
> > bridge).
> > And he forgot the ambiguizing phrase "a little over a" between "China"
and
> > "hundred."
> >
> > Satisfied?
> > Tom
>
> :-)
But one should perhaps also be aware of the fact that there is no definite
answer as to how long mahjong has existed. It depends on how you define
mahjong - see http://www.imahjong.com/ (select topics The Rules >> Rules
Overview).
It is interesting to know, those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese
tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little
over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in
ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about
mahjong).
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Tom Sloper
>those who read Chinese
>tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little
>over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in
>ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about
I am obliged to ask: Please give us titles and dates of specific manuscripts
describing mah-jongg prior to 1850.
Tom
Cofa Tsui
news:C9mLb.1892$I06.12157@attbi_s01...
Of course. But then, I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same
as what you refer to as mah-jongg. Other than the spelling, of course. When
talking about the age of mahjong, I do mean its origin.
In addition, considering mahjong to be a game being evolved over time,
rather than being invented lately, would also make the answer different.
I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this is
different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred.
http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ (Chinese) mentioned different
literatures as old as back to Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD). Those
literatures had descriptions of games the author believed mahjong could be
evolved from.
The most recent game that has the same game features as modern mahjong that
was mentioned was "Mo He Pai" (silent win card) - It was played in/around
late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) or early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). Mo He Pai
was said to be evolved from Ma Diao (see next paragraph).
The above website also mentioned that at what time the game was called
MAHJONG (in Chinese, ma que (jute bird)) was not known, but that the name
could be evolved from the name MA DIAO (horse hang/lift), said to be popular
in early to mid Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).
Perhaps many others could tell many more Chinese literatures that have
descriptions about mahjong. However, I just think that the more Chinese
literatures you read, the older the origin of mahjong you would think could
be.
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> When talking about the age of mahjong, I do mean its origin. [...]
> I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this is
> different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred.
> , the older the origin of mahjong you would think could be.
The woman we all know as Queen Elisabeth II was born April 21, 1926. You
can postulate as much as you want that she is the child of her mother
and, in the same vain, her mother was a child of somebody else, and
someone, before her, was named Elisabeth, was a queen, was a woman, or
had two legs, etc., etc., consequently, her origins dates back to the
first living organism on Earth. Still, Queen Elisabeth II is 77 years
old today.
And, of course, with a relaxed and imaginative definition of what
constitutes the precusor of mah-jong, you can make it as old as you
wish. But, still, the game we know as mah-jong is 150 years old today.
Cofa Tsui
"...her origins dates back to the
> first living organism on Earth."
I have no objection to that. For the following:
"Queen Elisabeth II is 77 years old today" &
"the game we know as mah-jong is 150 years old today"
As you have clearly defined the women as Queen Elisabeth II and the game of
"mah-jong", I have no objection to both of them!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Tom Sloper
>
>I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same
>as what you refer to as mah-jongg.
>different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred.
It would be enlightening to see what your definition of mahjong would be,
and to see how many would agree with your definition.
>http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ (Chinese) mentioned different
>literatures as old as back to Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD). Those
>literatures had descriptions of games the author believed mahjong could be
>evolved from.
>
>The most recent game that has the same game features as modern mahjong that
>was mentioned was "Mo He Pai" (silent win card) - It was played in/around
>late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) or early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). Mo He Pai
>was said to be evolved from Ma Diao (see next paragraph).
Yes, the existence of those old games is not under doubt.
In your previous post, you had stated:
>>those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese
>>tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a
little
>>over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in
>>ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about
>>mahjong).
I met with some mah-jongg authors in China last month. They must be
exceptions to your statement above, since they believe that mah-jongg
originated in the mid-1800s, created primarily by Chen Yumen.
I enjoyed a meal and drinks with Sun Cang, the General Manager of the
network of China Competition Mahjong, and Mr. Shengqi. Mr. Shengqi has been
researching mah-jongg for over 40 years, was involved in compiling the
current Chinese Official rules, and has written several monographs: Mahjong
Bian, Mahjong Xue, Mahjong Movement, Fang Chang Bai He, Mahjong Study,
Mahjong and ZheXue, Mahjong and BingFa, Mahjong and Meixue, Mahjong and
XiLiXue, Mahjong and YiJing, Mahjong PaiPu Jiaocheng, Mahjong and RenCai
Xue, and Mahjong and Guanli Xue. Perhaps a Chinese reader would be able to
locate, obtain, and read some of these - but most of them, I suspect, don't
go into history in great detail.
These gentlemen do not agree with you that mahjong existed before Chen
Yumen's work. I didn't have a chance to converse with Yu Guangyuan, who
served as Honorary President at the tournament. So I don't know his views on
the subject of the game's origins (or how "mahjong" should be defined).
Tom
Julian Bradfield
> The woman we all know as Queen Elisabeth II was born April 21,
Actually, I don't know anybody as Queen Elisabeth II.
If you're thinking of the current Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (and of her other realms and
territories), her name is Elizabeth.
Cofa Tsui
> From: "Cofa Tsui" <cofa...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same
> >as what you refer to as mah-jongg.
> >I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this
is
> >different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred.
>
> It would be enlightening to see what your definition of mahjong would be,
> and to see how many would agree with your definition.
I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind. But before I
continue, I'd introduce what Mo He Pai seems to look like (as introduced in
http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ - look for the paragraph led by the
5th tiny orange square on the page):
[MO HE PAI]
Mo He Pai is a card game using the paper cards to play with. It has the
following characteristics:
It is played by 4 players;
It has 60 cards carrying the following patterns:
- Wen Qian [money note] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Wan Guan [10-thousand-coin] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green and
White), 2 cards each.
To start a game, each player gets 10 cards, then and in turn, each player
draws and discards a card. Cards are to be formed in 3 consecutive numbers
as a "set". Whoever forms 3 sets and a pair in a hand may declare HE
[pronunciation is in Chinese Pinyin, means win].
The game is then further evolved to PENG HE PAI, as follows:
Similar to Mo He Pai, but with the following changes:
- the number of cards is doubled (now 120 cards);
- the "set" can now be in the forms of KAN (3 consecutive numbers), PENG (3
identical pieces) and GANG (4 identical pieces).
And now let's have a look of Tom's definition of mahjong - refer to
http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/cctheory.htm (on the page, click on
"Definition").
Among Tom's four primary characteristics,
"a" - It meets that of Mo He Pai. (Excepting the tile pieces.)
"b" - Tom's definition is "too modern", it can't be the origin! (And those
jokers in the definition are really jokers!)
"c" - Too modern to be origin.
"d" - It meets that of Mo He Pai. (Excepting the 4 or 5 groups requirement.)
I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More
qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the job. I
however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be something in
between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications to items
"b" and "c" of course.
And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always
subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make the
change necessary.
Also, "how many would agree with [my] definition" is really not bothering
me. I am just pointing out the facts. Although in my own opinion, Mo He Pai
itself is qualified as the origin of mahjong. All mahjong variants started
evolving and developing from it.
[...]
Are you then satified with the presentation that Chen Yumen had invented
mahjong? Anyway, what you have said meets exactly with what I have stated on
my website (http://www.imahjong.com/g1mru.html):
1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth
should be easily determined;
2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in
the history!
