Winds order
Cofa Tsui
"al" <al...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1183414640....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 11:19 am, "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
> wrote:
>> > On Jul 1, 9:35?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> I have not tested your circle experiment yet. But you figured that was
>> >> how the Chinese decided south is to the right of east, right? Anybody
>> >> else tested it?
>>
>> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> > I didn't 'figure it'. ^_^ It is an explanation, that's all.
>> > Check out this site
>> >http://analyzer.depaul.edu/paperplate/Directions-Terrestrial%20and%20...
>>
>> I tend to think the wind ordering was more accidental than that.
> Hello, Tom, what make you think that was accident?
>>The winds
>> are ordered E, S, W, N because that's the order of the seasons. In the
>> spring the wind comes from the east, in the summer it comes from the
>> south... or so they say.
> Was this Chinese "saying" or Westerners'? It would be interesting to
> know when, if the Chinese had said that ; and/or if Westerners had
> given an interpretation.
>> Then, once the order is in place, couple that with the fact that the
>> order > of play goes counterclockwise around the table.
> Tom, my question to that is "since when?" And my point is that such
> pattern of rotation could have been that way, before if not long
> before, Galileo and Copericus who proved the Earth rotate around the
> sun. The MJ rotation plan was based on the sun going around the earth.
>
>> It's just an accident that looking down on the table does not acorrespond
>> to
>> looking down on a map. If the game's designer had considered that factor,
>> the order of play being changed to clockwise would have fixed it. But
>> then
> The knowledge on the solar system was not available then. That says
> the approx. age of MJ. That is my evidence.
>> it's expected to "feed" someone with the right hand...
>> Of course, staying with counterclockwise play order, to make the table
>> work
>> as a map, the winds order would have to be E, N, W, S instead.
>> So even if the game's designer considered the "table as map" factor, this
>> aspect of the game might not have been changed.
> Established pattern and habit are hard to change, granted that...but
> when the pattern and habit were practised that is the question.
>> Cheers
>> Tom
> I don't think that was accidental result. It's solid reason I see it.
>
> Cheers.....AL
END-QUOTE
Gentlemen,
I believe treating East, South, West, North and its anti-compass
(anti-clockwise) rotating direction as an original feature of the game
mahjong (maque) could be the source of the problems. In a private message to
Allan I wrote (July 10):
As to the game rotation, I have no comments on your "explanation," as well
as on "explanation" of anyone, as long as it sounds reasonable. It would
really matter only if you (or anyone) could later on find hard evidence to
support any given explanation or hypothesis.
My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
form could be the same as Mo He Pai (默和牌 or "Mo Hu Pai"), based on its
game play - see
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
Note the definition of mahjong among some non-Chinese speaking regulars of
the MJ newsgroup could be different - They insist mahjong was formed only
when its playing pieces reached the form of "solid blocks"; games in the
form of "paper cards" were not yet mahjong.
On the other hand, if you accept the concept that Mo He Pai was the original
form of mahjong, their playing sequence is anticlockwise, AND that East
South West North were added to the game at a much later time, then it would
be easy to understand why ESWN in mahjong are counted different than the
compass direction. ESWN in mahjong don't have their meaning of direction;
they simply are the positions in the game rotation (try substituting ESWN
with 1234 and you'll understand).
(END QUOTE)
With this explanation, problems about rotation related to other (perhaps all
other) sets of pais having directional or sequential nature that are later
added to the game, would not be problems any more, or could be treated as
problems (if still) apart from the original design of the game.
However, I have to admit that I am yet to find the evidence that Mo He Pai
is in fact played in the anticlockwise direction. Any help with this please?
Cheers!
--
Cofa Tsui
International Mahjong[r] Infoweb
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@aol.com
> This is a "winds order" discussion apart from the topic "Why a sparrow?"
[snip]
> My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
> form could be the same as Mo He Pai (默和牌 or "Mo Hu Pai"), based on its
> game play - seehttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
Hello Cofa. I find this a perplexing statement. My perplexity centers
around your term 'original form'. What are all the attributes of mo he
pai do you consider to be criteria for it belonging to the family of
maque? (note; I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not clear
what you are proposing).
> Note the definition of mahjong among some non-Chinese speaking regulars of
> the MJ newsgroup could be different - They insist mahjong was formed only
> when its playing pieces reached the form of "solid blocks"; games in the
> form of "paper cards" were not yet mahjong.
> On the other hand, if you accept the concept that Mo He Pai was the original
> form of mahjong, their playing sequence is anticlockwise, AND that East
> South West North were added to the game at a much later time, then it would
> be easy to understand why ESWN in mahjong are counted different than the
> compass direction. ESWN in mahjong don't have their meaning of direction;
> they simply are the positions in the game rotation (try substituting ESWN
> with 1234 and you'll understand).
That is interesting. When the ESWN were added to whatever game, are
you saying that the meaning of the group of 16 playing pieces that
have ESWN on them do not mean Directions? Are you saying they are the
positions in the game rotation and were added to the game as playing
pieces hence ESWN = positions in games rotation of play?
> With this explanation, problems about rotation related to other (perhaps all
> other) sets of pais having directional or sequential nature that are later
> added to the game, would not be problems any more, or could be treated as
> problems (if still) apart from the original design of the game.
What other other sets of pais that have directional or sequential
nature do you mean?
Still a little confused.
Cheers
Michael
al
> On Jul 13, 4:58�pm, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a "winds order" discussion apart from the topic "Why a sparrow?"
>
> [snip]
>
> > My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
Hello, Michael,
I could not reply direct to your post in "Why a Sparrow", after
earlier attempts, so I now give you that first, then we can discuss
the directions tiles.
I should point out first though, the argument is NOT the directions
themselves. Rather it is the implication and the affect on the history
timeline of mahjong. In other words, assuming the game designer was
not aware of the reality that the earth was not stationary, when was
that time?
Since you and I have had a long discussion and did some thinking on
the question, I should at least give you my points of view.
****************************************
a simple exercise, Michael? Did you try it? How long did it
> > take you?
>
> Yes. 30 seconds at most.
>
More than that and it does not prove anything, Michael. So why bother?
That was why I wondered what the purpose was.
> > > I don't know why the rotation is the way it is.
> > I already proposed an explanation before and I think I have repeated
> > it. The reason for South to come next after East in this opposite
> > direction was because at the time when the game of MJ was designed the
> > prevailing knowledge of astronomy was that the SUN revolves around the
> > EARTH. That was the geocentric system since Ptolemy at about 100 BC.
> > The whole world didn't believe that the earth could be moving as it
> > does until Kopernicus and Galileo came along and risked their
> > reputation and life to introduce the heliocentric system.
>
> > To me, this is evidence to support the hypothesis that the game of MJ
> > had its design begun before 1600 AD. (intellectual evidence, if you
> > will...
>
> Sure. OK. But you seem to keep conflating the appearance of the
> **game** of maque (consisting the tile set + the name + a
> recognizable form of the game-play) with the appearance of some
> **characteristic of some feature of the gameplay** (the counter
> clockwise rotation of play) that is itself one of three 'macro'
> features that make up the game as a whole.
A macro feature deserves historians' and experts' careful
consideration, I had thought. They would be the people with most
knowledge on micro features. I have hardly seen any response to this
macro question. I remember a term, "group-think”, in a book about a
group of people involved with the Vietnam War. I guess I am the only
differing voice in the group.
> If your evidence is solid then all you can say, or claim, is that
> **'micro' feature** found in maque had appeared at your claimed time
> in the past. You have not established that the **game** appeared at
> that time in the past because we know that that 'micro feature' was
> also used in earlier games such as the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. It
> was not **exclusively linked** with maque.
>
So exclusivity is the key and only acceptable micro or/and macro
features as evidence?
How has the "money-based " hypotheses perform under the same rules?
Perhaps I could get a better picture putting it to a test rather than
read what you said.
I would have thought "macro" feature more critical than "micro"
features.
> > > You offered a good explanation when you said; "That is, going to the
> > > right from an East (Pillar) position to South, the next position. The
> > > direction of MJ play could have been copied from Ma Diao which had no
> > > wind or geographic directions to consider but for right-handed convenience."
> > Not such a good explanation, I am afraid. No game designer knowingly
> > would show his ignorance by choosing the ESWN for the tiles. He could
> > have picked other sequential combination like "morning, noon evening
> > and nught" or simply one-two-three--four. I think Tom had suggested
> > that in one of his posts. MJ originated during the GEOCENTRIC period.
> > This is very simple basic explanation. Why is it so difficult to
> > explore further? Has there been anybody else examined the idea and
> > discarded by experts? It's a scientific clue.
>
> No. It was also used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. There is no
> evidence that the **game** of ma que was around at that time.
So, this anomaly of reversed rotation of ESWN has never been explored.
It is a macro feature. Do I get the impression that it is
insignificant?
You just said "it was used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao."
What do you mean exactly, Michael? Ma Dial used ESWN Directions?
I was wondering what Ma Diao look like as a set in any form. I also
was looking for the old version of Peng He Pai. What I have seen so
far is only a "modern" version in FAQ #11. How was "it" used? I asked
Andrew Lo about Ma Diao. I asked him if Ma Diao could have been Nah-
Bird. Diao = generic bird in my dialect. I expect the answer will be
probably that it is same as Ma Tiao. But where and what is the proof?
I read Cofa’s post in an earlier discussion on the definition of Mah
Jong. He described the game-play of Peng Huo (He). Cofa suggested the
possibility of addition of MJ Directions Tiles took place after the
established counterclockwise rotation order in Peng Huo. Cofa also
suggested the designer could have substituted the directions with
numerals as simple as 1-2-3-4. I would add that the designer did not
substitute ESWN with anything else because he did not know the
directions were contrary to reality; hence no need for that.
Furthermore, the Directions Tiles were an integral part of the MJ
theme in its design.
> However, one of the micro-features found in maque, was around at that time.
What was that, Michael?
It sounds like a detective story here, unless there is a dead body,
there is no homicide. So without a set of tiles unearthed somewhere.
Nothing else matters much.
I do have some micro features in mind, Michael. I will put them
together. I waited to get a few answers for John Low's translation. In
fact I was going to post on July 1 under a new heading. I forgot how
to do it and I found out something new. I will post shortly.
> >> Another possible explanation relates to the order of the 4 seasons.
> > > IF the directions are ordered according to a celestial orientation
> > > when looking up from the ground and according to the procession of the
> > > 4 Seasons in the Five Processes correlations - which are; East/Spring,
> > > South/Summer, West/Autumn and North/Winter - then following the
> > > Seasons procession also gives us the E, S, W, N procession. But this
> > > is speculation at this point.
> > What is this correlation of 4 Seasons and 5 Processions? Is this
> > another MahJongg creation?
> > You admitted it is speculation at this point. It has been in
> > speculation since the first Westerner whoever that brought it up.
>
> What is your problem with Westerners Allan? Nationality is ****utterly
> irrelevant**** at this point.
Westerners tend to project too much interpretation into Chinese
philosophy, because they often lack depth in understanding the
language and they lack breadth in experience of Chinese culture. They
are usually articulate and once their version of an idea gets
formulated and published, it gets repeated and stays for a long time,
if not forever.Tai Chi is an example besides MJ.
>The 5 Processes or Wu Xing or 5 elements
> etc is an ancient Chinese cosmological/philosophical idea about how
> reality works and events occur. It had its beginnings traced back to
> around 250BC and we know of it from the 4th century "Tso Commentary".
> If you want to know more, get hold of the text "Disputers of the Tao;
> philosophical argument in ancient China" by A. C. Graham.
>
> The speculation I mentioned, was related to whether the Seasonal
> progression and therefore Directions progression, was related to
> Maque.
In all seriousness, Michael, if you can't accept the reversed
directions of game-play as an indication of time, why would you bring
on something like the 5 processes to add confusion to the question?
>
> > Heliocentric and Geocentric are two different time periods in history.
> > That is scientific knowledge in the books. Take a look at that in the
> > interest of getting closer to the rel age of Mahjong.
>
> I understand your claims Allan. Therefore no need.
>
On second thought, I do need to add another point to further show that
Chinese people at the time when Mah-Jong was designed or first
created, did not know about the working of the solar system. They
didn’t know how the seasons came about when they didn’t know the earth
was rotating on its axis daily and revolving around the sun annually.
If they had known that seasonal variation was due to earth’s
revolution around the sun while directions are the result of daily
rotation on the earth’s own tilted axis, the Chinese in olden day
China would not have tried to correlate seasons with directions as
some one had suggested.
> > > Er..what's wrong with a grade school explanation?? ^_^
> > Nothing wrong, Michael, if we are still in grade school!
>
> Huh? Wrong! ^_^ The quality of an explanation relies on its internal
> logic and explanatory power - how well it accounts for the
> observation(s) and how well it does not conflict with the background
> knowledge we already have and how many assumptions it uses etc.
>
I agree with you on that. Ironically, your grade school lesson did
nothing to answer the question.
> > > > > He further says the 4 wang Direction tiles are Kings of the 4
> > > > > 'Heavenly Directions'.
> > That was what Himly said. And what would you say to that, Michael?
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. Until I have evidence either way I cannot decide.
> However, that does not prevent me from exploring the 'heavenly' aspect
> as it relates to maque. To see if it stands up to inspection etc.
>
> > > > Himly misinterpreted the whole concept. They are regions in the 4
> > > > directions.
> > > How do you know that he misinterpreted the whole concept? A full
> > > explanation with your reasons would help me understand your objection.
> > As I said, Michael, there was a tile for the East King, the West King,
> > the South King and the North King. One time there was the Center King.
> > Kings were Men and earthlings. Earth was the center of the universe.
> > Everybody "knew" that even before Ptolemy. I see nothing celestial
> > about that.
>
> Himly **may have** misinterpreted. Your claim appears as certainty.
> Your explanation above rests on your interpretation of these tiles as
> representing something. That's ok. However, I have a different
> interpretation that underpins another explanation that I am outlining
> in some detail in an article I am writing. I cannot go into it here at
> this time.
>
What better "evidence" than interpreting the tiles as "representing
something"? We are talking about something we can see. That something
was created in the mind of some one who had used the knowledge
available to him in his time. THAT TIME is what our question is about.
The tiles ESWN can indicate to us THAT TIME. I treat the tiles as
"representing something" with a hidden time factor, Michael.
> > I wish you would check the ESWN anomaly among your expert contacts for
> > the benefit of our group, Michael.
>
> One thing at a time Allan. I am very busy exploring another aspect of
> the game - [snip]
>
That's o.k. I will be away a few days next week.
Again I experienced problem replying to you. This is a repeat.
> >[snip]
>
> Regards
> Michael
Cheers.........AL
al
> This is a "winds order" discussion apart from the topic "Why a sparrow?"
>
> game play - seehttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
>
> Note the definition of mahjong among some non-Chinese speaking regulars of
> the MJ newsgroup could be different - They insist mahjong was formed only
> when its playing pieces reached the form of "solid blocks"; games in the
> form of "paper cards" were not yet mahjong.
