Remote Relation: 索 and 貫
al
The complete quote below in Chinese text is taken from Kangxi Zidian.
The purpose for the complete quotation is to show all 30 or more
appearance of the word 貫 while not one instance of 索. How remotely
related is 索 to 貫?
Yet Pan :
"索以貫錢，百文為索。"
By the way 《五經文字》 旣穿曰貫。《易·剝卦》貫魚。
Here is a Yijing reference for the fish in 貫. 魚 is [fish].
+++++++++++++++++++++
【酉集中】【貝字部】貫 ·康熙筆画：11 ·部外筆画：4
《唐韻》《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》𠀤古玩切，音瓘。《說文》貫，錢貝之貫。《前漢·食貨志》京師之錢累百鉅萬，貫朽而不可校。 又《博雅》穿也。《五
經文字》旣穿曰貫。《易·剝卦》貫魚。《釋文》貫，穿也。《前漢·董仲舒傳》豈不同條共貫與。《註》貫者，聮絡貫穿。 又中也。《儀禮·鄕射禮》不貫不
釋。《註》貫，猶中也。 又《穀梁傳·昭十九年》羈貫成童。《註》羈貫，謂交午剪髮以爲飾。 又《晉書·文苑傳》架彼辭人，共超淸貫。《正字通》侍從之
官曰淸貫。 又姓。《姓氏急就篇》趙相貫高。《古音略》貫高之貫，音冠。 又《博雅》累也。 又《韻府》本貫，鄕籍也。 又國名。《括地志》故貫城卽古
貫國，在曹州濟隂縣。 又《詩·魏風》三歲貫女。《傳》貫，事也。《釋文》古亂反。○按朱傳：貫，習也。音慣。 又《集韻》《正韻》𠀤古患切，音慣。
慣，亦作貫。《爾雅·釋詁》貫，習也。《詩·齊風》射則貫兮。《釋文》毛古亂反，中也。鄭古患反，習也。《前漢·賈誼傳》習慣如自然。《註》師古曰：
貫，亦習也。 又《集韻》烏關切，音彎。彎，亦作貫。《史記·伍子胥傳》貫弓執矢嚮使者。 又《廣韻》《集韻》《韻會》𠀤古丸切，音官。義同。○按
《說文》毌，穿物持之也，音古丸切，貫音古玩切，毌與貫通，故經典貫亦音官。
ithinc
"Qu wei jiu wen"(Zhu Bian, 1085-1144, Song Dynasty) Volume 10:"When
Wang Jiangming was Prime Minister, he accepted bribes publicly, and
sold government positions. There was even a price list (for the
positions). So a ballad was spreaded at that time:'Three thousand Suo,
Zhimige(a position);Five Hundred Guan, to promote to Tongpan(another
position).' "
Kangxi Zidian is not "Bible".
al
Good point and nice info.
Suo and the historical reference was mentioned briefly with the word,
賄,in Kangxi. You have provided more details. Appreciated.
How did 索 and 貫 relate? One position was priced at 3000 索 and another
at 500 貫. How many 貫in one 索 ? Or were they the same as it says in 索為貫
錢 ?
+++++++++++
According to Pan Zhiheng of Ming, "索以貫錢，百文為 索". That is different
significantly from the meaning in Kamgxi dictionary. If [索為貫錢]，[千文為索]
is more accurate interpretation. 百文為索 and 千文為索 differ by ten times.
+++++++++++++++++
You might have given a possible reference source for the use of the
term, 索, (Suo) in Ma Diao. 索and貫were clearly monetary in the
historical context above where government positions were bought for a
price.
However, 索 may not apply to Ma Diao. Ma Diao and other card games have
other symbols which seemed to have been put aside and ignored because
historians didn't know what they are or how to treat them.
In my view, 索 is more than being 貫錢. It has other abstract meanings
relating to Chinese divination.
In order to make it monetary, somebody reduced a rope to become a
string and devalued 索 from 1000 to 100 wen.
++++++++++++
The bottom line is the game symbols are not monetary as commonly held.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> However, 索 may not apply to Ma Diao. Ma Diao and other card games have
> other symbols which seemed to have been put aside and ignored because
> historians didn't know what they are or how to treat them.
They were not put aside and they have not been ignored.
For some of the symbols we have no evidence of their meanings at this
time.
So
(1) You asked for where you have distorted the views of others - here
it is.
(2) Even though there is no evidence, that doesn't stop you distorting
what others have said.
> In my view, 索 is more than being 貫錢. It has other abstract meanings
> relating to Chinese divination.
Fine. Now give us the EVIDENCE that links your interpretation to the
playing card game of ma diao.
> In order to make it monetary, somebody reduced a rope to become a
> string and devalued 索 from 1000 to 100 wen.
This is utter bull. You have no evidence whatsoever that a 'somebody'
did anything. You don't have a clue how suo3 changed in value from
1000coins to 100. You have no clue how or when or why that happend.
But that hasn't stopped you jumping to a totally unfounded conclusion.
> The bottom line is the game symbols are not monetary as commonly held.
The bottom line is EVIDENCE to back up your claims.