However, one should also note, that as of today, "Chen Yumen had invented
mahjong" is still only a possibility, it is yet to be verified.
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Thierry Depaulis
interesting -- I mean more interesting than insults and sarcasms on
how much a "cheap MahJong Set" would cost.
Cofa Tsui wrote:
> I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind.
and
>I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More
>qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the
job.
> I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be something
> in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications
>to items "b" and "c" of course.
In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my
own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not
dealing with the rules of the game.)
In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be--
arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited
money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard
pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the
addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some
other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble
crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like
were present at the start of mahjong).
By so doing, the "inventor" of mahjong introduced some new features
which have rarely been taken into consideration:
- "tiles" had to be finely engraved by hand (while traditional
dominoes --'gu pai'-- had only dots, and while "paper cards-- 'zhi
pai'--were always very crudely printed in black with sparkles of red);
- due to the small size of the tiles, they had to be very carefully
engraved but the designs had to be simplified in order to make them
more legible: sapecks became simple circles, strings were reshaped
into long segments, 'wan' were reduced to Chinese characters, so
losing the "Water-Margin" figures which were usually pictured on the
Wan and Shi suits; in exchange, colours --red, green, blue-- were
added making the tiles very attractive;
- therefore, making sets was an expensive process, the more so as
there were more than 140 pieces; I think that the new game was aimed
at a rather wealthy market (not the Imperial Court necessarily!).
As Cofa puts it:
>1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its
birth
>should be easily determined;
>2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at
lost in
>the history!
I think I have tried to answer the first question. But when did this
happen?
I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in
pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the
game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is
stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and
culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]).
I cannot prove this for the moment but in a few weeks, when Michael
Stanwick's impressive paper appears in 'The Playing-Card', I will be
able to bring new arguments. All in all I agree with most experts that
the "event" must have happened in around 1850.
About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be
pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), it seems the webpage referred to by
Cofa Tsui
http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History
is not entirely reliable being a summary of modern statements with no
clearly identified sources.
However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao'
("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in
Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a
paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other
ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two
paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu
xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783.
Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the
combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or
four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind).
So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
concerned, remains to be discovered.
Cheers,
Thierry Depaulis
Cofa Tsui
news:5878e597.04011...@posting.google.com...
> May I, Gentlemen, enter the discussion now that it becomes more
> interesting -- I mean more interesting than insults and sarcasms on
> how much a "cheap MahJong Set" would cost.
>
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind.
>
> and
>
> >I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More
> >qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the
> job.
> > I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be
something
> > in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications
> >to items "b" and "c" of course.
>
> In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my
> own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not
> dealing with the rules of the game.)
(Glad to hear from you again, Thierry!)
Thanks for your yet another but detailed definition of mahjong. But it won't
add any trouble to me at all ^_^
This could be just a more detailed (than Tom's) definition of "modern
mahjong" and, IMHO, hardly the origin of mahjong. To accept this as the
definition of the origin of mahjong, it is equivalent to say that the origin
of human is "having two hands and two legs and wearing shirt and pants".
The definition of (modern) mahjong is so modern that it can actually applied
to any mahjong set we could buy on the street *today*. (Rule details
excluded.)
On the other hand, if we compare all those four characteristics in these
modern definitions (including basic rules or game play), those
characteristics were clearly evolved and developed from that of Mo He Pai.
The only difference is that these "modern definitions" contain much more
"modern decorations" to the original form.
>
> As Cofa puts it:
> >1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its
> birth
> >should be easily determined;
> >2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at
> lost in
> >the history!
>
> I think I have tried to answer the first question. But when did this
> happen?
>
> I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in
> pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the
> game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is
> stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and
> culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]).
> I cannot prove this for the moment but in a few weeks, when Michael
> Stanwick's impressive paper appears in 'The Playing-Card', I will be
> able to bring new arguments. All in all I agree with most experts that
> the "event" must have happened in around 1850.
That's great to know at least when this "modern mahjong" has perhaps come
from! Sorry to have to call your definition (and Tom's) as "modern mahjong",
as it clearly contains all of the same basic characteristics of an older
game.
>
> About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be
> pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), it seems the webpage referred to by
> Cofa Tsui
> http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History
> is not entirely reliable being a summary of modern statements with no
> clearly identified sources.
[Mo He Pai is a term equivalent to the writing in Chinese words. The second
word "He" is to be pronounced as "hu", as also mentioned in the webpage.]
I believe that page does not have the high level of requirements in
historical sources than the "The Playing-Card" does. However, it is glad to
see Thierry has established that its existence could be linked to some
concrete evidence written prior to 1783 (see below).
> However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao'
> ("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in
> Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a
> paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other
> ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two
> paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu
> xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783.
>
> Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the
> combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or
> four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind).
But wait! "Kan" and "peng" are different - If your meaning (or that of those
writing) is the same as the plain Chinese:
Kan = 3 consecutive pieces
Peng = 3 identical pieces
Are triplets (peng or 3 identical pieces) really not included in "Penghu"
according to those writing? Could you please verify?
> So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
> card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
> between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
> cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
> concerned, remains to be discovered.
Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm
that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3
identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head"
cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it
contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has?
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Filipe Silva
<tom...@sloperamaNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>describing mah-jongg prior to 1850.
I'm with you Tom. For curiosity sake you may want to know that the
Portuguese word for Mah-Jong, "majongue", was introduced in 1920. If
the game was several centuries older as some claim why was there no
description (and thus no use and no introduction in the dictionary) of
it in Portuguese texts regarding Macau colony (founded in 1557)?
A word like "majongue" (Mah-Jong, Mahjong, Mah-Jongg, whatever) was
certainly added to the dictionary after a period of heavy use
(popularity?) that "forced" it to be included. The date of 1920 seems
well placed, things seen on this light.
My 2 cents,
Filipe
Tom Sloper
>
>In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my
>own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not
>dealing with the rules of the game.)
>
>In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be--
>arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited
>money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard
>pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the
>addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some
>other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble
>crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like
>were present at the start of mahjong).
I agree completely that, without considering the game played with these
pieces, this does indeed define (in general terms) the point when "a set of
not-yet-mahjongg game pieces" became "a set of mah-jongg pieces."
And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot
define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its creation
and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment. To accept that assertion
means never knowing anything about the subject, since one can't determine
the precise moment of creation of a thing, without knowing first what it is.
That is precisely why I start with defining the thing.
>I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in
>pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the
>game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is
>stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and
>culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]).
>... All in all I agree with most experts that
>the "event" must have happened in around 1850.
I guess I need to re-read that booklet (I can only read the English portion,
and I hope that it does not differ greatly from the Chinese portion). Anyone
who can read both is urged to let us know if any significant differences
exist in the translation.
>About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be
>pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'),
Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not
pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." It is, rather
pronounced "uh" or "eh" or "ih" (open mouth slightly without flexing the
tongue in any way, and activate your vocal cords). That doesn't mean that
one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply
means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves about
pinyin.
>However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao'
>("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in
>Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a
>paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other
>ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two
>paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu
>xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783.
Which tells us that Cofa still has not yet named a source that refers to
anything mah-jongg-like, prior to 1850.
>Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game ...
>'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
>card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
>between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
>cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
>concerned, remains to be discovered.
Of course we need to know as much as can be known about the money-suited
card games that preceded mah-jongg. And perhaps some research into Conquian
might help as well.
On a side note, Filipe Silva <laSP...@netMENOTcabo.pt> wrote:
>For curiosity sake you may want to know that the
>Portuguese word for Mah-Jong, "majongue", was introduced in 1920. If
>the game was several centuries older as some claim why was there no
>description (and thus no use and no introduction in the dictionary) of
>it in Portuguese texts regarding Macau colony (founded in 1557)?
>
>A word like "majongue" (Mah-Jong, Mahjong, Mah-Jongg, whatever) was
>certainly added to the dictionary after a period of heavy use
>(popularity?) that "forced" it to be included. The date of 1920 seems
>well placed, things seen on this light.
Yes, well, no descriptions of the game prior to 1920 use the term
"mah-jongg," so we have to rely on descriptions of the pieces and the game
played with them, looking for something that resembles the pieces and
gameplay of mah-jongg more than it does not.
Cheers,
Tom
Cofa Tsui
> From: thierry....@freesbee.fr (Thierry Depaulis)
> >
> >In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my
> >own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not
> >dealing with the rules of the game.)
> >
> >In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be--
> >arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited
> >money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard
> >pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the
> >addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some
> >other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble
> >crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like
> >were present at the start of mahjong).
>
> I agree completely that, without considering the game played with these
> pieces, this does indeed define (in general terms) the point when "a set
of
> not-yet-mahjongg game pieces" became "a set of mah-jongg pieces."
(So are we back to the debate again, eh? ^_^)
But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern
mahjong" and that of the origin, whether the definitions are for the "set"
only or for the overall game play.
> And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot
> define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its
creation
> and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment.
I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom
please point that out?
To accept that assertion
> means never knowing anything about the subject, since one can't determine
> the precise moment of creation of a thing, without knowing first what it
is.
> That is precisely why I start with defining the thing.
On the other hand, I do mean origin of mahjong at all times. We all have in
mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on
information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes of
debating its history, is fine for me. But I believe the parties of the
debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin.
>
> >I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in
> >pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the
> >game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is
> >stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and
> >culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]).
> >... All in all I agree with most experts that
> >the "event" must have happened in around 1850.
>
> I guess I need to re-read that booklet (I can only read the English
portion,
> and I hope that it does not differ greatly from the Chinese portion).
Anyone
> who can read both is urged to let us know if any significant differences
> exist in the translation.
I guess I can read both, but I don't have the booklet!
>
> >About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be
> >pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'),
>
> Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not
> pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." It is, rather
> pronounced "uh" or "eh" or "ih" (open mouth slightly without flexing the
> tongue in any way, and activate your vocal cords). That doesn't mean that
> one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply
> means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves
about
> pinyin.
I don't quite get your meaning here, Tom.
(Off topic below)
I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese
term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note that
the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin).
On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu, you
would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in
Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace).
Which way should we take?
>
> >However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao'
> >("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in
> >Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a
> >paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other
> >ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two
> >paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu
> >xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783.
>
> Which tells us that Cofa still has not yet named a source that refers to
> anything mah-jongg-like, prior to 1850.
On Jan 11 I replied to Thierry's post and said:
QUOTE
I believe that page [the mahjong history page from Mjclub.com] does not have
the high level of requirements in
historical sources than the "The Playing-Card" does. However, it is glad to
see Thierry has established that its existence could be linked to some
concrete evidence written prior to 1783 (see below).
UNQUOTE
Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics of
those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those characteristics
were introduced in that web page but without any sources.
So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the
origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's
"Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783?
[Funny, I could not find Thierry's post dated on/around Jan 11 and my reply
on Jan 11 on the Google site. Do you see those two posts?]
>
> >Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game ...
> >'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
> >card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
> >between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
> >cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
> >concerned, remains to be discovered.
>
> Of course we need to know as much as can be known about the money-suited
> card games that preceded mah-jongg. And perhaps some research into
Conquian
> might help as well.
In my reply to Thierry dated Jan 11 I did mention as follows, in case you
have missed the message:
QUOTE
But wait! "Kan" and "peng" are different - If your meaning (or that of those
writing) is the same as the plain Chinese:
Kan = 3 consecutive pieces
Peng = 3 identical pieces
Are triplets (peng or 3 identical pieces) really not included in "Penghu"
according to those writing? Could you please verify?
> So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
> card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
> between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
> cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
> concerned, remains to be discovered.
Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm
that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3
identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head"
cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it
contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has?
UNQUOTE
[I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I
should repost the message.]
Cheers!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Tom Sloper
>But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern
>mahjong" and that of the origin
So what? We have found hardly anything we can agree on yet. I do not expect
we will find anything to agree on now. I say that we need (and can have) a
definition of mah-jongg, without having first to know its moment of origin.
I say that we do not need to define what mah-jongg's origin is (I say that
it's self-evident, once one has a definition of what mah-jongg is, that its
origin is the moment that divides the time when mah-jongg did not yet exist
from the time when it did). I had written:
>> And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot
>> define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its
>creation
>> and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment.
>
>I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom
>please point that out?
You wrote, on Jan. 10:
>>>And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always
>>>subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make
the
>>>change necessary.
>>>...
>>>1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth
>>>should be easily determined;
>>>2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost
in
>>>the history!
If I have misinterpreted what you said, it may be because of my inexact
reading. But I have to say, just being honest, that I find your English
difficult to follow sometimes. It sounded to me like you were saying that
the term "mah-jongg" could not be defined without first knowing the game's
origin. And/or that the definition of the term "mah-jongg" would have to be
rewritten once the game's origin was known with more certainty. Personally,
I believe differently - that one can (and rightly should) have a definition
of what "mah-jongg" is, in order then to have criteria with which to
quantify its origins. And, once having learned about the game's origin, that
the definition would not have to change.
>We all have in
>mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on
>information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes
of
>debating its history, is fine for me.
Horrors! You mean we agree on something after all?
>But I believe the parties of the
>debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin.
Double horrors! You mean we agree on two things (that (1) it's right and
proper to first define what mah-jongg is, for the purposes of discovering
its origins, and (2) we have not yet gotten Cofa to agree to an
acceptable-to-everybody-else definition of "mah-jongg")?
I had written (to Thierry):
>> Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not
>> pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." ...
>> That doesn't mean that
>> one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply
>> means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves
>> about pinyin.
>I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese
>term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note
that
>the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin).
We have agreed on THREE things now? Will wonders never cease!
>On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu, you
>would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in
>Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace).
>
>Which way should we take?
Right. So there, Thierry! Cofa and I agree that you shouldn't just go around
writing Chinese words any old way you feel like! (^_^)
>Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics of
>those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those characteristics
>were introduced in that web page but without any sources.
>
>So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the
>origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's
>"Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783?
Show me, please.
(Note: I am not replying to the rest of Cofa's post, since I don't see how
it's applicable to the discussion.)