>
> On the other hand, if you accept the concept that Mo He Pai was the original
> form of mahjong, their playing sequence is anticlockwise, AND that East
> South West North were added to the game at a much later time, then it would
> be easy to understand why ESWN in mahjong are counted different than the
> compass direction. ESWN in mahjong don't have their meaning of direction;
> they simply are the positions in the game rotation (try substituting ESWN
> with 1234 and you'll understand).
>
> (END QUOTE)
Hello, Cofa,
Because I learned what Mah Jeck is as a child, it is difficult for me
to think it being anything other than in tile form. Due to the
similarity in game play, I can easily see that the games are somehow
sometime related. I consider MJ consists of 3 basic suits plus at
least the suit of characters that in my mind contributes to a major
part of the game's theme or objective. ESWN directions tiles are
present in every known set of MJ. I would say they are an essential
part of the game.
There is no confusion as far as game play is concern. What I have been
trying to establish is the likelihood that at the time when the design
of MJ was conceived people believed and they knew then that the sun
revolves around the earth. We only learn about the fact that it is
actually the earth rotates on its own axis as well as revolving around
the sun. By virtue of the assumption that the game designer
unknowingly made the mistake in allowing the directions ESWN to go
counterclockwise was an indication that game had originated earlier
than at lest 1600 when Kopernicus and Galileo proved to the world
their geocentric theory.
So, the problem is not with the directions. The question is how do you
interpret the meaning of the anomaly where south and north are at
reversed pposition in terms of history time-line.
>
> [..]
> However, I have to admit that I am yet to find the evidence that Mo He Pai
> is in fact played in the anticlockwise direction. Any help with this please?
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Cofa Tsui
> International Mahjong[r] Infowebwww.iMahjong.com
Cheers.......AL
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 13, 4:58�pm, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a "winds order" discussion apart from the topic "Why a sparrow?"
>
> [snip]
>
> > My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
> > game play - seehttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
>
> Hello Cofa. I find this a perplexing statement. My perplexity centers
> around your term 'original form'. What are all the attributes of mo he
> pai do you consider to be criteria for it belonging to the family of
> maque? (note; I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not clear
> what you are proposing).
Hello Michael,
Sorry you have that feeling; but I had mentioned that "the original
form" was of my own opinion. On the other hand, I understand why your
such feeling. Before I go further, I should perhaps answer your
question first, and the answer was in topic 205a of the IMJ Archives:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
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 [spare coin] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each;
- Wan Guan [10-thousand money note] 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 (sounds "hu") [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 in
same pattern), PENG (3 identical pieces) and GANG (4 identical
pieces).
[Peng He Pai ("peng hu pai") was mentioned in an article "Muzhu
Xianhua" written by Jin Xueshi before 1783 - Information provided by
Thierry, also covered in topic 205a.]
Note that I should have quoted Peng He Pai instead of Mo He Pai,
because Peng He Pai is in a form more complete and more close to maque
(mahjong).
Note the game of Peng He Pai as described above has all the
characteristics as a *modern mahjong*, as modern as of the 1920s
except that it (Peng He Pai):
a) has the playing pieces that are in paper form only (But paper form,
solid block (tile) or digital image - Do they matter?)
b) does not consist of East South West North Winds, Red Green and
White Dragons, and Flowers
c) does not consist of (say, King tiles, Joker tiles, and as many
other tiles you can find in modern *mahjong* games - But you can still
call it mahjong even if a set does not come with any of these or any
other newer tiles, right?)
d) can be played on a computer or over the Internet (^_^)
The reason I do not consider that items (a) through (d) to be the
essential elements of mahjong because:
1) they don't change the fundamentals of the game play if they change
(fundamentals = draw and discard with the purposes of forming the
prescribed patterns of set, i.e., KAN (3 consecutive numbers in same
pattern), PENG (3 identical pieces) and GANG (4 identical pieces).)
2) they are subject to change (evolution, improvement, etc; i.e., bone
to bamboo to plastic to digital image, etc; play in person, with
computer program or with other persons onver the Internet, etc.)
But why Peng He Pai? My reasons are:
1) Peng He Pai is the earliest game form we know at this point that
has the identical fundamentals of maque
2) The definite details of the creation (or formation) of maque are
still unknown
And I reserve that my statement can still be changed if in the future
new evidences are found proving otherwise.
>
> > Note the definition of mahjong among some non-Chinese speaking regulars of
> > the MJ newsgroup could be different - They insist mahjong was formed only
> > when its playing pieces reached the form of "solid blocks"; games in the
> > form of "paper cards" were not yet mahjong.
> > On the other hand, if you accept the concept that Mo He Pai was the original
> > form of mahjong, their playing sequence is anticlockwise, AND that East
> > South West North were added to the game at a much later time, then it would
> > be easy to understand why ESWN in mahjong are counted different than the
> > compass direction. ESWN in mahjong don't have their meaning of direction;
> > they simply are the positions in the game rotation (try substituting ESWN
> > with 1234 and you'll understand).
>
> That is interesting. When the ESWN were added to whatever game, are
> you saying that the meaning of the group of 16 playing pieces that
> have ESWN on them do not mean Directions? Are you saying they are the
> positions in the game rotation and were added to the game as playing
> pieces hence ESWN = positions in games rotation of play?
Yes, Michael. Of course, the words or symbols (ESWN) on their own do
have the meaning of directions.
>
> > With this explanation, problems about rotation related to other (perhaps all
> > other) sets of pais having directional or sequential nature that are later
> > added to the game, would not be problems any more, or could be treated as
> > problems (if still) apart from the original design of the game.
>
> What other other sets of pais that have directional or sequential
> nature do you mean?
The Flowers! For example, Plum and Spring correspond to position 1, so
does the ZHUANG (the "dealer"). In a winning hand, sets made of pais
having its sequential position matching that of the seating position
of a player are usually worth more scores. As you also know, the
seating positions of the players, starting from the dealer, are 1234.
>
> Still a little confused.
I totally understand, Michael. You might even be more confused if I
said a game believed to be similar to maque was mentioned in a book as
early as ca. 1751.
[A very detailed descriptions of the history of mahjong, covering its
possible sources, evolution and development, can be found at (in
Chinese only):
http://www.mjclub.com/Reference/History/
The book believed to have described a game similar to maque is "Dream
of the Red Chamber" (红楼梦) by CAO Xueqin, believed to be published ca.
1751. More details of Dream of the Red Chamber can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber]
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 13, 11:58 am, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Cofa,
> Because I learned what Mah Jeck is as a child, it is difficult for me
> to think it being anything other than in tile form.
But I do believe you would accept that games played with paper cards,
and games played on the computer and over the Internet, are still
mahjong games. Am I right?
Due to the
> similarity in game play, I can easily see that the games are somehow
> sometime related. I consider MJ consists of 3 basic suits plus at
> least the suit of characters that in my mind contributes to a major
> part of the game's theme or objective. ESWN directions tiles are
> present in every known set of MJ. I would say they are an essential
> part of the game.
But how far back does your "every known set" mean? And by "set" do you
mean the actual set that can be presented by "images", if not being
able to be "physically felt"?
With your "essential requirements" respecting ESWN, it would lead you
to restrict yourself to believe mahjong can only be *games* that were
created (or formed) circa 1900 (although the details of its creation
are not found), where the earliest *set* meeting these requirement was
found.
[Note the above is about the *set* ohly, not the game; and you might
end up conflicting yourself between the requirements for the sets and
for the game.]
>
> [...] By virtue of the assumption that the game designer
> unknowingly made the mistake in allowing the directions ESWN to go
> counterclockwise was an indication that game had originated earlier
> than at lest 1600 when Kopernicus and Galileo proved to the world
> their geocentric theory.
I believe your time line referred to here couldn't be any time prior
to 1900 (+/-) based on your requirements about the *sets* - Hence your
first part of your assumption is not necessary. Well, unless you also
meant the game designer also mistakenly ignored the knowledge of
Galileo's findings.
If, however, you do mean a time line circa 1600 or prior, than I
believe we shall better discuss the issue only when we see any written
descriptions about maque (or similar) game that is published circa
1600.
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> Hello, Michael,
> I could not reply direct to your post in "Why a Sparrow", after
> earlier attempts, so I now give you that first, then we can discuss
> the directions tiles.
Hello Allan. Ok. But 1st, can you please quote only the **immediate
piece of text that contains the info you are replying to**? In your
reply there is a hell of a lot of my reply that you didn't need to
quote. If people want to get a wider understanding of what I said then
all they need to do is go back to my reply and have a look. It would
save me having to trawl through your reply to find your answers. Just
put [snip] in where you have left out parts of someones reply. Thanks.
^_^
[snip]
> a simple exercise, Michael? Did you try it? How long did it> > take you?
> > Yes. 30 seconds at most.
> More than that and it does not prove anything, Michael. So why bother?
> That was why I wondered what the purpose was.
The purpose was to illustrate a possible explanation for why the
Directions are arranged ESWN. I was not trying to prove anything. I
mentioned it because I know that the Directions have also been called
'Heavenly Directions' . For the purpose of the discussion I
interpreted Heavenly Directions to mean Celestial Directions (a not
unwarranted interpretation as I know the ancient chinese made
celestial observations). Thus, the arrangement ESWN is consistent with
the Directions as seen when looking up - as I illustrated.
The next problem you were discussing was why the anticlockwise
rotation. I offered an additional possible explanation - that
according to the ancient philosophy of wu xing the fours Directions
are paired with the four Seasons thus; east/spring, south/summer, west/
autumn and north/winter. IF the Seasonal pro,gression is SSAW and
since they are linked with ESWN, then the anticlockwise rotation of
the Directions is determined by Seasonal progression.
This accounts for both your observations. That is why I bothered. It
may be right, it may be wrong or it may be a bit of both.
[snip]
> > > To me, this is evidence to support the hypothesis that the game of MJ
> > > had its design begun before 1600 AD. (intellectual evidence, if you
> > > will...
[snip]
> > If your evidence is solid then all you can say, or claim, is that
> > **'micro' feature** found in maque had appeared at your claimed time
> > in the past. You have not established that the **game** appeared at
> > that time in the past because we know that that 'micro feature' was
> > also used in earlier games such as the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. It
> > was not **exclusively linked** with maque.
>
> So exclusivity is the key and only acceptable micro or/and macro
> features as evidence?
> How has the "money-based " hypotheses perform under the same rules?
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I will explain using part of your own
quote above but with some added words.
"To me, this is evidence to support the hypothesis that [A GAME
FEATURE ALREADY EXISTING BEFORE 1600AD, WAS BORROWED AND INSERTED INTO
THE GAME OF MJ AT SOME POINT IN TIME AFTER THAT DATE.]"
> > > MJ originated during the GEOCENTRIC period.
> > > This is very simple basic explanation. Why is it so difficult to
> > > explore further? Has there been anybody else examined the idea and
> > > discarded by experts? It's a scientific clue.
>
> > No. It was also used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. There is no
> > evidence that the **game** of ma que was around at that time.
>
> So, this anomaly of reversed rotation of ESWN has never been explored.
> It is a macro feature. Do I get the impression that it is insignificant?
No. This goes to the question of how far do we go in reducing the
characteristics of what we know as the game of maque before it ceases
to be recognisably maque? Cofa has his proposal. By your statements
you would go back to the feature of "reversed rotation of ESWN". Is
that right?
So any game that had this feature was therefore maque??? I would
totally disagree with that claim. That is why I have amended your
hypothesis above.
> You just said "it was used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao."
> What do you mean exactly, Michael? Ma Dial used ESWN Directions?
No. The anticlockwise order of dealing and playing was found in the
Late Ming game of Ma Diao. Check out Lo's article in The Playing-card
Vol XXIX, number 3, page 117. It is # 3 of the General Features of
that game.
That is why the order of ESWN is a SEPARATE ISSUE from the
anticlockwise rotation issue. Further, because this feature is found
in Ma Diao we cannot therefore say that it is an indicator of maque,
because if we did then we would have to admit that ma diao was also
maque!!!
[snip]
> > However, one of the micro-features found in maque, was around at that time.
>
> What was that, Michael?
I was restating your claim/hypothesis. The micro-feature = the
anticlockwise rotation.
> It sounds like a detective story here, unless there is a dead body,
> there is no homicide. So without a set of tiles unearthed somewhere.
> Nothing else matters much.
No. Every feature of the game DOES matter. What matters more though is
how we analyse and draw conclusions from the research into those
features. In my opinion (and I have given you a full explanation
underpinning it) is that you seem to have concluded too much from the
information because you have assumed too much about it.
> > > You admitted it is speculation at this point. It has been in
> > > speculation since the first Westerner whoever that brought it up.
>
> > What is your problem with Westerners Allan? Nationality is ****utterly
> > irrelevant**** at this point.
>
> Westerners tend to project too much interpretation into Chinese
> philosophy, because they often lack depth in understanding the
> language and they lack breadth in experience of Chinese culture. They
> are usually articulate and once their version of an idea gets
> formulated and published, it gets repeated and stays for a long time,
> if not forever.Tai Chi is an example besides MJ.
OK. Thanks for that baseless accusation. It is baseless precisely
because you have NOT given any evidence to back it up. Please describe
for me evidence that shows where and how "Westerners tend to project
too much interpretation into Chinese philosophy, because they often
lack depth in understanding the language and they lack breadth in
experience of Chinese culture." I don't want Tai Chi examples, I want
evidence that specifically is from the discourse about maque.
If you give me some evidence, I will throw my hands up and will admit
that the ***person*** who incorrectly misinterpreted the philosophy in
question got it wrong. Then you will show me that they got it wrong
because they are a Westerner. I will want to see THE LINK between
being a Westerner and TENDING TO PROJECT TOO MUCH INTERPRETATION into
Chinese philosophy. I am NOT denying that it has happened, only that
you haven't given any examples from the discourse on maque. The
examples will be reasons and argument.
I have spent a great deal of time on this because I dislike
**baseless** labelling of people according to where they come from.
> >The 5 Processes or Wu Xing or 5 elements
> > etc is an ancient Chinese cosmological/philosophical idea about how
> > reality works and events occur. It had its beginnings traced back to
> > around 250BC and we know of it from the 4th century "Tso Commentary".
> > If you want to know more, get hold of the text "Disputers of the Tao;
> > philosophical argument in ancient China" by A. C. Graham.
> > The speculation I mentioned, was related to whether the Seasonal
> > progression and therefore Directions progression, was related to
> > Maque.
>
> In all seriousness, Michael, if you can't accept the reversed
> directions of game-play as an indication of time, why would you bring
> on something like the 5 processes to add confusion to the question?
Because it may be relevant. It is linked to religious Taoism. It is
not my confusion it is yours. That is why I suggested you might want
to read the book I suggested. It describes what i have been
describing. My description was the content of MY speculative
explanation about the Directions/Seasons and order of rotation.
> I agree with you on that. Ironically, your grade school lesson did
> nothing to answer the question.
[snip]
Yes it did. It offered an explanation for why the Directions are
ordered as ESWN.
[snip]
> That something
> was created in the mind of someone who had used the knowledge
> available to him in his time. THAT TIME is what our question is about.
> The tiles ESWN can indicate to us THAT TIME. I treat the tiles as
> "representing something" with a hidden time factor, Michael.