You have none.
al
<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > However, 索 may not apply to Ma Diao. Ma Diao and other card games have
> > other symbols which seemed to have been put aside and ignored because
> > historians didn't know what they are or how to treat them.
>
> They were not put aside and they have not been ignored.
>
> For some of the symbols we have no evidence of their meanings at this
> time.
>
They are put aside for now and they get no attention for the time
being.
> So [//]
> > In my view, 索 is more than being 貫錢. It has other abstract meanings
> > relating to Chinese divination.
>
> Fine. Now give us the EVIDENCE
Here: 八卦之說，謂之八索.
++++++++++++++++++++
that links your interpretation to the
> playing card game of ma diao.
>
You missed the whole idea "八卦之說，謂之八索" does not need to link to any
game, although it could.
> > In order to make it monetary, somebody reduced a rope to become a
> > string and devalued 索 from 1000 to 100 wen.
>
> This is utter bull. You have no evidence whatsoever that a 'somebody'
> did anything. You don't have a clue how suo3 changed in value from
> 1000coins to 100. You have no clue how or when or why that happend.
>
Do you have a clue?
What ? The changes occurred on their own?
> But that hasn't stopped you jumping to a totally unfounded conclusion.
>
"Unfounded" maybe, (i.e. nobody said that before) but inevitable
conclusion it is.
> > The bottom line is the game symbols are not monetary as commonly held.
>
> The bottom line is EVIDENCE to back up your claims.
>
八卦之說，謂之八索
> You have none.
This is one: 八卦之說，謂之八索
Go look at photo 79 on page 55 in Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum
(1999) for a better appreciation of the taiji diagram, sets of two
trigrams and the few words herein.
If you have difficulty with the few words here, don't claim you have
any real understanding of and appreciation for Chinese language and
culture.
al
>
> > In my view, 索 is more than being 貫錢. It has other abstract meanings
> > relating to Chinese divination.
>
> Fine. Now give us the EVIDENCE that links your interpretation to the
> playing card game of ma diao.
>
>
> > The bottom line is the game symbols are not monetary as commonly held.
>
> The bottom line is EVIDENCE to back up your claims.
>
> You have none.
I have one more. 《博雅》穿也。《五經文字》旣穿曰貫。
《易·剝卦》貫魚。《釋文》貫，穿也。
++++++++++++++
穿 is the key word. Pierce through is what it means.
For a 貫 to become a string of cash, you need to 穿.
In order to 穿, you need a hole to allow passage.
+++++++++++++++
A string of cash is fabricated via many steps.
(1) Cash is given a round or square hole.
(2) The sound "tong" is interpreted 'Tong Qian".
(3) A rope, suo, is reduced in size to a string.
(4) A guan is changed from 1000 to 100 wen.
(5) A Taiji diagram changed to 1-Cash etc.
++++++++++++++
No wonder it was an incredible and impossible task!
ithinc
> On Jul 26, 11:07 am, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The bottom line is EVIDENCE to back up your claims.
>
> This is one: 八卦之說，謂之八索
to understand it.
al
Who else knows anything but you?
You know all about Zero-Cash, too!
stanwic...@googlemail.com
After reading your reply to ithinc, it seems clear to me you do not
know what it means.
When you post Chinese text nto a post on this discussion forum, the
burden on you is to provide the English translation for those reading
these discussions who cannot read Chinese.
Your unwillingness to provide the English translation is odd.
Why not provide the translation?
Surely you wish for others to understand your position?
Further, it also means you are opening yourself up to the charge of
being a hypocrite, because it gives the suspicion that you do not know
what the text means either and hence you also can't "claim you have
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> Photo 79, page 55, Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum.
Explain your reasoning that lets you conclude it is evidence.
> > > The bottom line is the game symbols are not monetary as commonly held.
How do you conclude that?
> I have one more. 《博雅》穿也。《五經文字》旣穿曰貫。
> 《易·剝卦》貫魚。《釋文》貫，穿也。
> ++++++++++++++
> 穿 is the key word. Pierce through is what it means.
> For a 貫 to become a string of cash, you need to 穿.
> In order to 穿, you need a hole to allow passage.
> +++++++++++++++
Ok. Let's deal with these one at a time.
> A string of cash is fabricated via many steps.
> (1) Cash is given a round or square hole.
Given by whom?
> (2) The sound "tong" is interpreted 'Tong Qian".
Who interpreted the "sound"?
> (3) A rope, suo, is reduced in size to a string.
Really? According to my reference, Endymion Wilkinson, who said;
"In the earliest dictionary (Shuowen, 100 CE) it is defined as a rope
(or cord) made from vegetable fibre."
Curious. Now what is the meaning of "cord". In my dictionaries it
gives it as a thin rope or a thick string.
> (4) A guan is changed from 1000 to 100 wen.
Wow"! Even after all the discusson regarding short stringing and the
idea that these units of currency had different values at different
times and places.
But suo was used to represent 1000 wen. It the card deck it was used
to represent 100 wen.
> (5) A Taiji diagram changed to 1-Cash etc.
No it wan't. Here you are again, spouting your assertion as if it were
proven true, without any reasoning behind it to show the reasons that
support the assertion.