Tom
Cofa Tsui
> Cofa wrote:
>
> >But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern
> >mahjong" and that of the origin
>
> So what? We have found hardly anything we can agree on yet. I do not
expect
> we will find anything to agree on now. I say that we need (and can have) a
> definition of mah-jongg, without having first to know its moment of
origin.
> I say that we do not need to define what mah-jongg's origin is (I say that
> it's self-evident, once one has a definition of what mah-jongg is, that
its
> origin is the moment that divides the time when mah-jongg did not yet
exist
> from the time when it did). I had written:
If your definition is for "modern mahjong" and since history of it is so
well recorded, why the need of discussing its (modern mahjong's) origin? I
see that our discussion is for the origin of mahjong in general, not the
origin of modern mahjong. Isn't it?
>
> >> And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot
> >> define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its
> >creation
> >> and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment.
> >
> >I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom
> >please point that out?
>
> You wrote, on Jan. 10:
>
> >>>And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always
> >>>subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make
> the
> >>>change necessary.
> >>>...
> >>>1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth
> >>>should be easily determined;
> >>>2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at
lost
> in
> >>>the history!
>
> If I have misinterpreted what you said, it may be because of my inexact
> reading. But I have to say, just being honest, that I find your English
> difficult to follow sometimes.
An advice: If you are not sure of something, ask question. Don't put your
word in other's mouth.
It sounded to me like you were saying that
> the term "mah-jongg" could not be defined without first knowing the game's
> origin. And/or that the definition of the term "mah-jongg" would have to
be
> rewritten once the game's origin was known with more certainty.
Personally,
> I believe differently - that one can (and rightly should) have a
definition
> of what "mah-jongg" is, in order then to have criteria with which to
> quantify its origins. And, once having learned about the game's origin,
that
> the definition would not have to change.
My meaning is clearly stated - The foundamental point being that the origin
of mahjong is still lost in the history. I have no objection you can define
mahjong whatever way you like. Defining the origin of mahjong is totally
different. That's why I provided those options 1 and 2 for those who think
they have found the origin of mahjong as well as for those who think the
origin is still at lost.
And for the discussion purposes, I had posted some suggestions on the
definition of the origin in some recent messages. In brief, I suggested that
the origin should be something between Mo He Pai and the "modern mahjong" as
defined by you. You didn't seem to have responded to this yet.
>
> >We all have in
> >mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on
> >information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes
> of
> >debating its history, is fine for me.
>
> Horrors! You mean we agree on something after all?
I guess you might have difficulty in following my meaning again. You have
defined what you call as mahjong. I called it "modern mahjong". And for the
purposes of debating its history, I have suggested how the origin of mahjong
should be defined (something in between Mo He Pai and your modern
mahjong)...
I am not sure if you are also in agreement with this.
>
> >But I believe the parties of the
> >debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin.
>
> Double horrors! You mean we agree on two things (that (1) it's right and
> proper to first define what mah-jongg is, for the purposes of discovering
> its origins, and (2) we have not yet gotten Cofa to agree to an
> acceptable-to-everybody-else definition of "mah-jongg")?
Double difficulty in following my meaning! Again you have every right to
define what mahjong is and you did. Then I called it the modern mahjong. For
he purposes of the discussion, I have suggested... (see above paragraph)
>
> I had written (to Thierry):
>
> >> Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not
> >> pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." ...
> >> That doesn't mean that
> >> one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It
simply
> >> means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves
> >> about pinyin.
>
> >I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese
> >term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note
> that
> >the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin).
>
> We have agreed on THREE things now? Will wonders never cease!
>
> >On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu,
you
> >would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in
> >Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace).
> >
> >Which way should we take?
>
> Right. So there, Thierry! Cofa and I agree that you shouldn't just go
around
> writing Chinese words any old way you feel like! (^_^)
Perhaps Tom is haveing triple difficulty following my meaning. (^_^)
>
> >Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics
of
> >those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those
characteristics
> >were introduced in that web page but without any sources.
> >
> >So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics
the
> >origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin
Xueshi's
> >"Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783?
>
> Show me, please.
What do you want me to show? It's all out there.
Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mahjong should have -
Refer to my message dated 2004-01-09 under topic "Looking for cheap mahjong
set".
Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's "Muzhu Xianhua" written before
1783 - Refer to Thierry's message dated 2004-01-11 under topic "Re: Origin
of mahjong (was Looking for cheap MahJong Set)".
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Tom Sloper
we disagree when we do understand one another. There is no benefit to be
gained in my trying to understand Cofa's arguments or in my replying to them
any further.
Tom
Nath Krishmaratala
It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this
case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known
as a ... paradox.
Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing
to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental
character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the game.
For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't
mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner
of itself.
Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have
but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong
should also be a successor of itself.
If it corresponds to a definition of mah-jong it isn't mah-jong anymore.
And when it isn't mah-jong yet then it's real mah-jong. That's the way
real mah-jong should be defined.
Tom Sloper
>It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this
>case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known
>as a ... paradox.
Right. But try explaining that to Cofa.
>Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing
>to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental
>character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the game.
(^_^)
>For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't
>mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner
>of itself.
>
>Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have
>but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong
>should also be a successor of itself.
Quite right. Mo he pai is not mah-jongg because its suit cards and "heads"
are only doubled, not quadrupled, and the set of cards doesn't have any
winds. Peng he pai is closer because the suit cards are quadrupled, but it
still doesn't have any winds (and it furthermore doesn't have the sangenpai,
the 3 dragons). And of course I haven't mentioned flowers in regard to
either game. Nor the actual gameplay.
Neither mo he pai nor peng he pai were mah-jongg. Yes, they were both
ancestors of mah-jongg. But neither is mah-jongg. And the term "origin of
mah-jongg" as used by Cofa is misleading (it's an improper use of English
words, incoherently self-referential, as you say) - "parent of mah-jongg" is
closer to being accurate.
>If it corresponds to a definition of mah-jong it isn't mah-jong anymore.
Right - Cofa would call THAT "modern mah-jongg" - not "mah-jongg."
>And when it isn't mah-jong yet then it's real mah-jong. That's the way
>real mah-jong should be defined.
Again: (^_^)
Tom
Nath Krishmaratala
> It is interesting to know, those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese
> tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little
> over a hundred years"
Believing something and knowing something as a fact are two completely
different things.
I'm not surprise to witness, now and then, a strong will to send back
the origins of mah-jong back to the dawn of ages. For some, everything
Chinese is ancient, therefore valuable. There is something poetic and
reassuring about this imaginative way of perceiving history.
But, not everything has been invented long time ago. New things are not
necessary bad. Every good thing is not automatically old.
Not every Chinese thing has been invented long time ago. New Chinese
things are not necessary bad. Every good thing about China is not
automatically old.
Mah-jong won't suddenly become a bad game if his origin dates back to
the 1850's and if Confucius hasn't played it.
Cofa Tsui
> >From: Nath Krishmaratala <m...@privacy.net>
>
> >It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this
> >case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known
> >as a ... paradox.
>
> Right. But try explaining that to Cofa.
>
> >Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing
> >to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental
> >character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the
game.
>
> (^_^)
>
> >For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't
> >mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner
> >of itself.