The (1) tiles ESWN, their (2) order as E-S-W-N, and (3) the
anticlockwise direction of rotation of play, are three separate
features.
You conflated all three.
We know of (3) from the Late Ming period Ma Diao game. We do not know
of (1) and (2) in games with maque gameplay features before the early
Qing period.
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> > > My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
> > > game play - seehttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
>
> > Hello Cofa. I find this a perplexing statement. My perplexity centers
> > around your term 'original form'. What are all the attributes of mo he
> > pai do you consider to be criteria for it belonging to the family of
> > maque? (note; I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not clear
> > what you are proposing).
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Sorry you have that feeling; but I had mentioned that "the original
> form" was of my own opinion.
Hello Cofa. Sure, I understand that. It was the meaning of that term,
not that it was your own opinion.
[snip]
Thanks for your clear explanation with reasons.
> And I reserve that my statement can still be changed if in the future
> new evidences are found proving otherwise.
But I am still intrigued by your statement "the game mahjong (maque,
majiang, etc) in its original form could be the same as [peng he pai]
based on its gameplay"
Just what does "original form" mean in this description? Are you
saying that peng he pai is maque? Or do you mean that at the core of
maque are 2 gameplay features (draw and discard + 3 types of melds)
that are 1st seen in peng he pai? Or do you mean something else - like
maque is peng he pai with some add-ons?
[snip]
> > That is interesting. When the ESWN were added to whatever game, are
> > you saying that the meaning of the group of 16 playing pieces that
> > have ESWN on them do not mean Directions? Are you saying they are the
> > positions in the game rotation and were added to the game as playing
> > pieces hence ESWN = positions in games rotation of play?
>
> Yes, Michael. Of course, the words or symbols (ESWN) on their own do
> have the meaning of directions.
So the prediction from this hypothesis is that peng he pai should have
playing positions that are ESWN? I presume that is why you mentioned
that before.
It is a prediction because we can test it by seeking old books/
documents that might have a detailed description of the peng he pai
gameplay from the 18th century or earlier. If that is what you are
saying then I like the idea. Very interesting. Excellent!
It also offers a possible explanation for why the ESWN group of 16 pai
were added.
> > > With this explanation, problems about rotation related to other (perhaps all
> > > other) sets of pais having directional or sequential nature that are later
> > > added to the game, would not be problems any more, or could be treated as
> > > problems (if still) apart from the original design of the game.
>
> > What other other sets of pais that have directional or sequential
> > nature do you mean?
>
> The Flowers! For example, Plum and Spring correspond to position 1, so
> does the ZHUANG (the "dealer"). In a winning hand, sets made of pais
> having its sequential position matching that of the seating position
> of a player are usually worth more scores. As you also know, the
> seating positions of the players, starting from the dealer, are 1234.
Good. Ok. Just wanted to be clear about what you were talking about.
As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
But that doesn't give us the ESWN relative positions. If Spring kicks
off the seasonal progression then East is in the 'pillar' position. So
where do the other three Directions go relative to East? We know that
West is opposite and South is on the right and North on the left of
East. But why these relative positions??
I offered one explanation - they are the celestial (heavenly)
positions of the Directions.
> > Still a little confused.
>
> I totally understand, Michael. You might even be more confused if I
> said a game believed to be similar to maque was mentioned in a book as
> early as ca. 1751.
Sorry. My confusion comes from your description, the meaning of what
you wrote.
> [A very detailed descriptions of the history of mahjong, covering its
> possible sources, evolution and development, can be found at (in
> Chinese only):http://www.mjclub.com/Reference/History/
>
> The book believed to have described a game similar to maque is "Dream
> of the Red Chamber" ( ) by CAO Xueqin, believed to be published ca.
> 1751. More details of Dream of the Red Chamber can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber]
Now that is interesting. I will have to see if I have it mentioned in
my records.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> > Due to the
> > similarity in game play, I can easily see that the games are somehow
> > sometime related. I consider MJ consists of 3 basic suits plus at
> > least the suit of characters that in my mind contributes to a major
> > part of the game's theme or objective. ESWN directions tiles are
> > present in every known set of MJ. I would say they are an essential
> > part of the game.
> With your "essential requirements" respecting ESWN, it would lead you
> to restrict yourself to believe mahjong can only be *games* that were
> created (or formed) circa 1900 (although the details of its creation
> are not found), where the earliest *set* meeting these requirement was
> found.
I am not entirely sure what you mean here Cofa. But if I take a stab
at it I would say that the restriction would be to games that date
back to the 1870's - not circa 1900.
> [Note the above is about the *set* ohly, not the game; and you might
> end up conflicting yourself between the requirements for the sets and
> for the game.]
Glad to see you are separating these out. ^_^
> > [...] By virtue of the assumption that the game designer
> > unknowingly made the mistake in allowing the directions ESWN to go
> > counterclockwise was an indication that game had originated earlier
> > than at least 1600 when Kopernicus and Galileo proved to the world
> > their geocentric theory.
I can't let this go any longer.... It was Pythagoras's harmony of the
spheres plus Ptomely's geocentric model that was superceded by the
heliocentric model of Copernicus.
OK. Having got that out of the way, I would like to know what the link
is between this model and the anticlockwise rotation of ESWN.
I really didn't want to go down this road as it is off the beaten
track. But it keeps being cited.
> I believe your time line referred to here couldn't be any time prior
> to 1900 (+/-) based on your requirements about the *sets* - Hence your
> first part of your assumption is not necessary. Well, unless you also
> meant the game designer also mistakenly ignored the knowledge of
> Galileo's findings.
What findings of Galileo are pertinent here?? He made many
observations and stated many claims - not all correct by the way.
> If, however, you do mean a time line circa 1600 or prior, than I
> believe we shall better discuss the issue only when we see any written
> descriptions about maque (or similar) game that is published circa
> 1600.
I agree with this sentiment
Cheers
Michael
Cofa Tsui
news:1184625170.8...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 3:01?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> With your "essential requirements" respecting ESWN, it would lead you
>> to restrict yourself to believe mahjong can only be *games* that were
>> created (or formed) circa 1900 (although the details of its creation
>> are not found), where the earliest *set* meeting these requirement was
>> found.
>
> I am not entirely sure what you mean here Cofa. But if I take a stab
> at it I would say that the restriction would be to games that date
> back to the 1870's - not circa 1900.
I mean with such "essential requirements", one is restricted to call a set
mahjong ONLY IF it consists of ESWN. The date should be corrected to the
date the first set containing ESWN was discovered.
>
>> [Note the above is about the *set* ohly, not the game; and you might
>> end up conflicting yourself between the requirements for the sets and
>> for the game.]
>
> Glad to see you are separating these out. ^_^
And this means, in my position, a *set* cannot always mean mahjong, but a
qualified *game play* can. A set of mahjong playing pieces can be used in a
tile matching game but we (here in this newsgroup) never recognize this as a
mahjong game. In contrast, games with various playing pieces but played with
the qualified fundamentals are always considered mahjong games. And Michael,
I know for long you (along with some researchers) tend to separate the set
from the game play in your research. That is OK when our knowledge about the
game play is newer than any set discovered - As it was always the case until
the recent past. However, when more and more new evidences of the existence
of the game play are found that are older than the earliest set, problems
will come up. This is what I mean in the square brackets.
[...]
>
>> I believe your time line referred to here couldn't be any time prior
>> to 1900 (+/-) based on your requirements about the *sets* - Hence your
>> first part of your assumption is not necessary. Well, unless you also
>> meant the game designer also mistakenly ignored the knowledge of
>> Galileo's findings.
>
> What findings of Galileo are pertinent here?? He made many
> observations and stated many claims - not all correct by the way.
Sorry but please ignore this part - It was a mistake that I put it there.
Cofa Tsui
news:1184623257....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 2:28?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> But I am still intrigued by your statement "the game mahjong (maque,
> majiang, etc) in its original form could be the same as [peng he pai]
> based on its gameplay"
>
> Just what does "original form" mean in this description? Are you
> saying that peng he pai is maque? Or do you mean that at the core of
> maque are 2 gameplay features (draw and discard + 3 types of melds)
> that are 1st seen in peng he pai? Or do you mean something else - like
> maque is peng he pai with some add-ons?
It's difficult to answer in just one word due to what the history has left
to us.
In short answer, I mean peng he pai is qualified the original form of Maque.
Because Peng He Pai is the earliest game known to us that has all the
characteristics of the gameplay of Maque.
But we know Peng He Pai is not called Maque, which is a name that was found
much later. However, since details of the creation of Maque remain unknown
(not evidenced) at this point, it is reasonable to maintain that Maque is an
advanced form of Peng He Pai.
>
> [snip]
>> > That is interesting. When the ESWN were added to whatever game, are
>> > you saying that the meaning of the group of 16 playing pieces that
>> > have ESWN on them do not mean Directions? Are you saying they are the
>> > positions in the game rotation and were added to the game as playing
>> > pieces hence ESWN = positions in games rotation of play?
>>
>> Yes, Michael. Of course, the words or symbols (ESWN) on their own do
>> have the meaning of directions.
>
> So the prediction from this hypothesis is that peng he pai should have
> playing positions that are ESWN? I presume that is why you mentioned
> that before.
No. Peng He Pai has the playing positions that are in sequence, like 1234.
ESWN were added to the game much later, over evolution or in new
development.
>
> It is a prediction because we can test it by seeking old books/
> documents that might have a detailed description of the peng he pai
> gameplay from the 18th century or earlier. If that is what you are
> saying then I like the idea. Very interesting. Excellent!
Like Maque, I still cannot locate that one *original* book or piece of
literature that has the full descriptions of Peng He Pai. But descriptions
of Peng He Pai in references I have read are quite the same. I have read
(but cannot point to) somewhere that you have mentioned that the game Madiao
does have the playing sequence in anticlockwise. Since Peng He Pai was
evolved from Madiao, it is safe to believe that the seating positions of
players in Peng He Pai are counted in the anticlockwise direction.
>
> It also offers a possible explanation for why the ESWN group of 16 pai
> were added.
More precisely, it only offers the explanation why ESWN in Maque are counted
anticlockwise, rather than why they were added. (ESWN were newly added to
the game to match the existing sequential positions of play.)
[...]
>
> As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
> relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
> are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
> are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
> Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
>
> But that doesn't give us the ESWN relative positions. If Spring kicks
> off the seasonal progression then East is in the 'pillar' position. So
> where do the other three Directions go relative to East? We know that
> West is opposite and South is on the right and North on the left of
> East. But why these relative positions??
If you consider that both ESWN (Winds) and SSAW (Flowers) were added to the
original game and were meant to match the existing sequential positions, you
would need to match them with 1234, respectively (ie, ESWN to 1234, SSAW to
1234).
>
> I offered one explanation - they are the celestial (heavenly)
> positions of the Directions.
Only if you wish to explore more why those pais were added to the game, and
apart from the issues of the playing sequence (directions, etc).
msta...@aol.com
> >> With your "essential requirements" respecting ESWN, it would lead you
> >> to restrict yourself to believe mahjong can only be *games* that were
> >> created (or formed) circa 1900 (although the details of its creation
> >> are not found), where the earliest *set* meeting these requirement was
> >> found.
>
> > I am not entirely sure what you mean here Cofa. But if I take a stab
> > at it I would say that the restriction would be to games that date
> > back to the 1870's - not circa 1900.
>
> I mean with such "essential requirements", one is restricted to call a set
> mahjong ONLY IF it consists of ESWN. The date should be corrected to the
> date the first set containing ESWN was discovered.
That's right. And that is the 1870's.
> >> [Note the above is about the *set* only, not the game; and you might
> >> end up conflicting yourself between the requirements for the sets and
> >> for the game.]
>
> > Glad to see you are separating these out. ^_^
>
> And this means, in my position, a *set* cannot always mean mahjong, but a
> qualified *game play* can.
Hmmm. I am not entirely convinced. But this is strictly not my area of
expertise. I understand your point however, but it seems to me that
it rests on there being no exceptions to your rule...see below.
> A set of mahjong playing pieces can be used in a
> tile matching game but we (here in this newsgroup) never recognize this as a
> mahjong game. In contrast, games with various playing pieces but played with
> the qualified fundamentals are always considered mahjong games.
This would be an expansion of your point above. Ok. Say if I took 4
standard packs of Western playing cards, removed one suit from each
one (say...Diamonds) and even removed the 10, Jack, Queen, King from
each of the remaining three suits. I then played with your qualified
fundamentals game-play. Would his qualify as a game of maque?
My answer is no. There are certain essential elements that
characterise the game of maque. These 'essential elements' are similar
to your 'qualified fundamentals' but they are clearly not identical to
them. In other words, I am not conflating 'the game-play' with 'the
game', which is what you are proposing I think?
My tentative view ( I haven't though much about it so I am, as always,
open to better arguments) is that one of the essentials is that the
game involves playing instruments that have a particular group of
money symbols on them - be they stylised or not. Of course, there is a
school of thought that suggests that the origin of various suit
symbols in Western packs are found in Chinese Playing cards. But I
think there is a threshold limit for the level of deviation and
abstraction that puts a limit as to how far removed the symbols'
representations have to be before they cease to be Chinese money
symbols.
[snip]
> I know for long you (along with some researchers) tend to separate the set
> from the game play in your research. That is OK when our knowledge about the
> game play is newer than any set discovered - As it was always the case until
> the recent past. However, when more and more new evidences of the existence
> of the game play are found that are older than the earliest set, problems
> will come up. This is what I mean in the square brackets.
Sorry Cofa, I am again unsure of what you are referring to. Can you
provide examples to illustrate what you mean?
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> > Just what does "original form" mean in this description? Are you
> > saying that peng he pai is maque? Or do you mean that at the core of
> > maque are 2 gameplay features (draw and discard + 3 types of melds)
> > that are 1st seen in peng he pai? Or do you mean something else - like
> > maque is peng he pai with some add-ons?
>
> It's difficult to answer in just one word due to what the history has left
> to us.
> In short answer, I mean peng he pai is qualified the original form of Maque.
> Because Peng He Pai is the earliest game known to us that has all the
> characteristics of the gameplay of Maque.
Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
> But we know Peng He Pai is not called Maque, which is a name that was found
> much later. However, since details of the creation of Maque remain unknown
> (not evidenced) at this point, it is reasonable to maintain that Maque is an
> advanced form of Peng He Pai.
Well, I'll leave out the 'advanced' concept if you don't mind. That
involves another discussion. However, with that aside, the core of
your claim is that maque is a form of peng he pai?
According to this reasoning it seems that when the Peng He Pai MOP is
present *any* game is guaranteed to be a form of Peng He Pai. Am I
interpreting you correctly?
But I maintain that there is another necessary condition to this and
that is the presence of three types of quadruplicated suits derived
from money. In other words when the three money suits are absent, Peng
He Pai cannot occur. Now I am talking about when Peng He Pai was being
played. I have not seen or heard of any documentation or evidence to
the contrary - that the Peng He Pai MOP was used with any other type
of playing instruments. Is there any evidence you know about Cofa?