If you are so confident, why not direct readers to the other subject
thread where your assertions have been peeled open for examination?
> No wonder it was an incredible and impossible task!
Oh ho! The ol' argument from ignorance is back.
al
Oh ho! Oh ho!
I am told I am ignorant again! When am I going to learn?
You and ithinc must be the most knowledgeable two whatever (can't
think of a word lust yet) on card-earth.
How come you are hopeless and helpless to see beyond MDH. Maybe ithinc
is going to lead you out of your tangle. His dig and find from
graveyards of dead books may yield you Zero-Cash
someday. That will reaffirm your faith in Pan Zheheng.
++++++++++
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> > proven true, without any reasoning behind it to show the reasons that
> > support the assertion.
>
> > If you are so confident, why not direct readers to the other subject
> > thread where your assertions have been peeled open for examination?
>
> > > No wonder it was an incredible and impossible task!
>
> > Oh ho! The ol' argument from ignorance is back.
> I am told I am ignorant again! When am I going to learn?
Never, at this rate! You have just proven my case out of your own
mouth!
You don't even realise that the word 'ignorance' in the 'argument from
ignorance', doesn't apply to you personally!!
Perhaps this will make it easier for you to understand. It can be
called the 'appeal to incredulity'.
No good?
How about 'appeal to ignorance'? Nope?
Aw, you found a way of ignoring, avoiding and diverting our attention
away from you answring my points above.
> You and ithinc must be the most knowledgeable two whatever (can't
> think of a word lust yet) on card-earth.
Thank you. But coming from you that doesn't mean much.
> How come you are hopeless and helpless to see beyond MDH.
Because that is where the evidence leads. Sorry.
> Maybe ithinc
> is going to lead you out of your tangle. His dig and find from
> graveyards of dead books may yield you Zero-Cash
> someday. That will reaffirm your faith in Pan Zheheng.
Wow! You think so?
Now, you are avoiding answering my comments and questions above just a
teensy weensy bit, aren't you?
What's the matter?
Do you want to ignore them?
I don't mind, just let me know that you want to avoid them, ok?
That way I can then move on to your other unreasonable claims.
al
I see you are trying hard using tricky tactics. What else is new?
I have been already accused of all sorts of names. Why should I let
you bother me?
You and your colleague should know the meaning of the 8 words. If he
doesn't, get somebody else. A new partner may offer a different
perspective on the discussion.
Let me tell you this. You may be full of constipated knowledge in your
memory, but you have been thinking "inside the box". You, due to a
basic lack of cultural background and language skill in Chinese, you
have paid too much attention to the superficial items like the shapes,
names and sounds of symbols (from dish to fish). You and your MDH band
have been oblivious to these few words: "the principles are in the
rules".
Until you come to understand the "principles are in the rules", You
have nothing to add to the discussion.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> > After reading your reply to ithinc, it seems clear to me you do not
> > know what it means.
>
> > When you post Chinese text nto a post on this discussion forum, the
> > burden on you is to provide the English translation for those reading
> > these discussions who cannot read Chinese.
>
> > Your unwillingness to provide the English translation is odd.
> > Why not provide the translation?
> > Surely you wish for others to understand your position?
>
> > Further, it also means you are opening yourself up to the charge of
> > being a hypocrite, because it gives the suspicion that you do not know
> > what the text means either and hence you also can't "claim you have
> > any real understanding of and appreciation for Chinese language and
> > culture."
----------------------------------
> I see you are trying hard using tricky tactics. What else is new?
Not tricky tactics. Just reasoned arguement so others can see that you
are desperately avoiding your responsibility in providing the English
translation.
> I have been already accused of all sorts of names. Why should I let
> you bother me?
Oh! You misunderstand. Nobody is accusing you of names.
You are doing that to yourself!
You see, all I said was that YOU open yourself up to the charge of
being a hypocrite.
I was saying that YOUR strange unwillingness to give the English
translation makes you open to that charge of being a hypocrite.
So by not giving this forum the translation, YOU are bringing that
name on to yourself.
So others can legitmately accuse you of having no "real understanding
of and appreciation for Chinese language and culture."
You are going to do that all by yourself, I am afraid.
> You and your colleague should know the meaning of the 8 words. If he
> doesn't, get somebody else. A new partner may offer a different
> perspective on the discussion.
Oh, we do know!
But YOU posted them without an English translation for the rest of the
non-chinese speaking readers.
Do you regard them with contempt?
Do you not respect the other forum readers?
Clearly you don't since you are not going to give them the English
meaning of those words.
> Let me tell you this. ...[snipped ranting monlogue]
Wow! That was a rant! What have you got to hide that you should
protest so loudly?
al
A whole Half-Cash
Plus half a Zero-Cash
Equals balderdash
And more balderdash
++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
stanwic...@googlemail.com
[snipped childish rhyme]
Tsk. Tsk. You can't hide behind childish gibberish.
Just give this forum the Chinese text and your English translation.
Then we can discuss your claims and clear up this subject.
Its only a small bit of Chinese text?
Do you want us to wait while you find someone to translate it for you?