Looks like Tom has found a good partner! Perhaps it's easier and more fun to
put one's word in other's mouth, or attacking other personnally rather than
other's words or the matter of a discussion. Is the environment of this ng
changed?
> >
> >Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have
> >but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong
> >should also be a successor of itself.
>
> Quite right. Mo he pai is not mah-jongg because its suit cards and "heads"
> are only doubled, not quadrupled, and the set of cards doesn't have any
> winds. Peng he pai is closer because the suit cards are quadrupled, but
it
> still doesn't have any winds (and it furthermore doesn't have the
sangenpai,
> the 3 dragons). And of course I haven't mentioned flowers in regard to
> either game. Nor the actual gameplay.
>
> Neither mo he pai nor peng he pai were mah-jongg. Yes, they were both
> ancestors of mah-jongg. But neither is mah-jongg. And the term "origin of
> mah-jongg" as used by Cofa is misleading (it's an improper use of English
> words, incoherently self-referential, as you say) - "parent of mah-jongg"
is
> closer to being accurate.
In case you have forgotten: I did express my idea about the origin of
mahjong for the purposes of the debate - I suggested it be something between
Mo He Pai and the modern mahjong as defined by Tom. I even would call Mo He
Pai the origin of mahjong if in my own opinion. (Haven't you, Tom, put all
these on your website already?)
You have mentioned the differences of the number of cards being "doubled",
"quadrupled", and the contents of "winds" and perhaps "flowers". So these
are also characteristics of "mahjong", depending on how one defines it. So
these differences between your definition and my ideas have at least been
identified. I don't know why you agree to one who provided these essentials
being called "paradox".
I also don't understand why the use of "origin of mahjong" is misleading. It
is used to distinquish the core object of the discussion, especially when
the parties of the debate all understand the existence of numerious variants
by the name of mahjong. "Origin of mahjong" is a neutral term, it's not
attached to any definition of anyone yet. Once a definition is agreed upon
for the purposes of the debate, it is then a term well defined.
To me, it doesn't matter whether the core object is called "parent of
mahjong" or "origin of mahjong". The outstanding issue remains how it is
being defined.
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> I don't know why you agree to one who provided these essentials
> being called "paradox".
Your arguments and reasoning are self-referentially incoherent. Not
those "essentials".
> I also don't understand why the use of "origin of mahjong" is misleading.
If you don't master the established meaning of words it's easy to get
caught in such confusing situations.
> [...] "Origin of mahjong" is a neutral term, it's not
> attached to any definition of anyone yet. Once a definition is agreed upon
> for the purposes of the debate, it is then a term well defined.
"Origin" has already a meaning in English. So does "parent", "child" and
"birth".
Your use of "origin of mah-jong" is not neutral but equivocal. Your term
is open to more than two interpretations : parent, child or birth of
mah-jong. At your whim, it has one of those significations or a
combination of those. This term, as defined by you, means nothing and
everything at the same time.
> To me, it doesn't matter whether the core object is called "parent of
> mahjong" or "origin of mahjong".
But, it should matter to you if you want to communicate your ideas. It's
essential you use different words to talk about different concepts.
Also, you need to use words the same way as others to be understood by
them. If not, you'll sound like a smurf:
"The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily
first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf
game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that
was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as possible."
Have a smurfilicious day.
Filipe Silva
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Mah-jong won't suddenly become a bad game if his origin dates back to
>the 1850's
Of course it won't - but it'll make many people uneasy about getting
into it: "Should I learn Senet or Hnefa tafl instead?" ^_^
>and if Confucius hasn't played it.
I bet he wouldn't turn a way from a couple of rounds had he known it.
^_^
The Mahjong origin discussion is very interesting but I wouldn't want
to see you guys flaming each other because of it - after all we all
love Mahjong wether he was born in the 1800's or in the 1500's.
I think it's very easy to be poorly understood when writing anything
in general (intonations, facial expressions missing, etc) - and
moreover so when your native tongue isn't the one your writing in. I
find the usage of "emoticons" of some help to convey my meanings.
Notice the first comment I did above to Nath - if I hadn't use the
smiley at the end some people would have thought I was 100% serious
about it. Even so the meaning might be completely misunderstood - on
my second comment I was convinced that Confucius would indeed have
enjoyed the game had he known it (which for the record - I'm sure he
did not). So you see...
Filipe
Michael Stanwick
[snip]
> Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm
> that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3
> identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head"
> cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it
> contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has?
> UNQUOTE
>
> [I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I
> should repost the message.]
Hello Cofa. I have recently begun to pay attention to the NG again and
found that there are some discussions that interest me. In particular
the one associated with this thread.
I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards
above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent*
to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the
so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'?
Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns".
Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by
"patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be
certain.
Best Regards
Michael
Gil
> "The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily
> first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf
> game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that
> was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as possible."
>
> Have a smurfilicious day.
Classic response.
However, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding of the Cofa
argument. While it is correct to state that the structure of the
argument is a paradox (the argument is insuffucient on its surface),
the overall meaning of the argument is another thing.
My interpretation of the argument is that one person seeks to define
something in terms of its presence in the universe and someone else
seeks to define that same thing by determining when that thing came
into the universe.
The problem here is that both definitions are equally wrong and
equally right. We cannot completely define something without knowing
what its place is in the grand scheme of things and we can also not
completely define something without knowing where it came from.
However, a COMPLETE definition is not always necessary to have just a
definition.
We can look at Mah Jong, know that it is a game, know roughly where it
came from, study it, play it, enjoy it, know its variants, and thus
define it. And this definition is sufficient on its face. And such a
definition can not be dismissed because we can't clock back to a
"born-on" date: this is not a can of Bud Light we're talking about
here, folks.
This is a game older than any of us.
So, we must then each decide: At what point do we simply state "we can
go no further than knowing THIS"? There is no Holy Grail in this
game. No one will walk the lands of the Asian continent and unearth
some millenia-old entombed case with a document and game set enclosed
with an inscription reading "I invented this game on this date, and
here is the first tile case - donations accepted via my Pay Pal
account."
From all I have read on the subject (and I have only been reading
material for a year), we must be ready to do the following:
(1) Accept that MahJong does not have a set "date of origin."
(2) Accept that we may never know the actual date someone, somewhere,
made the first tiles.
(3) Accept the fact that the game has evolved so much and over such a
wide geographical area that we will never get a concise history - only
a compendium of histories.
Sometimes, in life, this is all the historical dice will roll you.
And you have to just accept that you will never know. What you do, in
the mean time, is simply to work together to find more out. And
together you may stumble upon something new and redefine what you are
seeking and be able to add to the sum of knowledge of a subject.
Cofa Tsui
news:52f8c9c6.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Cofa Tsui" <cofa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<nVoNb.103699$X%5.25292@pd7tw2no>...
> [snip]
> > Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm
> > that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng
(3
> > identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three
"Head"
> > cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it
> > contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has?
> > UNQUOTE
> >
> > [I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I
> > should repost the message.]
>
> Hello Cofa. I have recently begun to pay attention to the NG again and
> found that there are some discussions that interest me. In particular
> the one associated with this thread.
Hi Michael, glad to hear from you again!
>
> I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards
> above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent*
> to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the
> so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'?