It seems to me that the Peng He Pai Method of Play(MOP) is directly
and unconditionally linked to three, quadruplicated, money suits
(apart from the extra cards). If this is the case then, as I maintain,
their absence prevents Peng He Pai from being played. The presence of
the 3 suits does not guarantee the presence of Peng He Pai, however,
as other games were played with these cards (such as shi hu (ten
points or ten pots) and suo hu (shuttle/strings harmony).
I am not sure if this also applies to the MOP of Peng He Pai however.
Were their other games played at the same time that also utilised the
Peng He Pai Method of Play? I am going to look into shi hu about this.
The sum of this discussion is that, in my view, both the Peng He Pai
MOP + the 3 Quadruplicated Suits (3QS) need to be present for Peng He
Pai to occur. Hence, this is also the case for Maque.
> No. Peng He Pai has the playing positions that are in sequence, like 1234.
> ESWN were added to the game much later, over evolution or in new
> development.
Sorry. I misinterpreted you. When you said "yes" I thought you were
saying yes to Peng He Pai.
So are you saying that ESWN were added to Peng He Pai or to another
game?
I assume you mean around-the-table style of progression?
> Like Maque, I still cannot locate that one *original* book or piece of
> literature that has the full descriptions of Peng He Pai. But descriptions
> of Peng He Pai in references I have read are quite the same. I have read
> (but cannot point to) somewhere that you have mentioned that the game Madiao
> does have the playing sequence in anticlockwise. Since Peng He Pai was
> evolved from Madiao, it is safe to believe that the seating positions of
> players in Peng He Pai are counted in the anticlockwise direction.
Yes, and the seating positions were not called ESWN. Is that what you
are proposing? But they (ESWN) were added to Peng He Pai later on? Is
that also what you are proposing? Or are you saying they were added to
maque later on?
> > It also offers a possible explanation for why the ESWN group of 16 pai
> > were added.
>
> More precisely, it only offers the explanation why ESWN in Maque are counted
> anticlockwise, rather than why they were added. (ESWN were newly added to
> the game to match the existing sequential positions of play.)
OK. Lets see. Aha! You mention maque. So are you saying ESWN was added
to maque, not to Peng He Pai?? You are saying that there was already
an anticlockwise rotation of play taken from Ma Diao. This was used
for maque. The players positions were called ESWN and because
anticlockwise was the progression, so the ESWN progression was
anticlockwise? Is that right?
If so, it also doesn't say anything about why the order ESWN rather
than NSEW or EWSN etc etc.
> > As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
> > relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
> > are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
> > are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
> > Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
> > But that doesn't give us the ESWN relative positions. If Spring kicks
> > off the seasonal progression then East is in the 'pillar' position. So
> > where do the other three Directions go relative to East? We know that
> > West is opposite and South is on the right and North on the left of
> > East. But why these relative positions??
>
> If you consider that both ESWN (Winds) and SSAW (Flowers) were added to the
> original game and were meant to match the existing sequential positions, you
> would need to match them with 1234, respectively (ie, ESWN to 1234, SSAW to
> 1234).
That's correct. But it still doesn't tell us why ESWN rather than
another combo like WNES etc.
> > I offered one explanation - they are the celestial (heavenly) positions of the Directions.
> Only if you wish to explore more why those pais were added to the game, and
> apart from the issues of the playing sequence (directions, etc).
That is correct. But more importantly, why they were added in that
SEQUENCE (ESWN).
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
I find your presentation quite interesting. I am rather unfamiliar
with Penghu, so please forgive my ignorance.
On Jul 15, 9:28 pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> - "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green
> and White), 2 cards each.
Does this indicate that these 'Heads' pai are used in Penghu (when
doubled so that there are now 4 of each) in a manner similar to the
'Dragons' in MJ rather than being associated with the three suits?
Than is, they are not replacement cards, wild cards or jokers, etc.
for those suits, and that they are used in game play only to form Peng
and Gang [3 or 4 of a kind] (Kan [a series] not being possible, or
would one of each constitute a Kan)?
If the 'Heads' pai are used in a manner similar to MJ 'Dragon' pai,
then I may have to rethink what I consider to be the differentiating
factors between what I thought of as the card precursor games and MJ.
I had thought that the addition of non-suit pai (whether 'Winds',
'Wangs', Seasons, 'Dragons' or 'Arrows', etc.) other than as
replacements (as for the 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old
Thousand'?) indicated a fundamental change to the game. In addition,
though less important, this change appears to have been accompanied by
the change in the depiction of the 5 for the Wan suit, and a change to
the thick tiles, all occurring simultaneously, at least as far as we
know at the present time.
I think that your point about game play (rules) vs. game sets is also
interesting. Since we do not have rules to accompany the early MJ
sets, we do not really know if the non-suit tiles were used in a
manner similar to how they are used today (for Peng and Gang but not
for Kan, although the 'Winds', for example, certainly could also be
used for Kan in a 'circular' series). But we also have no reason to
speculate that their usage has changed.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
Hello Cofa. Well I went away and had a look at my files about the book
below.
> I totally understand, Michael. You might even be more confused if I
> said a game believed to be similar to maque was mentioned in a book as
> early as ca. 1751.
> [A very detailed descriptions of the history of mahjong, covering its
> possible sources, evolution and development, can be found at (in
> Chinese only):http://www.mjclub.com/Reference/History/
> The book believed to have described a game similar to maque is "Dream
> of the Red Chamber" ( ) by CAO Xueqin, believed to be published ca.
> 1751. More details of Dream of the Red Chamber can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber]
Sure enough, I have references to it. Andrew Lo mentions it in his
chapter from the catalogue 'Asian Games, The Art of Contest'.
The book you mention is the earliest known reference to that game. Lo
gives a brief mention of it. It is also mentioned in "The Painted
Pleasure Boats of Yangzhou" by Li Dou, prefaced 1796. Lo gives this
Li's brief mention of shi hu..
"Recently, everyone plays the shi hou [ten pots] game...Also, the five
stars- fortune, emolument, longevity, wealth and happiness- have been
added, making a total of 125 cards. If a player gets all five stars,
everyone congratulates him [with an award]."
It seems the game was called "shi hu" which Lo says means "Ten Points"
or sometimes "Ten Pots". In his endnote # 16 he says to look in
Beijing Tong (A Guide top Beijing) by Jin Shoushen, pp 564 - 65 for
the best description of the rules.
There's more! He says the rules are also described by Himly!! In both
his papers no less. I have referenced these papers in my articles. The
problem is that they are in German. I can see if I can get the
relevant sections translated.
Oddly enough, Wilkinson (1889) mentions a 'shi2 (什) hu2' (胡). He says
the name is a generic term four a species of quadruplicated cards
called gun pai. He also saw the name of boxes of maque tiles.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> I should point out first though, the argument is NOT the directions
> themselves. Rather it is the implication and the affect on the history
> timeline of mahjong. In other words, assuming the game designer was
> not aware of the reality that the earth was not stationary, when was
> that time?
Allan,
I think that examining the questions concerning the 'Winds' is
important. But I feel that your use of traditional Chinese 'flat,
stationary earth' surrounded by four seas vs. the modern 'round,
circling around the sun and revolving earth' viewpoint as a way to
date the game of MJ (timeline) is flawed.
Just from researching the Taiping I suspect that Hong (who became the
Taiping leader and is said to be one of the possible inventors of MJ)
probably held the traditional Chinese view. This despite the fact
that, even though he did not pass the Canton prefectorial Confucian
imperial examinations in 1836, Hong was an educated man. In 1837 he
wrote "Ode on the Sword" stating "Within the four seas all are one
family..." which indicates to me that even as late as the 19th century,
at least some educated Chinese retained the traditional Chinese view
of the world. I do not know if this was due to lack of knowledge, or
if it was pride in Chinese and/or anti-western sentiments.
Dan
Tom Sloper
> Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
> condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
> Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
> Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
> guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
If that's the argument, then Khanhoo and Rummy are both also forms of peng
he pai.
msta...@aol.com
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message
This is the 3rd attempt to post this.
[snip]
> > Just what does "original form" mean in this description? Are you
> > saying that peng he pai is maque? Or do you mean that at the core of
> > maque are 2 gameplay features (draw and discard + 3 types of melds)
> > that are 1st seen in peng he pai? Or do you mean something else - like
> > maque is peng he pai with some add-ons?
>
> It's difficult to answer in just one word due to what the history has left
> to us.
> In short answer, I mean peng he pai is qualified the original form of Maque.
> Because Peng He Pai is the earliest game known to us that has all the
> characteristics of the gameplay of Maque.
Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
> But we know Peng He Pai is not called Maque, which is a name that was found
> much later. However, since details of the creation of Maque remain unknown
> (not evidenced) at this point, it is reasonable to maintain that Maque is an
> advanced form of Peng He Pai.
Well, I'll leave out the 'advanced' concept if you don't mind. That
> No. Peng He Pai has the playing positions that are in sequence, like 1234.
> ESWN were added to the game much later, over evolution or in new
> development.
Sorry. I misinterpreted you. When you said "yes" I thought you were
saying yes to Peng He Pai.
So are you saying that ESWN were added to Peng He Pai or to another
game?
I assume you mean around-the-table style of progression?
> Like Maque, I still cannot locate that one *original* book or piece of
> literature that has the full descriptions of Peng He Pai. But descriptions
> of Peng He Pai in references I have read are quite the same. I have read
> (but cannot point to) somewhere that you have mentioned that the game Madiao
> does have the playing sequence in anticlockwise. Since Peng He Pai was
> evolved from Madiao, it is safe to believe that the seating positions of
> players in Peng He Pai are counted in the anticlockwise direction.
Yes, and the seating positions were not called ESWN. Is that what you
are proposing? But they (ESWN) were added to Peng He Pai later on? Is
that also what you are proposing? Or are you saying they were added to
maque later on?
> > It also offers a possible explanation for why the ESWN group of 16 pai
> > were added.
>
> More precisely, it only offers the explanation why ESWN in Maque are counted
> anticlockwise, rather than why they were added. (ESWN were newly added to
> the game to match the existing sequential positions of play.)
OK. Lets see. Aha! You mention maque. So are you saying ESWN was added
to maque, not to Peng He Pai?? You are saying that there was already
an anticlockwise rotation of play taken from Ma Diao. This was used
for maque. The players positions were called ESWN and because
anticlockwise was the progression, so the ESWN progression was
anticlockwise? Is that right?
If so, it also doesn't say anything about why the order ESWN rather
than NSEW or EWSN etc etc.
> > As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
> > relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
> > are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
> > are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
> > Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
> > But that doesn't give us the ESWN relative positions. If Spring kicks
> > off the seasonal progression then East is in the 'pillar' position. So
> > where do the other three Directions go relative to East? We know that
> > West is opposite and South is on the right and North on the left of
> > East. But why these relative positions??
>
> If you consider that both ESWN (Winds) and SSAW (Flowers) were added to the
> original game and were meant to match the existing sequential positions, you
> would need to match them with 1234, respectively (ie, ESWN to 1234, SSAW to
> 1234).
That's correct. But it still doesn't tell us why ESWN rather than
another combo like WNES etc.
> > I offered one explanation - they are the celestial (heavenly) positions of the Directions.
> Only if you wish to explore more why those pais were added to the game, and
> apart from the issues of the playing sequence (directions, etc).
That is correct. But more importantly, why they were added in that
SEQUENCE (ESWN).
Cheers
Michael
Cofa Tsui
news:1184668410....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 6:32?am, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>> >> [Note the above is about the *set* only, not the game; and you might
>> >> end up conflicting yourself between the requirements for the sets and
>> >> for the game.]
>>
>> > Glad to see you are separating these out. ^_^
>>
>> And this means, in my position, a *set* cannot always mean mahjong, but a
>> qualified *game play* can.
>
> Hmmm. I am not entirely convinced. But this is strictly not my area of
> expertise. I understand your point however, but it seems to me that
> it rests on there being no exceptions to your rule...see below.
>
>> A set of mahjong playing pieces can be used in a
>> tile matching game but we (here in this newsgroup) never recognize this
>> as a
>> mahjong game. In contrast, games with various playing pieces but played
>> with
>> the qualified fundamentals are always considered mahjong games.
>
> This would be an expansion of your point above. Ok. Say if I took 4
> standard packs of Western playing cards, removed one suit from each
> one (say...Diamonds) and even removed the 10, Jack, Queen, King from
> each of the remaining three suits. I then played with your qualified
> fundamentals game-play. Would his qualify as a game of maque?
In my opinion, and based on the principles I hold, yes it is still qualified
as a game of maque. To play a specific game with the use of instruments
different from the original forms (standards, specifications, etc) can still
be qualified as playing that specific game. I believe the concept is easy to
understand and real practices are also common. An example is with the game
play of volleyball with the use of a "football", we would probably still
call it a volleyball game, although the instruments used are not up to the
accepted standards.
> My answer is no. There are certain essential elements that
> characterise the game of maque. These 'essential elements' are similar
> to your 'qualified fundamentals' but they are clearly not identical to
> them. In other words, I am not conflating 'the game-play' with 'the
> game', which is what you are proposing I think?
Well, it is true a game shall consist of the elements of the game play and
the instruments. Both elements are also subject to change (due to
improvement, etc). It depends on how far a change can be made for the game
to remain being the same game (or to remain in the same family of the game).
With maque, we have seen many changes of the instruments over the history
timeline that we know. Defining the game of maque based on the form of the
instruments could run oneself in the conflict of one's own definition - As
what I have said previously.
> My tentative view ( I haven't though much about it so I am, as always,
> open to better arguments) is that one of the essentials is that the
> game involves playing instruments that have a particular group of
> money symbols on them - be they stylised or not. Of course, there is a
> school of thought that suggests that the origin of various suit
> symbols in Western packs are found in Chinese Playing cards. But I
> think there is a threshold limit for the level of deviation and
> abstraction that puts a limit as to how far removed the symbols'
> representations have to be before they cease to be Chinese money
> symbols.
So you are laying the *specifications* for the instruments, which have to be
in the form of money symbols. Correct? But I can see that the symbols can
always change (i.e., the presentation), and that some symbols could be
substantially different than the other. For example, compare the three suits
of today's mahjong sets, to those considered to be the earliest 3 money
suits known to us. With the current mahjong sets, one can hardly see any
connection of money instruments out of the three suits, without first having
some background knowledge or without first given certain *specifications*.
So specifications can define the representation of the symbols; in other
word, using your example above, those suits of a poker playing cards can
also be specified (defined) as the money suits.
> [snip]
>> I know for long you (along with some researchers) tend to separate the
>> set
>> from the game play in your research. That is OK when our knowledge about
>> the
>> game play is newer than any set discovered - As it was always the case
>> until
>> the recent past. However, when more and more new evidences of the
>> existence
>> of the game play are found that are older than the earliest set, problems
>> will come up. This is what I mean in the square brackets.
>
> Sorry Cofa, I am again unsure of what you are referring to. Can you
> provide examples to illustrate what you mean?
What I mean is that if the definition of the game mahjong is based on the
earliest *sets* discovered, rather than the *game play*, it would still be
logical until the recent past because information of the game play available
is newer ("newer game play", i.e., found to have existed later) than the
sets and the definition is so established as if both the sets and the game
play were to exist (i.e., to form, to be created) at the same time.
Evidences available to us in the recent past (the later half of 2006 -
thanks to Thierry and Ithinc for their findings of the late Qing novels)
indicated that similar game play of mahjong could have existed beyond the
timeline the definition was based on, hence problems could arise as to, for
instance, how accurate the current definition could be. Another problem
would be how accurate the descriptions of the sets could be, when the older
game play would suggest an older set could be possible.
Similar problems are bound to arise every now and then if the definition of
the game is based on the sets, since the sets are subject to change easily
over time (due to improvement, development, evolution etc).
msta...@aol.com
al
> On Jul 15, 10:45 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Hello, Michael,
> > I could not reply direct to your post in "Why a Sparrow", after
> > earlier attempts, so I now give you that first, then we can discuss
> > the directions tiles.
>
> Hello Allan. Ok. But 1st, can you please quote only the **immediate
> piece of text that contains the info you are replying to**?
> [snip] [snip] [snip]
> Michael
Hello, Michael, we will start all over again.
Let me restate my hypothesis on MJ (Sparrow) Directions.
The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
counterclockwise when he designed the game, because the anomaly of
reversed order of ESWN directions in MJ play can be simply explained
by a geocentric system. That is ESWN CCW (counterclockwise) was the
proper order if the sun was revolving around the earth and the earth
was the center of the universe as people believed prior to the
seventeenth century.
The geocentric concept lasted from about 100 BC to 1700 AD until it
was finally displaced by Copernicus and Galileo who proved to the
world that it was the sun being stationary while the earth rotates on
its own axis as well revolving around the sun.
The fact that the game creator was unaware of the revised knowledge of
astronomy is inferred to be an indication that the time of the game
creation was dated prior to 17th century when the new knowledge became
available. This is intellectual evidence.
There may be other games that used the counterclockwise rotation of
play. Those games either did not have ESWN Directions involved or they
too were created in geocentric time. Ignoring the situation is a sign
of ignorance, on the part of the game designer. Such ignorance of a
game designer may be explained if the new theory was not yet known at
the time the game was created. If that was the case, based on the
reasoning given above, I hypothesize that the MJ game is dated back
earlier than the seventeenth century at least.
If possible, we should direct a discussion to the question without
bringing on too many extraneous items. Timing is the key concern.
Cheers........AL
al
> On Jul 16, 3:01?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> What findings of Galileo are pertinent here?? He made many
> observations and stated many claims - not all correct by the way.
>
"heavenly body". That proved the older teaching was incorrect in
saying the universe was fixed. Then he applied his mathematics to
celestial mechanics and calculated somehow to show the sun was not
moving, but it was the earth that rotates and revolves around the sun.
That proved the theory proposed over a hundred years earlier by
Copernicus. This is the heliocentric theory. People used to believe
prior to 17th century the geocentric theory which was held by other
astronomers
> > [snip]
>
> [snip]
> Cheers
> Michael
Cheers............AL
msta...@aol.com
Finally managed to access the groups archived posts!!!
Hello Cofa. Well I went away and had a look at my files about the book
below.
> I totally understand, Michael. You might even be more confused if I
> said a game believed to be similar to maque was mentioned in a book as
> early as ca. 1751.
> [A very detailed descriptions of the history of mahjong, covering its
> possible sources, evolution and development, can be found at (in
> Chinese only):http://www.mjclub.com/Reference/History/
> The book believed to have described a game similar to maque is "Dream
> of the Red Chamber" ( ) by CAO Xueqin, believed to be published ca.
> 1751. More details of Dream of the Red Chamber can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber]
Sure enough, I have references to it. Andrew Lo mentions it in his
pa...@email.unc.edu
Since seeing your thoughts on Penghu and MJ game play I got a book
from a local university library to better familiarize myself with late
1800s card games. Are you familiar with "Chin-Chin or the Chinaman at
home" by Tcheng-Ki-Tong (Late of the Imperial Chinese Legation),
translated by R. H. Sherard, and published in 1895?
One chapter in the book mentions the 120 card deck (30 of each class
of four colors), calling the suits of 1-9 "cords", "cakes", and
"faces" plus a "red man", a "civilian", and a 'butterfly". Next are
brief descriptions of three games (using three of a kind and three in
a series, plus 7 special sets of three): one with five players
("Awaiting the Card"), one with three players ("Fishing"), and one
with two players ("The Pecking Game").
Following those descriptions are a brief mention of stakes and betting
followed by "We have also cards representing chess figures, in which
the cannon, the carriage, and the horse form a set, as do also three
similar cards, or the general, the councilor, and the elephant." And
"These cards are played in the same way as the others."
The above does not make it clear if those cards replace the "red man"
the "civilian", and the "butterfly" in different decks, or if they are
in addition to them. If in addition, then the deck would be 144 cards
and may seem much closer to what we think of as MJ. Since you are much
more familiar with the cards than I am, would you be able to clarify
this for me?
Unfortunately there is no mention of MJ, nor is there a description of
a four player game that uses this card deck.
Thanks,
Dan
msta...@aol.com
> > This would be an expansion of your point above. Ok. Say if I took 4
> > standard packs of Western playing cards, removed one suit from each
> > one (say...Diamonds) and even removed the 10, Jack, Queen, King from
> > each of the remaining three suits. I then played with your qualified
> > fundamentals game-play. Would his qualify as a game of maque?
> In my opinion, and based on the principles I hold, yes it is still qualified
> as a game of maque. To play a specific game with the use of instruments
> different from the original forms (standards, specifications, etc) can still
> be qualified as playing that specific game.
I disagree. Unless the suit symbols and therefore the suits themselves
can be shown or explained to be directly belonging to the money
derivation lineage of Chinese origin, then I would call this an
'offshoot' (for lack of a better word) and it should be given another
name.
> I believe the concept is easy to
> understand and real practices are also common. An example is with the game
> play of volleyball with the use of a "football", we would probably still
> call it a volleyball game, although the instruments used are not up to the
> accepted standards.
I disagree. I would say it is a possibly a variation of volleyball in
that the ball could be shown to be related through modification to the
original form of the volleyball. (see below for my tentative
difference between offshoot and variation)
> > My answer is no. There are certain essential elements that
> > characterise the game of maque. These 'essential elements' are similar
> > to your 'qualified fundamentals' but they are clearly not identical to
> > them. In other words, I am not conflating 'the game-play' with 'the
> > game', which is what you are proposing I think?
>
> Well, it is true a game shall consist of the elements of the game play and
> the instruments. Both elements are also subject to change (due to
> improvement, etc). It depends on how far a change can be made for the game
> to remain being the same game (or to remain in the same family of the game).
As I originally pointed out in my earlier post (see below).
> With maque, we have seen many changes of the instruments over the history
> timeline that we know. Defining the game of maque based on the form of the
> instruments could run oneself in the conflict of one's own definition - As
> what I have said previously.
That is correct. But that is not my contention if you are proposing
just that criteria. I propose to define the game on the basis of a
game-play + playing instruments.
I think Tom has supplied some exceptions to your rule as well -
khanhoo and rummy as I recall.
> > My tentative view ( I haven't thought much about it so I am, as always,
> > open to better arguments) is that one of the essentials is that the
> > game involves playing instruments that have a particular group of
> > money symbols on them - be they stylised or not. Of course, there is a
> > school of thought that suggests that the origin of various suit
> > symbols in Western packs are found in Chinese Playing cards. But I
> > think there is a threshold limit for the level of deviation and
> > abstraction that puts a limit as to how far removed the symbols'
> > representations have to be before they cease to be Chinese money
> > symbols.
>
> So you are laying the *specifications* for the instruments, which have to be
> in the form of money symbols. Correct?
Not quite. They don't "have to be in the form of money symbols". They
have to be traced back to a point where we can say, through good
reasons, they were derived from money and originally represented
money. Of course the representations were modified over time in some
instances. This even occurred in packs of money-suited playing cards,
as I have mentioned recently in another thread.
When the representations clearly do not share this lineage - or there
are no indicators that they are substitutes - but are nevertheless
used as the suits in maque, then we would have to indicate that the
game is an offshoot of maque, rather than a variation of maque. Thus
an offshoot is clearly different to a variation in that one of the
essential features has been altered to such a degree that is
considered to be unambiguously unrelated to the original form of that
feature.
For example, in the Sheng set, the myriads (wan) were replaced by
'degrees of rank' represented by the sinogram 'pin'. But there was a
wang tile - a wan wang associated with this suit which indicated that
the suit was 'in disguise' if you like, it was masquerading as the wan
suit..
> But I can see that the symbols can
> always change (i.e., the presentation), and that some symbols could be
> substantially different than the other. For example, compare the three suits
> of today's mahjong sets, to those considered to be the earliest 3 money
> suits known to us. With the current mahjong sets, one can hardly see any
> connection of money instruments out of the three suits, without first having
> some background knowledge or without first given certain *specifications*.
I don't know what you mean by 'specifications'.
> So specifications can define the representation of the symbols; in other
> words, using your example above, those suits of a poker playing cards can
> also be specified (defined) as the money suits.
No. Well, not unless you tell me what you mean by specifications.
[snip]
> > Sorry Cofa, I am again unsure of what you are referring to. Can you
> > provide examples to illustrate what you mean?
>
> What I mean is that if the definition of the game mahjong is based on the
> earliest *sets* discovered, rather than the *game play*, it would still be
> logical #####until the recent past because information of the game play available
> is newer ("newer game play", i.e., found to have existed later) than the
> sets and the definition is so established as if both the sets and the game
> play were to exist (i.e., to form, to be created) at the same time.####
I must be tired. I still do not follow the bits in between the ###
[snip]
> Similar problems are bound to arise every now and then if the definition of
> the game is based on the sets, since the sets are subject to change easily
> over time (due to improvement, development, evolution etc).
But that is not what I am proposing. As I said above, there are two
criteria, not one.
As I also said, there must be reasonable grounds to incorporate the
suits into the money derived suits lineage in order for it to be
considered under the banner of maque.
>From the evidence so far, I think there are good grounds for proposing
that three money suits plus four Directions (as Allan proposed I
think) could be considered as the essential playing instruments.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
> counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
> ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
> would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
> the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
>
> In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
> the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
> counterclockwise when he designed the game, because the anomaly of
> reversed order of ESWN directions in MJ play can be simply explained
> by a geocentric system. That is ESWN CCW (counterclockwise) was the
> proper order if the sun was revolving around the earth and the earth
> was the center of the universe as people believed prior to the
> seventeenth century.
Hello Allan. I think you mean if the earth were stationary in space
but was still rotating anticlockwise on its axis. Thus the sun, in an
anticlockwise orbit would be seen by an observer on the earth as
rising in the east and setting in the west?
Is this the geocentric model you are describing?
I am still perplexed by your ESWN. Do you mean that under this model
the sun goes from east to west, or, in winter it would at least seem
to be going ESW, which would be in a clockwise progression - not
anticlockwise?
Cheers
Michael
al
> On Jul 15, 5:45 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I should point out first though, the argument is NOT the directions
> > themselves. Rather it is the implication and the affect on the history
> > timeline of mahjong. In other words, assuming the game designer was
> > not aware of the reality that the earth was not stationary, when was
> > that time?
>
> Allan,
>
> I think that examining the questions concerning the 'Winds' is
> important. But I feel that your use of traditional Chinese 'flat,
> stationary earth' surrounded by four seas vs. the modern 'round,
> circling around the sun and revolving earth' viewpoint as a way to
> date the game of MJ (timeline) is flawed.
>
> wrote "Ode on the Sword" stating "Within the four seas all are one
> family..."
What does that quote mean?
What else did he actually say in the Ode? Is it a long poem, Dan? Can
you copy it?
How did that indicate the following interpretation to you?
>which indicates to me that even as late as the 19th century,
> at least some educated Chinese retained the traditional Chinese view
> of the world. I do not know if this was due to lack of knowledge, or
> if it was pride in Chinese and/or anti-western sentiments.
>
> Dan
Cheers......AL (I see your point)
msta...@aol.com
> Cofa,
> Since seeing your thoughts on Penghu and MJ game play I got a book
> from a local university library to better familiarize myself with late
> 1800s card games. Are you familiar with "Chin-Chin or the Chinaman at
> home" by Tcheng-Ki-Tong (Late of the Imperial Chinese Legation),
> translated by R. H. Sherard, and published in 1895?
>
> One chapter in the book mentions the 120 card deck (30 of each class
> of four colors), calling the suits of 1-9 "cords", "cakes", and
> "faces" plus a "red man", a "civilian", and a 'butterfly". Next are
> brief descriptions of three games (using three of a kind and three in
> a series, plus 7 special sets of three): one with five players
> ("Awaiting the Card"), one with three players ("Fishing"), and one
> with two players ("The Pecking Game").
Hello Dan. There seems to be something odd here. By my reckoning,
'colours' are a term used for 'suits', thus four colours so four
suits. But your description mentions only three - 'cords' or 'strings'
or 'strings of cash' + 'cakes' or 'tubes' or 'cash' + 'faces', which i
think would be the wan or myriads suits (the faces probably are
personages from the shui hu yehtzu or the po ku yehtzu legends of the
17th century. These 'faces' were on the top two suits tens of myriads
and myriads with the tens of myriads being dropped. But one of the
cards was kept and this was probably, IIRC, called 'old thousand' or
wan ying. The other two cards were called red flower and white flower.
One of them has a human figure on them and the other has an emblem of
a flower.
If you check out Culin's paper on the internet, I think he mentions
these cards and the game in which the melds are similar to your
description.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello Dan. There seems to be something odd here. By my reckoning,
> 'colours' are a term used for 'suits', thus four colours so four
> suits.
Michael,
The direct quote is "...cards in the Chinese pack, which contains 120,
subdivided into four classes, corresponding with four colors, and into
thirty species. There are thus only four cards of each species, and
thirty of each class."
I think that what is meant is that each of the 30 card sets is
duplicated in a different color, thus each individual card would be
made in four colors (quadruplicates). I don't think that the colors
refer to the 'suits' as you have indicated (and is common in MJ
terminology, e.g. green for Bamboo).
I had thought the same for the naming used for the suits and 3
additional cards, and was assuming that this description referred to a
Penghu pack.
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
Al,
I did not copy the entire poem when I was researching the Taiping. I
would need to return to the library to get the quote for you. Better
would be if you looked it up (it is not a very long poem). It is
presented in translation in "The Taiping Rebellion: History and
Documents" (1966) in 3 vol., by Franz Michael. Perhaps you could
locate an original Chinese version of the poem somewhere.
This poem just indicated to me that Hong used the traditional Chinese
view of the world being surrounded by the four seas.
Dan
Tom Sloper
> Let me restate my hypothesis on MJ (Sparrow) Directions.
>
> The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
> counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
> ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
> would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
> the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
>
> In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
> the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
> counterclockwise when he designed the game,
Actually, according to a program I videotaped last night on the History
Channel, the Chinese inventor Su Song created a "cosmic engine" in 1092 - a
huge 12-meter-tall complicated water-powered astronomical computer (using
the first known example of an escapement mechanism) that calculated time,
based on an understanding of a heliocentric astronomical system. An
observatory based on this understanding was built in Deng Feng, Henan, and
survives to this day. Detailed blueprints of Su Song's cosmic engine survive
as well. Some scholars regard Su Song's engine to be the greatest mechanical
achievement of the middle ages.