The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the
message - Refer to image:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg
I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its images.
From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one
colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green and
Red in modern mahjong.
We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be ^_^
As Thierry said Penghu contains sequences only not triplets:
"Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the
combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or
four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind)."
I am still eager to find out if what the above webpage said [the game
consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 identical) and Gang (4
identical) patterns] is correct or wrong.
Cheers!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
news:<nVoNb.103699$X%5.25292@pd7tw2no>...
> [snip]
[...]
> Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns".
> Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by
> "patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be
> certain.
Sorry I have missed this part!
Here "patterns" I mean the combinations how the cards are formed into
"sets". As per the webpage message:
Kan = 3 consecutive pieces
Peng = 3 identical pieces
Gang = 4 identical pieces
I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as
Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains
sequences only not triplets.
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
news:f765ce44.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > "The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily
> > first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf
> > game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that
> > was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as
possible."
> >
> > Have a smurfilicious day.
>
> Classic response.
(At some point I had decided not to response to any message with or seem to
bear purposes of primarily attacking others personally or accusing or
harming others with allegations that were not supported with facts or
evidences. So there it goes.)
>
> However, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding of the Cofa
> argument. While it is correct to state that the structure of the
> argument is a paradox (the argument is insuffucient on its surface),
> the overall meaning of the argument is another thing.
>
> My interpretation of the argument is that one person seeks to define
> something in terms of its presence in the universe and someone else
> seeks to define that same thing by determining when that thing came
> into the universe.
In order to clear out those "paradox" I have to say that I have not yet
started to define anything. However, I did say that it (to define mahjong or
the origin of mahjong) is not going to be easy. It was just someone's
allegation or misunderstanding that I had defined something, but in fact I
had not.
>
> The problem here is that both definitions are equally wrong and
> equally right. We cannot completely define something without knowing
> what its place is in the grand scheme of things and we can also not
> completely define something without knowing where it came from.
> However, a COMPLETE definition is not always necessary to have just a
> definition.
>
> We can look at Mah Jong, know that it is a game, know roughly where it
> came from, study it, play it, enjoy it, know its variants, and thus
> define it. And this definition is sufficient on its face. And such a
> definition can not be dismissed because we can't clock back to a
> "born-on" date: this is not a can of Bud Light we're talking about
> here, folks.
You see it! I completely agree! Why is then there is such a prolonged
argument? The way I see it is that one part insists that they had found
something definite! What I have been doing is to prove that those things are
not definite as so much uncertainty is still out there (refer to topic #205
at http://www.imahjong.com/g0maiarchives.html).
>
> This is a game older than any of us.
>
> So, we must then each decide: At what point do we simply state "we can
> go no further than knowing THIS"? There is no Holy Grail in this
> game. No one will walk the lands of the Asian continent and unearth
> some millenia-old entombed case with a document and game set enclosed
> with an inscription reading "I invented this game on this date, and
> here is the first tile case - donations accepted via my Pay Pal
> account."
I can't simply continue the debate - I already decided that by saying:
Anyone can set the birthday of the origin of mahjong if he/she can define
it.
>
> From all I have read on the subject (and I have only been reading
> material for a year), we must be ready to do the following:
>
> (1) Accept that MahJong does not have a set "date of origin."
>
> (2) Accept that we may never know the actual date someone, somewhere,
> made the first tiles.
>
> (3) Accept the fact that the game has evolved so much and over such a
> wide geographical area that we will never get a concise history - only
> a compendium of histories.
>
> Sometimes, in life, this is all the historical dice will roll you.
>
> And you have to just accept that you will never know. What you do, in
> the mean time, is simply to work together to find more out. And
> together you may stumble upon something new and redefine what you are
> seeking and be able to add to the sum of knowledge of a subject.
I totally agree with what you said in principle, except that truth of the
history could still be revealed when relevant evidences are found. (Who
knows? But then, this may be called paradox again ^_^)
Good post, Gil!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Michael Stanwick
[snip]
> > I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards
> > above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent*
> > to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the
> > so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'?
>
> The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the
> message - Refer to image:
> http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg
> I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its images.
> From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one
> colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green and
> Red in modern mahjong.
>
> We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be ^_^
Hello Cofa. Thank you for replying to my post.
From your explanation above, is my understading correct that the
article is saying that these cards gave rise to the three "Dragons"?
If so, I am of the opinion that linking the three cards in any way to
the "Dragons" (I mentioned that they were *so-called* as a way of
telling you that I was using the term 'Dragon' in what I think is a
vernacular sense :)) is unwarranted. There is no evidence, apart from
a superficial similarity, that supports the notion that they are
directly derived from the three 'Head' cards.
Again if I have not misunderstood what the article is saying, the
article's contention about these cards could be a hypothesis to
explain what the three "Dragons" were derived from, but in my opinion
the very little supporting evidence for that can be explained by
coincidence.
[pasted from your other post]
> > Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns".
> > Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by
> > "patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be
> > certain.
[snip]
> Here "patterns" I mean the combinations how the cards are formed into
> "sets". As per the webpage message:
> Kan = 3 consecutive pieces
> Peng = 3 identical pieces
> Gang = 4 identical pieces
Thank you for the clarification.
> I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as
> Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains
> sequences only not triplets.
I am also eagerly awaiting Thierry's reply, which I believe should
clarify this point.
I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a
definition of 'Mah Jong'.
Best Regards
MIchael
Cofa Tsui
news:<BIyPb.209400$X%5.200477@pd7tw2no>...
> [snip]
> > > I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards
> > > above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent*
> > > to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the
> > > so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'?
> >
> > The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the
> > message - Refer to image:
> > http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg
> > I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its
images.
> > From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one
> > colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green
and
> > Red in modern mahjong.
> >
> > We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be
^_^
>
> Hello Cofa. Thank you for replying to my post.
>
> From your explanation above, is my understading correct that the
> article is saying that these cards gave rise to the three "Dragons"?
I don't know, as I don't think that article is in a position or has the
intention of delivering any message that is of the academic or scholastic
nature. I think the note is given to help readers understand more easily
what those three head cards are.
>
> If so, I am of the opinion that linking the three cards in any way to
> the "Dragons" (I mentioned that they were *so-called* as a way of
> telling you that I was using the term 'Dragon' in what I think is a
> vernacular sense :)) is unwarranted. There is no evidence, apart from
> a superficial similarity, that supports the notion that they are
> directly derived from the three 'Head' cards.
I understand what you mean by "so-called" and the term "dragon" :-))
Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern
"dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong
started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three
head cards could also be possible. However, this is this far I can go.
Verifying things that are lost in the history needs much much more than I
could afford ^_^
>
> Again if I have not misunderstood what the article is saying, the
> article's contention about these cards could be a hypothesis to
> explain what the three "Dragons" were derived from, but in my opinion
> the very little supporting evidence for that can be explained by
> coincidence.
You could be right. As mentioned, I don't feel any sense that the article is
delivering any message of or for the purposes of academic research. However,
I can't verify things that I don't know.