So perhaps geocentric models were used for poetic purposes, whereas the
heliocentric model was actually known and documented.
I think we need a different explanation for why the order of the winds is
ESWN, counterclockwise around the table.
Tom
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 17, 9:32 am, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> This is the 3rd attempt to post this.
[...]
> Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
> condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
> Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
> Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
> guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
Michael,
I think my statement and yours are different. I have said:
"Penghe Pai is qualified the original form of Maque."
And you've just said:
"Maque is guaranteed to be a form of Penghe Pai."
I am not quite comfortable with your statement being so modified out
of mine. The two are different and I just couldn't find a simple way
to express it. Perhaps Maque is an advanced form of Penghe (involving
changes, improvements, addition, etc) would work?
In addition, Penghe, in my comparison of it and Maque, also consists
of the instruments of three suits which are "money related":
- Wen Qian [spare coin] titled 1 through 9;
- Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9;
- Wan Guan [10-thousand money note] titled 1 through 9.
[http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html]
So my principles of calling Penghe as the original form of Maque do
include:
a) the game play (draw and discard, and to form specific melds); and
b) the money related suits.
>
> > But we know Peng He Pai is not called Maque, which is a name that was found
> > much later. However, since details of the creation of Maque remain unknown
> > (not evidenced) at this point, it is reasonable to maintain that Maque is an
> > advanced form of Peng He Pai.
>
> Well, I'll leave out the 'advanced' concept if you don't mind. That
> involves another discussion. However, with that aside, the core of
> your claim is that maque is a form of peng he pai?
Perhaps "Maque is a form of the Penghe family" is more accurate - see
my next paragraph.
>
> According to this reasoning it seems that when the Peng He Pai MOP is
> present *any* game is guaranteed to be a form of Peng He Pai. Am I
> interpreting you correctly?
How about "a form within the Penghe family"? We all know Penghe is
just a very simple game. Since it is so simple, any addition or change
could mean a big difference to the original Penghe game.
>
> But I maintain that there is another necessary condition to this and
> that is the presence of three types of quadruplicated suits derived
> from money. In other words when the three money suits are absent, Peng
> He Pai cannot occur.
I agree - Please see my above quote of the instruments of Penghe Pai.
Now I am talking about when Peng He Pai was being
> played. I have not seen or heard of any documentation or evidence to
> the contrary - that the Peng He Pai MOP was used with any other type
> of playing instruments. Is there any evidence you know about Cofa?
No, I don't.
>
> It seems to me that the Peng He Pai Method of Play(MOP) is directly
> and unconditionally linked to three, quadruplicated, money suits
> (apart from the extra cards).
Since Penghe is a very simple game, I have no objection you saying
this. However, I don't see your point here, Michael.
If this is the case then, as I maintain,
> their absence prevents Peng He Pai from being played.
If your "their" means the method of play ("MOP"), then I agree. If the
MOP is not present, the game would not be the same. On the other hand,
if your "their" means the three money suits (i.e., the instruments), I
do have a reserve, as I do maintain that the instruments are not
necessarily the essential elements of a game.
The presence of
> the 3 suits does not guarantee the presence of Peng He Pai, however,
> as other games were played with these cards (such as shi hu (ten
> points or ten pots) and suo hu (shuttle/strings harmony).
I have no problem with this. Note that the three suits were not first
seen in Penghe. Penghe "borrowed" these from Madio.
[snip]
>
> The sum of this discussion is that, in my view, both the Peng He Pai
> MOP + the 3 Quadruplicated Suits (3QS) need to be present for Peng He
> Pai to occur. Hence, this is also the case for Maque.
No doubt, I agree.
[snip]
>
> So are you saying that ESWN were added to Peng He Pai or to another
> game?
No. What I mean is that ESWN were added when Penghe Pai was advanced
to a new game (presumably that new game would be Maque). I don't think
Penghe can be added with anything to remain being called Penghe - It
is a very simple game so anything added (or changed) could be a
substantial modification (imagine Penghe being the colour pure white).
On the other hand, records about Penghe are also clear so we don't
need to speculate the existence of any "unknown form" of Penghe.
> I assume you mean around-the-table style of progression?
Yes, and it's anticlockwise.
>
> > Like Maque, I still cannot locate that one *original* book or piece of
> > literature that has the full descriptions of Peng He Pai. But descriptions
> > of Peng He Pai in references I have read are quite the same. I have read
> > (but cannot point to) somewhere that you have mentioned that the game Madiao
> > does have the playing sequence in anticlockwise. Since Peng He Pai was
> > evolved from Madiao, it is safe to believe that the seating positions of
> > players in Peng He Pai are counted in the anticlockwise direction.
>
> Yes, and the seating positions were not called ESWN. Is that what you
> are proposing? But they (ESWN) were added to Peng He Pai later on? Is
> that also what you are proposing? Or are you saying they were added to
> maque later on?
Yes, the seating positions in Penghe were not called ESWN; their link
to the sequence of play is for explanation purposes only (1234 counted
anticlockwise; obviously the identifications of 1234 did not exist in
Penghe - it is simply the sequence of play is relevant). ESWN were
added to a new game (presumably Maque) - This is what I suggest.
>
> > > It also offers a possible explanation for why the ESWN group of 16 pai
> > > were added.
>
> > More precisely, it only offers the explanation why ESWN in Maque are counted
> > anticlockwise, rather than why they were added. (ESWN were newly added to
> > the game to match the existing sequential positions of play.)
>
> OK. Lets see. Aha! You mention maque. So are you saying ESWN was added
> to maque, not to Peng He Pai?? You are saying that there was already
> an anticlockwise rotation of play taken from Ma Diao. This was used
> for maque. The players positions were called ESWN and because
> anticlockwise was the progression, so the ESWN progression was
> anticlockwise? Is that right?
>From the references I've read, the development of those games involved
is like this:
Madiao (40 pieces) - Zhipai (paper card, also called "Mohe Pai", 60
pieces) - Penghe Pai (120 pieces) - Maque.
Madiao and Penghe both have the playing sequence counted
anticlockwise. Maque was directly evolved from Penghe, hence also has
the playing sequence counted anticlockwise.
ESWN were later on added to Maque (or it might have been there when
Maque was first created or formed), to match with the playing sequence
in the anticlockwise direction.
>
> If so, it also doesn't say anything about why the order ESWN rather
> than NSEW or EWSN etc etc.
The ESWN sequence is the long existing tradition of the Chinese
language system. When ESWN were added to the game there is no reason
they should be separated from the language system. This also explains
the sequence for Flowers and Seasons.
[snip]
>
> > If you consider that both ESWN (Winds) and SSAW (Flowers) were added to the
> > original game and were meant to match the existing sequential positions, you
> > would need to match them with 1234, respectively (ie, ESWN to 1234, SSAW to
> > 1234).
>
> That's correct. But it still doesn't tell us why ESWN rather than
> another combo like WNES etc.
Please see above.
>
> > > I offered one explanation - they are the celestial (heavenly) positions of the Directions.
> > Only if you wish to explore more why those pais were added to the game, and
> > apart from the issues of the playing sequence (directions, etc).
>
> That is correct. But more importantly, why they were added in that
> SEQUENCE (ESWN).
-Ditto-
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
> Cofa,
>
> I find your presentation quite interesting. I am rather unfamiliar
> with Penghu, so please forgive my ignorance.
Thanks Dan, but I don't think I am anything more familiar with Penghe
than you are ^_^
[I prefer using Penghe, which translated to 碰和 according to the
standards of the Pinyin system. With Penghu, it will render 碰胡, which
is not the original Chinese writing. Although, I do prefer, and
strongly suggest, using 胡 (hu) rather than 和 (he) in mahjong.]
>
> On Jul 15, 9:28 pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green
> > and White), 2 cards each.
>
> Does this indicate that these 'Heads' pai are used in Penghu (when
> doubled so that there are now 4 of each) in a manner similar to the
> 'Dragons' in MJ rather than being associated with the three suits?
> Than is, they are not replacement cards, wild cards or jokers, etc.
> for those suits, and that they are used in game play only to form Peng
> and Gang [3 or 4 of a kind] (Kan [a series] not being possible, or
> would one of each constitute a Kan)?
>From the references I've read, yes, they (the "Heads") are used
similar to the "Dragons" in modern mahjong, they are not for
"replacement" purposes.
>
> If the 'Heads' pai are used in a manner similar to MJ 'Dragon' pai,
> then I may have to rethink what I consider to be the differentiating
> factors between what I thought of as the card precursor games and MJ.
> I had thought that the addition of non-suit pai (whether 'Winds',
> 'Wangs', Seasons, 'Dragons' or 'Arrows', etc.) other than as
> replacements (as for the 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old
> Thousand'?) indicated a fundamental change to the game. In addition,
> though less important, this change appears to have been accompanied by
> the change in the depiction of the 5 for the Wan suit, and a change to
> the thick tiles, all occurring simultaneously, at least as far as we
> know at the present time.
I am not quite sure about your latter part. But it is certain the
"Head" pais are non-suit pais. That's why I say Penghe (the game as a
whole) has all the characteristics of maque and modern mahjong.
>
> I think that your point about game play (rules) vs. game sets is also
> interesting. Since we do not have rules to accompany the early MJ
> sets, we do not really know if the non-suit tiles were used in a
> manner similar to how they are used today (for Peng and Gang but not
> for Kan, although the 'Winds', for example, certainly could also be
> used for Kan in a 'circular' series). But we also have no reason to
> speculate that their usage has changed.
Penghe does have the melds covering kan (3 in sequence), peng (3
identical) and gang (4 identical). But I don't think the "Head" pais
can be used in kan (3 in sequence) in Penghe (I have no proof though).
Winds did not exist in Penghe, nor did I know of this being used in
"kan" (sequence) in mahjong.
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 18, 6:15 pm, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > On Jul 17, 6:32?am, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > In my opinion, and based on the principles I hold, yes it is still qualified
> > as a game of maque. To play a specific game with the use of instruments
> > different from the original forms (standards, specifications, etc) can still
> > be qualified as playing that specific game.
>
> I disagree. Unless the suit symbols and therefore the suits themselves
> can be shown or explained to be directly belonging to the money
> derivation lineage of Chinese origin, then I would call this an
> 'offshoot' (for lack of a better word) and it should be given another
> name.
No problem, Michael. I've mentioned there should be a limit when a
change would render a game to be called another game (or a limit when
a change could still keep a game to be called the same game or same
family of the game). I believe we are not to set the limit (or
specifications) here. I have no problem the use of "offshoot" either -
We do have "variants" for mahjong and it is very commonly used, too
^_^
You might say offshoot and variant are not the same (as from your
message below), but I think they are highly related to the limit
mentioned above.
[snip]
>
> That is correct. But that is not my contention if you are proposing
> just that criteria. I propose to define the game on the basis of a
> game-play + playing instruments.
This is essentially in line with my suggestion; and I do add that the
instruments shall not be the essential elements of the definition.
>
> I think Tom has supplied some exceptions to your rule as well -
> khanhoo and rummy as I recall.
But my suggestion that Penghe is the original form of Maque is based
on both the game play and instruments of Penghe Pai. I am not sure if
Khanhoo and Rummy could meet this requirement.
[snipped for being related to "limit" and "specifications"]
> I don't know what you mean by 'specifications'.
"Specifications" means those that define the limit of change that
would either keep a modified form to remain the same form (or in the
same family), or render it a new form.
[snip]
> > What I mean is that if the definition of the game mahjong is based on the
> > earliest *sets* discovered, rather than the *game play*, it would still be
> > logical #####until the recent past because information of the game play available
> > is newer ("newer game play", i.e., found to have existed later) than the
> > sets and the definition is so established as if both the sets and the game
> > play were to exist (i.e., to form, to be created) at the same time.####
>
> I must be tired. I still do not follow the bits in between the ###
Let me show you with some examples:
Say you define mahjong based on the earliest set found on earth. The
set has 4 Winds and 3 Dragons. The game play you know when you lay the
definition happens to also involve Winds and Dragons; and the game
play is to be discovered later than the set. Now your definition says
"mahjong must have 4 Winds and 3 Dragons". So the definition seems to
be logical because the two elements (the set and the game play, while
the set is found much older than the game play) seem to match each
other well. And it is so logical it also suggests that the game was
created (or invented) at the same time.
Now, new information is found that indicates that an older form of
game play existed earlier than the earliest set; and that this older
form of game play is similar to the existing game play but it does not
consist of Winds and Dragons. Then the problem arises: Can this older
form be considered mahjong as well?
[snip]
> As I also said, there must be reasonable grounds to incorporate the
> suits into the money derived suits lineage in order for it to be
> considered under the banner of maque.
>
> >From the evidence so far, I think there are good grounds for proposing
>
> that three money suits plus four Directions (as Allan proposed I
> think) could be considered as the essential playing instruments.
I have no comment on that but I do have a question: Why four
Directions are essential when an older form without the Directions is
essentially also the same form of game?
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 18, 5:35 am, pa...@email.unc.edu wrote:
> > If the 'Heads' pai are used in a manner similar to MJ 'Dragon' pai,
> > then I may have to rethink what I consider to be the differentiating
> > factors between what I thought of as the card precursor games and MJ.
> > I had thought that the addition of non-suit pai (whether 'Winds',
> > 'Wangs', Seasons, 'Dragons' or 'Arrows', etc.) other than as
> > replacements (as for the 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old
> > Thousand'?) indicated a fundamental change to the game. In addition,
> > though less important, this change appears to have been accompanied by
> > the change in the depiction of the 5 for the Wan suit, and a change to
> > the thick tiles, all occurring simultaneously, at least as far as we
> > know at the present time.
>
> I am not quite sure about your latter part. But it is certain the
> "Head" pais are non-suit pais. That's why I say Penghe (the game as a
> whole) has all the characteristics of maque and modern mahjong.
I do not agree with the way the last sentence is stated. It might be
ambiguous. Penghe does not have all the characteristics of maque. For
example, penghe does not have ESWN playing pieces for a start. Penghe
has some of the characteristics of maque...
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
> > That is correct. But that is not my contention if you are proposing
> > just that criteria. I propose to define the game on the basis of a
> > game-play + playing instruments.
>
> This is essentially in line with my suggestion; and I do add that the
> instruments shall not be the essential elements of the definition.
I think this is incorrect logically.
> > I think Tom has supplied some exceptions to your rule as well -
> > khanhoo and rummy as I recall.
> But my suggestion that Penghe is the original form of Maque is based
> on both the game play and instruments of Penghe Pai. I am not sure if
> Khanhoo and Rummy could meet this requirement.
Can you explain why? Just interested.
>
> [snipped for being related to "limit" and "specifications"]
>
> > I don't know what you mean by 'specifications'.
>
> "Specifications" means those that define the limit of change that
> would either keep a modified form to remain the same form (or in the
> same family), or render it a new form.
>
> [snip]
> > I must be tired. I still do not follow the bits in between the ###
>
> Let me show you with some examples:
>
> Say you define mahjong based on the earliest set found on earth. The
> set has 4 Winds and 3 Dragons. The game play you know when you lay the
> definition happens to also involve Winds and Dragons; and the game
> play is to be discovered later than the set. Now your definition says
> "mahjong must have 4 Winds and 3 Dragons". So the definition seems to
> be logical because the two elements (the set and the game play, while
> the set is found much older than the game play) seem to match each
> other well. And it is so logical it also suggests that the game was
> created (or invented) at the same time.
> Now, new information is found that indicates that an older form of
> game play existed earlier than the earliest set; and that this older
> form of game play is similar to the existing game play but it does not
> consist of Winds and Dragons. Then the problem arises: Can this older
> form be considered mahjong as well?
Ths all depends on what our definition is for the game maque. If we
agree to define it by its essential features, as you propose, then we
have something to go on - a comparison using an analogical argument
would be possible. But we would have to compare the properties of
indentical features of each game to make an evaluation.
[snip]
> > From the evidence so far, I think there are good grounds for proposing
> > that three money suits plus four Directions (as Allan proposed I
> > think) could be considered as the essential playing instruments.
>
> I have no comment on that but I do have a question: Why four
> Directions are essential when an older form without the Directions is
> essentially also the same form of game?
This is precisely my point. We must 1st ask what are the essential
features of the game of maque. The term 'essential' must be understood
by everybody as to what it means.
My perspective and argument is in in my previous post to your JUL 21
9.14am post.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
2nd attempt at posting.
[snip]
> > > [snip] However, since details of the creation of Maque remain unknown
> > > (not evidenced) at this point, it is reasonable to maintain that Maque is an
> > > advanced form of Peng He Pai.
> > Well, I'll leave out the 'advanced' concept if you don't mind. That
> > involves another discussion. However, with that aside, the core of
> > your claim is that maque is a form of peng he pai?
> Perhaps "Maque is a form of the Penghe family" is more accurate - see
> my next paragraph.
>
> > According to this reasoning it seems that when the Peng He Pai MOP is
> > present *any* game is guaranteed to be a form of Peng He Pai. Am I
> > interpreting you correctly?
>
> How about "a form within the Penghe family"? We all know Penghe is
> just a very simple game. Since it is so simple, any addition or change
> could mean a big difference to the original Penghe game.
Hello Cofa. The reason for my questions is that I am trying to
understand why you are claiming that penghe is the **original form**
of maque. In other words, just what does that mean?
>From what you have described, it seems to me that penghe is the
earliest recorded game that contains the basic or fundamental method
of play(MOP)(draw and discard + melds) of maque.
This MOP is THE **essential** element of the game of maque.
You have stated that penghe is the original form of maque. I presume
you are saying it is the original form of the **game** of maque?
But for this to be so, you would have to therefore claim that the
**game* of maque be defined by THE *essential* elements of the game =
collectively, the method of play. Is that correct?
[snip]
> > It seems to me that the Peng He Pai Method of Play(MOP) is directly
> > and unconditionally linked to three, quadruplicated, money suits
> > (apart from the extra cards).
> > If this is the case then, as I maintain, their absence prevents Peng He Pai > > from being played.
>
> [snip] On the other hand,
> if your "their" means the three money suits (i.e., the instruments), I
> do have a reserve, as I do maintain that the instruments are not
> necessarily the essential elements of a game.
Really? See below.
I said;
> > The presence of the 3 suits does not guarantee the presence of Peng He Pai, > > however, as other games were played with these cards (such as shi hu (ten
> > points or ten pots) and suo hu (shuttle/strings harmony).
> I have no problem with this. Note that the three suits were not first
> seen in Penghe. Penghe "borrowed" these from Madio.
> > The sum of this discussion is that, in my view, both the Peng He Pai
> > MOP + the 3 Quadruplicated Suits (3QS) need to be present for Peng He
> > Pai to occur. Hence, this is also the case for Maque.
> No doubt, I agree.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying Cofa. When I said these
two things "need to be present for peng he pai to occur" I meant that
without these two things, peng he pai could not be played.
That is why I have a problem with your term "essential". Just what is
the property that is meant by 'essential'? From what you have said it
seems to me it is the property of 'indespensibility'. So the
'essential elements' are those elements of the game that are
*indespensible to the game*.
In other words, without them the game would not occur or could not be
played.
In the case of penghe, for it to occur that means the MOP + the
playing instruments which, as we know, were ONLY the three
quadruplicated money suits (including the three extra cards).
(In formal terms, both are the necessary conditions for penghe to
occur. Since they are, they are the jointly sufficient conditions for
penghe.)
I therefore maintain that your 'essential elements' term is too narrow
in its definition and needs to be expanded.
[snip]
> Madiao and Penghe both have the playing sequence counted
> anticlockwise. Maque was directly evolved from Penghe, hence also has
> the playing sequence counted anticlockwise.
I have no problem with this explanation.
> ESWN were later on added to Maque (or it might have been there when
> Maque was first created or formed), to match with the playing sequence
> in the anticlockwise direction.
I agree with the 1st part, but not the 2nd part. At this point I do
not think we know why they were added. The naming of the 1234 playing
positions ESWN may have come later, after the ESWN were added to the
playing instruments. In other words, the names of the playing
positions might have been an unintended consequence of the addition of
the ESWN playing instruments.
> The ESWN sequence is the long existing tradition of the Chinese
> language system. When ESWN were added to the game there is no reason
> they should be separated from the language system. This also explains
> the sequence for Flowers and Seasons.
That is correct. I was merely wondering why that preexisiting sequence
of ESWN rather than ENWS or whatever.
If they are celestial or heavenly directions, then that might explain
the order ot sequence.
[snip]
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> The direct quote is "...cards in the Chinese pack, which contains 120,
> subdivided into four classes, corresponding with four colors, and into
> thirty species. There are thus only four cards of each species, and
> thirty of each class."
>
> I think that what is meant is that each of the 30 card sets is
> duplicated in a different color, thus each individual card would be
> made in four colors (quadruplicates). I don't think that the colors
> refer to the 'suits' as you have indicated (and is common in MJ
> terminology, e.g. green for Bamboo).
Hello Dan. From the quote I think you are correct. From reading
Wilkinson for example, I get the impression that to make a
quadruplicated deck, the players would just add four decks together.
Hence, if each pack had different coloured backs, then each card would
be in four colours.
I don't know if this is correct however. It would be interesting to
find out when actual quadruplicated packs were produced.
I am now wondering whehter this might answer what Wilkinson said
about ma qiao being the name of quadruplicated money-based playing
cards. If these cards were mono coloured but were quadruplicated, it
might set them apart from the four colour variety.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
Michael,
This source (Chin-Chin) does not indicate which colors are used for
the four, nor do the colors come into play in the three games
described. Prior to describing these games it does state that:
"Different kinds of games can, of course, be played with the same kind
of deck." Perhaps there are other games that are not described that
may make use of the different colors. I get the impression that this
may not consist of four separate decks put together by the players,
but that the 120 card deck is all manufactured in a single pack.
Otherwise one may by chance likely end up with a 120 card deck
consisting of fewer than four colors. Why would you think that the
four different colors would be on the backs rather than the faces?
Wouldn't it be expected that all four 30 card 'classes' would have
identical backs?
Dan
msta...@aol.com
> This source (Chin-Chin) does not indicate which colors are used for
> the four, nor do the colors come into play in the three games
> described. Prior to describing these games it does state that:
> "Different kinds of games can, of course, be played with the same kind
> of deck." Perhaps there are other games that are not described that
> may make use of the different colors. I get the impression that this
> may not consist of four separate decks put together by the players,
> but that the 120 card deck is all manufactured in a single pack.
> Otherwise one may by chance likely end up with a 120 card deck
> consisting of fewer than four colors. Why would you think that the
> four different colors would be on the backs rather than the faces?
> Wouldn't it be expected that all four 30 card 'classes' would have
> identical backs?
One would think so. But you have described this deck as having what
appear to be three money suits - the 'faces' would be below the 'wan'
character. I own early 20th century money packs plus I have Prunners
Chinese playing card catalogue and there are no cards as far as I am
aware that have coloured faces and are money suited cards, of the type
you have described. There are 'four colour' cards called si si pai.
You can find them at the link
http://www.pagat.com/class/chess.html
and no doubt you are aware of them.
However, Prunner describes four-colour and three-colour packs of money
suited playing cards. But the term 'colour' refers to a suit- what he
calls a 'series'. Therefore a three suited deck is called a three-
colour card deck and similarly so for a four suited/coloured deck. Now
Prunner seems to have been well acquainted with Chinese playing cards
- at least from my perspective. I am therefore inclined to think his
rendition of the term 'colour' might be more applicable. But, I am
still not completly convinced either.
I am still also doubtful about the colour interpretation you have
placed on these cards. I am not saying you are wrong, only that I
still need to be fully convinced.
Does anyone else know of these cards?
Cheers
Michael
ithinc
wrote:
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
Khanhoo is indeed a type of penghu pai, Sise also, but Rummy seems not
originated in China. Sise pai is also called Shihu sometimes. Khanhoo,
from the gameplay and instruments, is no doubt penghu.
ithinc
> It is also mentioned in "The Painted
> Pleasure Boats of Yangzhou" by Li Dou, prefaced 1796. Lo gives this
> Li's brief mention of shi hu..
>
> "Recently, everyone plays the shi hou [ten pots] game...Also, the five
> stars- fortune, emolument, longevity, wealth and happiness- have been
> added, making a total of 125 cards. If a player gets all five stars,
> everyone congratulates him [with an award]."
>
> It seems the game was called "shi hu" which Lo says means "Ten Points"
> or sometimes "Ten Pots". In his endnote # 16 he says to look in
> Beijing Tong (A Guide top Beijing) by Jin Shoushen, pp 564 - 65 for
> the best description of the rules.
Hello,
Let me add more from Li Dou's book.
"In the boats people often played with Yapai or Yezipai game. With
Yapai,[...]. With Yezi pai, people prefered to play Madiao, in
Yangzhou usually using Jing&Wang rules; secondly Penghu(碰壶), in which
Shihu(十壶) was prefered."
>From Li Dou's words, Shihu was one of the Penghu games.
ithinc
Tom Sloper
>>> Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
>>> condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
>>> Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
>>> Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
>>> guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
I wrote:
>> If that's the argument, then Khanhoo and Rummy are both also forms of
>> peng
>> he pai.
"ithinc" <ith...@gmail.com> wrote
>Khanhoo is indeed a type of penghu pai, Sise also, but Rummy seems not
>originated in China.
Meaning Rummy is not a form of peng he pai? But that means the original
equation is insufficient.
The original equation said "if [MOP of game X = MOP of peng he pai] then
[game X = a form of peng he pai]."
Now you're saying the equation is, instead: "if [MOP of game X = MOP of peng
he pai] AND [game X originated in China] then [game X = a form of peng he
pai]."
I disagree with this new equation. Not that I agreed with the original
equation in the first place, mind you.
Tom
msta...@aol.com
> On 7 19 , 8 54 , mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > It is also mentioned in "The Painted
> > Pleasure Boats of Yangzhou" by Li Dou, prefaced 1796. Lo gives this
> > Li's brief mention of shi hu..
>
> > "Recently, everyone plays the shi hou [ten pots] game...Also, the five
> > stars- fortune, emolument, longevity, wealth and happiness- have been
> > added, making a total of 125 cards. If a player gets all five stars,
> > everyone congratulates him [with an award]."
>
> > It seems the game was called "shi hu" which Lo says means "Ten Points"
> > or sometimes "Ten Pots". In his endnote # 16 he says to look in
> > Beijing Tong (A Guide top Beijing) by Jin Shoushen, pp 564 - 65 for
> > the best description of the rules.
>
> Hello,
>
> Let me add more from Li Dou's book.
> "In the boats people often played with Yapai or Yezipai game. With
> Yapai,[...]. With Yezi pai, people prefered to play Madiao, in
> Shihu( ) was prefered."
>
> >From Li Dou's words, Shihu was one of the Penghu games.
Hello ithinc. This looks interesting. Is Li Dou saying that the
playing instruments are called penghe pai or penghe, and the game
played with them is called shihu? In other words, is there are
distinction between the playing cards and the game played with them,
just like yezi pai playing instruments and the game played with them
is called madiao?
It is a problem, because often the game and the playing instruments
are one-and-the-same - as in maque perhaps?
Cheers
Michael
ithinc
Hello Michael,
Li Dou also said,
"Madiao used 40 pieces. [...] From Zhipai on 30 pieces was used,
getting rid of the "ten" suit from Madiao pai, the game was called
"Dou Hun Jiang"; Later it was doubled to 60 pieces and the game was
called "Ji Ai"; Later doubled again to 120 pieces, played by 5 people,
called "Cheng Kan Yu". There're also some other game like "Liu Yao",
"Xin Suan", etc. Recently [...]"
Lo's quote is connected with the "Recently". My translation is not
smooth. If possible, you can read the original Chinese text. Li Dou's
info is quite useful for us to know more of Penghu pai.
ithinc
ithinc
>From Another book "Hua fang yu tan" written by Penghuasheng in 1818,
describing the life in Nanjing's boats:
"In the boats people liked to play Yezi games, called 'Cheng Kan Yu',
called 'Peng Shi Hu'( )."
Shihu is a kind of Penghu, just like Japanese Mahjong is a kind of
Mahjong.
ithinc
ithinc
> As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
> relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
> are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
> are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
> Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
Hello,
So a possible explanation appears. The sequence of ESWN comes from the
ancient Chinese philosophy, Wuxing, while the anticlockwise movement
comes from the gameplay of the ancestor of the mahjong, Penghu pai.
ithinc
ithinc
> If the 'Heads' pai are used in a manner similar to MJ 'Dragon' pai,
> then I may have to rethink what I consider to be the differentiating
> factors between what I thought of as the card precursor games and MJ.
> I had thought that the addition of non-suit pai (whether 'Winds',
> 'Wangs', Seasons, 'Dragons' or 'Arrows', etc.) other than as
> replacements (as for the 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old
> Thousand'?) indicated a fundamental change to the game.
Hello Dan,
Do you mean 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old Thousand' were used as
replacements in Penghu pai or other precursor card games? It seems
I've never heard this. Do you have any documentation?
ithinc
msta...@aol.com
Hello ithinc. The problem at this point is that we do not have
evidence that penghe was played in an anticlockwise direction.
IF it was, then putting the 4 Directions and their corresponding 4
Seasons on top of that rotation of play would give you the desired
result.
Hence, IF the initial pillar position was determined by the 1st Season
and IF the 1st Season was Spring then the Pillar position would be
East.
THEREFORE, since the anticlockwise rotation was there already, and IF
Spring/East is the pillar Season/Direction(or position), then going
anticlockwise we can put Summer/South on East's right and so on, in
the anticlockwise direction.
HOWEVER, one can arrive at an anticlockwise rotation of play without
resorting to a penghe heriditary solution.
(1) IF the *relative positions* of the 4 Directions are celestial in
origin then we have the order of S being on the right of E and N being
on the left of E and W being opposite E.