Taking this opportunity, may I correct a mistake in a message that I posted
under subject "Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set" and dated on Jan 9, 2004:
[MO HE PAI]
Mo He Pai is a card game using the paper cards to play with. It has the
following characteristics:
It is played by 4 players;
It has 60 cards carrying the following patterns:
- Wen Qian [money note] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Wan Guan [10-thousand-coin] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green and
White), 2 cards each.
The contents of the cards shall comprise of:
- Wen Qian [spare coin] ...
- Suo Zi [string] ...
- Wan Guan [10-thousand money note] ...
[...]
>
> > I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as
> > Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains
> > sequences only not triplets.
>
> I am also eagerly awaiting Thierry's reply, which I believe should
> clarify this point.
>
> I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a
> definition of 'Mah Jong'.
I can't wait!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Michael Stanwick
[snip]
> Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern
> "dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong
> started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three
> head cards could also be possible.
Hello Cofa. Thank you for your reply :)
Please don't take this the wrong way but I think this seems like an
appeal to ignorance.
It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is
impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head
cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with).
Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards
(if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be
possible.
All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it
"... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence
against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all.
My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I
have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons"
does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible.
:)
[snip]
> > I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a
> > definition of 'Mah Jong'.
>
> I can't wait!
I had written my reply but when I came to post it my computer
crashed!! {*$%£!)
I shall attempt again on the weekend.
Cheers
Michael
Cofa Tsui
news:<CrTPb.223063$ts4.33772@pd7tw3no>...
> [snip]
> > Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern
> > "dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where
mahjong
> > started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three
> > head cards could also be possible.
>
> Hello Cofa. Thank you for your reply :)
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way but I think this seems like an
> appeal to ignorance.
I won't. Don't worry!
>
> It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is
> impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head
> cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with).
Right.
> Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards
> (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be
> possible.
Could also be possible. Yes.
>
> All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it
> "... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence
> against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all.
Both are correct. And, "no evidence at all" could be no evidence against it
and no evidence for it, right?
>
> My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I
> have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons"
> does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible.
> :)
This is also correct. But wait. The "inspiration" part (with the "could also
be possible") is my own thinking - Not from the webpage.
From the above last step, is it correct that you are trying to say that (a)
you have some evidence related to the "Dragons" and (b) the evidence you
have does not support the claim that the inspiration could be possible? If
so, I believe you are also correct, unless the evidence you have proves
otherwise.
Other than interpreting the message into English, I am not saying it is
correct or wrong. I'll let the researchers find it out.
I don't know if I have answered your questions.
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Michael Stanwick
> news:52f8c9c6.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cofa Tsui" <cofa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<CrTPb.223063$ts4.33772@pd7tw3no>...
Hello Cofa.
> > It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is
> > impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head
> > cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with).
>
> Right.
>
> > Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards
> > (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be
> > possible.
>
> Could also be possible. Yes.
>
> > All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it
> > "... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence
> > against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all.
>
> Both are correct. And, "no evidence at all" could be no evidence against it
> and no evidence for it, right?
Yes. Sure. But the cogency of a claim is determined by the amount of
evidence in its favour*, not by the lack of evidence against it.
> > My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I
> > have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons"
> > does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible.
> > :)
>
> This is also correct. But wait. The "inspiration" part (with the "could also
> be possible") is my own thinking - Not from the webpage.
Sure. No problem, I understood that. :)
> From the above last step, is it correct that you are trying to say that (a)
> you have some evidence related to the "Dragons" and (b) the evidence you
> have does not support the claim that the inspiration could be possible? If
> so, I believe you are also correct, unless the evidence you have proves
> otherwise.
For (a), yes. The hypothesis I *currently* favour is that the three
so-called 'Dragons' were not a direct derivation of the three Head
cards. The small amount of evidence I have can support that
contention. In my view it does not support the descent of the three
'Dragons' from the three Head cards. I have substituted derivation for
inspiration because that latter term involves, in part, knowing the
thought processes of the person having the inspiration. In my view
that is a more difficult task than establishing a descent through a
comparison of similar features.
> I don't know if I have answered your questions.
Yes you have. Many thanks Cofa.
Cheers
Michael
Michael Stanwick
Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will
explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled
when dealing with the game's developmental history.
My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah
Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer.
In my view, the term 閃ahjong(g)' was 1st coined by Joseph P Babcock
circa 1920 and was, at that point, directly associated or fixed to
what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the
circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin -
literally 蘇emp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 壮parrow'; (2) a
game-play and (3) a specific tile set.
However, using the term 閃ahjong(g)' when investigating any of the
proposed similar features (1), (2) or (3) that existed before circa
1920, may give the misleading impression that they are directly
related to, or are identical to, their namesakes in the circa 1920
game. These relationships can only be established from analysis of,
and between, the documentary evidence of the proposed similar feature
and the circa 1920 Mahjong(g) feature. Once a relationship is
established and it is found that the proposed similar feature lacks
or has additional elements, compared to those that make up the circa
1920 feature, that proposed feature is then stipulated as a
叢recursor' to Mahjong(g).
In my article I have stipulated the essential element of the
game-play, related to the circa 1920 term 'Mahjong(g)', to be the
formation of melds of two, three or four identical units from a group
or a suit, in addition to a sequence of consecutive units from a suit,
using the draw and discard method.
I also stipulated that the basic components of a Mahjong(g) tile set
are: three quadruplicated Suits(based on money); four quadruplicated
Directions; three quadruplicated 'Honours'; two quartets usually, but
not always, called 'Flowers' and 'Seasons' and 4 spare Blanks
(Babcock, 1920). Thus 148 pieces.
So, this approach identifies that the term 'Mahjong(g)' can be applied
to three essential elements that make up the game at any point in time
after the term was invented. If one were to take the term at say...
1980, then a similar process can be applied - it just would be much
longer since a greater time interval is involved.
I don't know if this is of any help.
Cheers
Michael
Cofa Tsui
>
> Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will
> explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled
> when dealing with the game's developmental history.
>
> My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah
> Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer.
>
> circa 1920 and was,
Do you mean the term in English only, or including the corresponding term in
the Chinese language ("Ma Que")?
at that point, directly associated or fixed to
> what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the
> circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin -
> literally 'hemp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 'sparrow'; (2) a
> game-play and (3) a specific tile set.
Sorry for the asking as I feel a bit confusing here.
>
> However, using the term 'Mahjong(g)' when investigating any of the
> proposed similar features (1), (2) or (3) that existed before circa
> 1920, may give the misleading impression that they are directly
> related to, or are identical to, their namesakes in the circa 1920
> game. These relationships can only be established from analysis of,
> and between, the documentary evidence of the proposed similar feature
> and the circa 1920 Mahjong(g) feature. Once a relationship is
> established and it is found that the proposed similar feature lacks
> or has additional elements, compared to those that make up the circa
> 1920 feature, that proposed feature is then stipulated as a
> 'precursor' to Mahjong(g).
>
> In my article I have stipulated the essential element of the
> game-play, related to the circa 1920 term 'Mahjong(g)', to be the
> formation of melds of two, three or four identical units from a group
> or a suit, in addition to a sequence of consecutive units from a suit,
> using the draw and discard method.
>
> I also stipulated that the basic components of a Mahjong(g) tile set
> are: three quadruplicated Suits(based on money); four quadruplicated
> Directions; three quadruplicated 'Honours'; two quartets usually, but
> not always, called 'Flowers' and 'Seasons' and 4 spare Blanks
> (Babcock, 1920). Thus 148 pieces.
>
> So, this approach identifies that the term 'Mahjong(g)' can be applied
> to three essential elements that make up the game at any point in time
> after the term was invented. If one were to take the term at say...
> 1980, then a similar process can be applied - it just would be much
> longer since a greater time interval is involved.
>
>
> I don't know if this is of any help.
This, if accepted as a standard, would certainly help people trying to
identify how mahjong was recorded in different intervals of history. In my
opinion, the "circa 1920" identifier is well used.
Thanks for sharing the idea!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
Michael Stanwick
> "Michael Stanwick" <msta...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:52f8c9c6.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > Hello Cofa et al.,
> >
> > Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will
> > explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled
> > when dealing with the game's developmental history.
> >
> > My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah
> > Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer.
> >
> > In my view, the term 'Mahjong(g)' was 1st coined by Joseph P Babcock
> > circa 1920 and was,
>
> Do you mean the term in English only, or including the corresponding term in
> the Chinese language ("Ma Que")?
Hello Cofa. No, only the term in English, 'Mahjong(g)'. I know from
evidence I have that the term "Ma Que" was in existence and associated
with a 'precursor tile set and game-play well before 1920.
> at that point, directly associated or fixed to
> > what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the
> > circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin -
> > literally 'hemp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 'sparrow'; (2) a
> > game-play and (3) a specific tile set.
>
> Sorry for the asking as I feel a bit confusing here.
No problem :) Simply, in my view when the term 'Mahjong(g)' was
invented by Babcock, it was directly associated and used as a
short-hand way of referring to three essential components that made up
the game *at that instant in time*. Those are the three that I list
above.
Sure. The beauty of the system for me was that I could discuss any of
the three features listed above quite independantly of each other, but
still compare them to the single term 'Mahjong(g) that, at the 1920
point, links them all.
Best Regards
Michael
ragnaro...@gmail.com
> "Thierry Depaulis" <thierry....@freesbee.fr> wrote in message
> news:5878e597.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > May I, Gentlemen, enter the discussion now that it becomes more
> > interesting -- I mean more interesting than insults and sarcasms on
> > how much a "cheap MahJong Set" would cost.
> >
> > Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > > I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind.
> >
> > and
> >
> > >I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More
> > >qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the
> > job.
> > > I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be
> something
> > > in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications
> > >to items "b" and "c" of course.
> > In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my
> > own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not
> > dealing with the rules of the game.)
>
> (Glad to hear from you again, Thierry!)
>
> Thanks for your yet another but detailed definition of mahjong. But it won't
> add any trouble to me at all ^_^
>
> This could be just a more detailed (than Tom's) definition of "modern
> mahjong" and, IMHO, hardly the origin of mahjong. To accept this as the
> definition of the origin of mahjong, it is equivalent to say that the origin
> of human is "having two hands and two legs and wearing shirt and pants".
>
> The definition of (modern) mahjong is so modern that it can actually applied
> to any mahjong set we could buy on the street *today*. (Rule details
> excluded.)
>
> On the other hand, if we compare all those four characteristics in these
> modern definitions (including basic rules or game play), those
> characteristics were clearly evolved and developed from that of Mo He Pai.
> The only difference is that these "modern definitions" contain much more
> "modern decorations" to the original form.
>
> >
> > As Cofa puts it:
> > birth
> > >should be easily determined;
> > >2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at
> > lost in
> > >the history!
> >
> > happen?
> > I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in
> > pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the
> > game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is
> > stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and
> > culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]).
> > Stanwick's impressive paper appears in 'The Playing-Card', I will be
> > able to bring new arguments. All in all I agree with most experts that
>
> from! Sorry to have to call your definition (and Tom's) as "modern mahjong",
> as it clearly contains all of the same basic characteristics of an older
> game.
> >
> > About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be
> > Cofa Tsui
> > http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History
> > is not entirely reliable being a summary of modern statements with no
> > clearly identified sources.
>
> [Mo He Pai is a term equivalent to the writing in Chinese words. The second
> word "He" is to be pronounced as "hu", as also mentioned in the webpage.]
>
> I believe that page does not have the high level of requirements in
> see Thierry has established that its existence could be linked to some
> concrete evidence written prior to 1783 (see below).
>
> > ("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in
> > Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a
> > paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other
> > ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two
> > paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu
> > xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783.
> >
> > combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or
> > four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind).
>
> writing) is the same as the plain Chinese:
> Peng = 3 identical pieces
>
> according to those writing? Could you please verify?
>
> > So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard
> > card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection
> > between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money
> > cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is
> > concerned, remains to be discovered.
>
> that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3
> identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head"
> cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it
> contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has?
>
> www.iMahjong.com
May I know how to play all those precursor of mahjong such as mohe,penghu and madiao from Ming dynasty?
According to this book, primero,pochen and poque from Europe, which is created in 16 th century have a rule where you have to include a pair,three of a kind and three cards of the same suit which remind me of mahjong requirement to complete a meld.
http://books.google.com.my/books?id=olVzxzX3ogcC&pg=PT57&dq=probably+the+first+direct+ancestor+of+modern+poker&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QPvKUeG9NertiAfopoHYCg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA
And reading the above post,it seems to me peng hu and mohe also have similar gameplay too. The question,does this type of game play found in peng hu and mohe are influence by the European cards primero,pochen and poque or is it the other way around where cards from China influence game play of card in Europe. Or does this type of game play arise independently both China and Europe?
In Madio wikipedia,it says something about taking 'tricks'. What is this 'tricks' they referring to? How does the winning hand of madiao from Ming dynasty look like? Please teach me if you know how to play ma diao/ye zhi of Ming dynasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C7%8E_di%C3%A0o#Game
ragnaro...@gmail.com
> Hi guys,
>
> any one know where I can get a cheap mahjong set?
> I just want it for occasional use... Thanks!
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Cathy
ragnaro...@gmail.com
http://www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/mahjong/history.html
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/1288/
If anyone here knew how to access it,please tell me or even better,post the paper. As for the origin of mahjong,I believe we need to first identify the game play of mahjong ancestor,see it's similarity with modern mahjong.
alex tsoul
ragnaro...@gmail.com
> To start a game, each player gets 10 cards, then and in turn, each player
> draws and discards a card. Cards are to be formed in 3 consecutive numbers
> as a "set". Whoever forms 3 sets and a pair in a hand may declare HE
> [pronunciation is in Chinese Pinyin, means win].
>
> Cofa
> www.iMahjong.com
Each player has 10 cards but since the winning hand is a pair and 3 sets with each set containing 3 consecutive number ,doesn't that mean there will be 11 cards for the winning hand?
3x3+2=11
glen...@gmail.com
> Hi guys,
>
> any one know where I can get a cheap mahjong set?
> I just want it for occasional use... Thanks!
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Cathy
Glenn
glen...@gmail.com
> Hi guys,
>
> any one know where I can get a cheap mahjong set?
> I just want it for occasional use... Thanks!
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Cathy
Glenn