(2) Now, which way do we go around these positions? IF the wuxing is
applied then we have the correlation of Spring to East, Summer to
South etc etc.
(3) IF the beginning Season is considered to be Spring, then following
through the order of Seasons SSAW allows us to have the Directions
order of ESWN.
(4) Since we already have the relative positions of the 4 Directions,
then the progression around the table is deduced to be anticlockwise.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
Hello ithinc.
This is a bit long as I have pasted all the relevant texts together, I
hope in the right order, so we can see all of it.
I have also copied the relevant text from Lo's 'Asian games' catalogue
chapter that references ma diao and penghe (peng hu?) and shi hu.
The other texts are from "The Painted Pleasure Boats of Yangzhou" by
Li Dou, prefaced 1796. All the text is is [**].
Ok. Here are the Li Dou texts.
"In the boats people often played with Yapai or Yezipai game. With
Yapai,[...]. With Yezi pai, people prefered to play Madiao, in
Yangzhou usually using Jing & Wang rules; secondly Penghu( ), in which
Shihu( ) was prefered."
"Madiao used 40 pieces. [...] From Zhipai on 30 pieces was used,
getting rid of the "ten" suit from Madiao pai, the game was called
"Dou Hun Jiang"; Later it was doubled to 60 pieces and the game was
called "Ji Ai"; Later doubled again to 120 pieces, played by 5 people,
called "Cheng Kan Yu". There're also some other game like "Liu Yao",
"Xin Suan", etc. Recently, everyone plays the shi hu [ten pots]
game...Also, the five stars- fortune, emolument, longevity, wealth and
happiness- have been added, making a total of 125 cards. If a player
gets all five stars, everyone congratulates him [with an award]."
>From Another book "Hua fang yu tan" written by Penghuasheng in 1818,
describing the life in Nanjing's boats:
"In the boats people liked to play Yezi games, called 'Cheng Kan Yu',
called 'Peng Shi Hu'( )."
1stly, there might be a discrepancy between what Lo says and what Li
Dou reported.
Lo says "The ma diao deck of forty cards developed into a three-suited
deck used to play a wide variety of games. The tens of myriads was
eliminated (with one card of this suit becoming a court card), leaving
a thirty card deck.... . This deck was used to play trick-taking games
like 'kan hu' (watching the tiger), and doubled to sixty to play the
game of 'hun jiang' (rolling the river), among others. When doubled,
quadrupled to 120, or quintupled to 150, the deck could be used for
various types of draw-and-discard games such as 'mo hu' (silent
harmony), 'peng hu' (encountering harmony), 'shi hu' (ten points,
sometimes called ten pots), and 'suo hu' (shuttle harmony). Of these,
the most widespread was probably 'shi hu'."
In his endnote # 16 Lo says to look in Beijing Tong (A Guide top
Beijing) by Jin Shoushen, pp 564 - 65 for the best description of the
rules.
Your text says that 'dou hun jiang' was played with 30 cards. Lo
reports a game called 'hun jiang' that was played with 60 cards. Do
you think the two games are the same?
I also wondered whether the game called 'Cheng kan yu' was a reference
to 'kan hu'? I cant see it myelf as the former was played with 120
cards which suggests quadruplication and therefore melding as opposed
to forming tricks in the trick taking game of' kan hu'.
It is still not clear to me though. It still seems to me that shi hu
was played with 'peng hu pai'. However, Lo implies that 'peng hu' and
'shi hu' were a number of games played with a common deck of either
120 or 150 cards. And then there is this 'peng shi hu' reported by
penghuasheng. This latter game seems like a mixture of 'peng hu' and
'shi hu'.
Perhaps Lo is correct but Li Dou is also correct. Both games were
played with a common pack of 120 cards, but one was a variant of the
other?
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello Dan,
>
> Do you mean 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old Thousand' were used as
> replacements in Penghu pai or other precursor card games? It seems
> I've never heard this. Do you have any documentation?
>
> ithinc
Ithinc,
Sorry, it seems like I made something of a mess in posting about
something that I had previously not focused on. I had misremembered
Wilkinson's (1895) description of the card deck where he mentioned
extra cards used as jokers. They are different from the White Flower,
Red Flower and Old Thousand.
Of possible interest is a difference between Wilkinson's (1895)
description of 'gold' wild cards and what is presented in Chin-Chin
(also 1895). Rather than being loose additional cards in the pack,
Chin-Chin states:
"Sometimes, also, it is the first card at the top of the pack placed
in the box that is turned round. This card is called gold, and every
player, who has a similar card in his hand, may use it instead of any
other card that may be wanting to complete any set in his hand."
Also note that I am fairly certain that what is presented in Chin-Chin
is probably a deck similar to what Culin described (1924) since the
first game given in Chin-Chin ('Awaiting the Card') is nearly
identical to Culin's 'Kan U' (Khanhoo). Six of the seven special three
card sets are identical (assuming that 'butterfly' = 'white flower',
'civilian' = 'old thousand', and 'red man' = 'red flower').
Cofa,
> Winds did not exist in Penghe, nor did I know of this being used in
>"kan" (sequence) in mahjong.
Neither did I. I was just presenting a hypothetical to illustrate
possible problems due to not having the rules (MOP: Method of Play)
accompanying the early ('proto-mahjong') sets. I also stated, however,
that I see no reason at this time to speculate that the early rules
were any different than more recent game play.
While I currently only have two pre-1900s descriptions of Khanhoo to
look at, it seems that while it uses the same deck as Penghe, its MOP
is slightly different from MJ. I do not see 4-of-a-kind sets indicated
in the rules, and series can extend beyond three cards of a suit. It
seems that Khanhoo would thus not qualify as a form of Penghe or MJ.
Certainly Khanhoo could be played with the same instrument (i.e. the
Penghe pai deck of cards) as well as it being possible to play either
game using MJ tile sets, but is that enough to group them together
into the same family, or does it merely indicate a close relationship
(i.e. cousins?)?
Michael,
Chin-Chin indicates a direction of play for 'Awaiting the
Card' (Khanhoo) by stating: "If a player has only two cards of one
set, he must hand an isolated card to the player on his right, who
takes it, if it is of any service to him, and, in his turn, hands one
of the cards in his hand to his neighbor on the right." [Etc.]
Also note that the author of must have been referring to another type
of deck, perhaps the four color chess cards (although no 'soldier' is
mentioned, the other six card types are) when making the statement
that I quoted on 7/19 concerning the cards that represented chess
figures. What confused me was that the description was rather brief
and did not start a new paragraph or new section (and was given near
the end of the chapter), giving the impression that it was referring
to what was written previously.
Dan
ithinc
On 7 26 , 9 54 , mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> 1stly, there might be a discrepancy between what Lo says and what Li
> Dou reported.
>
> Lo says "The ma diao deck of forty cards developed into a three-suited
> deck used to play a wide variety of games. The tens of myriads was
> eliminated (with one card of this suit becoming a court card), leaving
> a thirty card deck.... . This deck was used to play trick-taking games
> like 'kan hu' (watching the tiger), and doubled to sixty to play the
> game of 'hun jiang' (rolling the river), among others. When doubled,
> quadrupled to 120, or quintupled to 150, the deck could be used for
> various types of draw-and-discard games such as 'mo hu' (silent
> harmony), 'peng hu' (encountering harmony), 'shi hu' (ten points,
> sometimes called ten pots), and 'suo hu' (shuttle harmony). Of these,
> the most widespread was probably 'shi hu'."
> In his endnote # 16 Lo says to look in Beijing Tong (A Guide top
> Beijing) by Jin Shoushen, pp 564 - 65 for the best description of the
> rules.
> Your text says that 'dou hun jiang' was played with 30 cards. Lo
> reports a game called 'hun jiang' that was played with 60 cards. Do
> you think the two games are the same?
Yes, of course the same. It could be understandable by me if the game
was firstly played with 30 cards, and later played with 60 cards. I
know 60 cards "Dou Hun Jiang" was reported by Taoqingzhuren in "Ma
diao xin pu" in the early Qing Dynasty. It is also possible that one
of Li Dou and Taoqingzhuren made a mistake.
> I also wondered whether the game called 'Cheng kan yu' was a reference
> to 'kan hu'? I cant see it myelf as the former was played with 120
> cards which suggests quadruplication and therefore melding as opposed
> to forming tricks in the trick taking game of' kan hu'.
I have no idea. "Cheng kan yu" sounds not much like "Kan hu". But have
you forgotten the game reported by Culin? It is also called "Kan
hu"(Kan U, Khanhoo) and was played with 120 cards.
> It is still not clear to me though. It still seems to me that shi hu
> was played with 'peng hu pai'.
If you call the cards 'peng hu pai', then it's right. In fact the
cards need not have a name. It can also be called different names in
different areas. And usually the cards will be called the name of the
game after the game prevails.
> However, Lo implies that 'peng hu' and
> 'shi hu' were a number of games played with a common deck of either
> 120 or 150 cards. And then there is this 'peng shi hu' reported by
> penghuasheng. This latter game seems like a mixture of 'peng hu' and
> 'shi hu'.
I don't agree with your last statement. Peng is a verb., "peng shi hu"
is the same game as "shi hu", like "dou hun jiang" as "hun jiang",
"cha ma que" as "ma que", etc.
> Perhaps Lo is correct but Li Dou is also correct. Both games were
> played with a common pack of 120 cards, but one was a variant of the
> other?
Yes, I agree. The later Shihu was a variant of the early Penghu. I
think Li Dou's words clearly indicated this.
And the Shihu was at the height of Penghu game. Then after a
period(about 1780~1850), it evolved into Mahjong but still coexisted
with Mahjong in some areas.
Cheers,
ithinc
ithinc
> On Jul 26, 2:45 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan,
>
> > Do you mean 'Redflower', 'Whiteflower' and 'Old Thousand' were used as
> > replacements in Penghu pai or other precursor card games? It seems
> > I've never heard this. Do you have any documentation?
>
> > ithinc
>
> Ithinc,
>
> Sorry, it seems like I made something of a mess in posting about
> something that I had previously not focused on. I had misremembered
> Wilkinson's (1895) description of the card deck where he mentioned
> extra cards used as jokers. They are different from the White Flower,
> Red Flower and Old Thousand.
>
> Of possible interest is a difference between Wilkinson's (1895)
> description of 'gold' wild cards and what is presented in Chin-Chin
> (also 1895). Rather than being loose additional cards in the pack,
> Chin-Chin states:
> "Sometimes, also, it is the first card at the top of the pack placed
> in the box that is turned round. This card is called gold, and every
> player, who has a similar card in his hand, may use it instead of any
> other card that may be wanting to complete any set in his hand."
Hello Dan, thank you for your clarification.
> Also note that I am fairly certain that what is presented in Chin-Chin
> is probably a deck similar to what Culin described (1924) since the
> first game given in Chin-Chin ('Awaiting the Card') is nearly
> identical to Culin's 'Kan U' (Khanhoo). Six of the seven special three
> card sets are identical (assuming that 'butterfly' = 'white flower',
> 'civilian' = 'old thousand', and 'red man' = 'red flower').
I have heard the game reported by Chen Jitong(?) from Thierry. The
game is also similar with a game called "Kai Shang" reported by Jin
Shoushen in his "Bei jing tong". I take it as a variant of Penghu. The
famous seven special sets existed in Hunjiang, Shihu, the existing
Neimenggu Zuihu, Shanxi Menghu, and can trace back earliest to Pan
Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu"(before 1644).
Cheers,
ithinc
msta...@aol.com
Hello ithinc. Thanks for the clarifications.
> Yes, I agree. The later Shihu was a variant of the early Penghu. I
> think Li Dou's words clearly indicated this.
> And the Shihu was at the height of Penghu game. Then after a
> period(about 1780~1850), it evolved into Mahjong but still coexisted
> with Mahjong in some areas.
One more clarification. You say in the last sentence, "... it evolved
into Mahjong..."
What is the 'it'. Is it Penghu or Shihu?
Cheers
msta...@aol.com
> > Sorry, it seems like I made something of a mess in posting about
> > something that I had previously not focused on. I had misremembered
> > Wilkinson's (1895) description of the card deck where he mentioned
> > extra cards used as jokers. They are different from the White Flower,
> > Red Flower and Old Thousand.
This is correct.
> > Also note that I am fairly certain that what is presented in Chin-Chin
> > is probably a deck similar to what Culin described (1924) since the
> > first game given in Chin-Chin ('Awaiting the Card') is nearly
> > identical to Culin's 'Kan U' (Khanhoo). Six of the seven special three
> > card sets are identical (assuming that 'butterfly' = 'white flower',
> > 'civilian' = 'old thousand', and 'red man' = 'red flower').
I forgot to mention when I read this that it seems Culin's Plate I in
his 1924 paper is laid out in a way that the ranking does not match
for the combinations of Kan hu as described by Culin in his paper.
The late John Berry of the International Playing Card Society and
friend of mine, wrote a rather excellent little article clarifying the
underlying ranking of the cards in Culin's Plate I, and this
underlying ranking corresponds to the combinations spelled out in
Culin's Kan hu description.
If you can follow me, this is a little complicated....
Therefore, the top right card in Plate 1 which is called 'red
flower' (Pan Zhiheng's 'wang ying' which is 'zero cash'. Wang Ying has
short legs and black boots - just like in this card) is 'zero cash'
and should be placed at the left end of the cash suit.
'White Flower' is the card on the right of the middle 'strings' suit
in Plate 1. Wilkinson said this corresponds to 'golden flower' in
other packs and is a stylised flower. This corresponds to Pan's 'half
cash' which he also calls 'sprig of flowers'. This card is therefore
'half cash' and goes in between red flower/zero cash and the # 1 cash.
Thus there are 11 cards in the cash suit.
NOW, the cash suit is reversed or flipped over so-to-speak, so that
the 9 of cash is on the left and we count up to the 1 of cash, half
cash then zero cash/red flower on the right.
The 'strings' suit stays the same.
The 'myriads' suit stays the same.
Thus, when the 9 of cash, 1 of strings and 1 of myriads are aligned,
then at the other end the top/head cards are red flower/wang ying, 9
of strings and old thousand. These are precisely the cards with stamp
marks on them in Plate 1.
When the cards are arranged like this then the combinations of kan hu
described by Culin make sense.
> I have heard the game reported by Chen Jitong(?) from Thierry. The
> game is also similar with a game called "Kai Shang" reported by Jin
> Shoushen in his "Bei jing tong". I take it as a variant of Penghu. The
> famous seven special sets existed in Hunjiang, Shihu, the existing
> Neimenggu Zuihu, Shanxi Menghu, and can trace back earliest to Pan
> Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu"(before 1644).
I am still a little confused here. Can either you or Dan tell me what
the 'seven special three card sets' are called? That is, what are the
cards names? I have my suspicion but I would like to be sure.
Cheers
ithinc
Hello Michael,
In my opinion, Shihu was the direct ancestor of Mahjong, plus some
features from Domino Penghu. And I think Shihu equals Penghu in about
1850s in most areas.
ithinc
ithinc
> If you can follow me, this is a little complicated....
> Therefore, the top right card in Plate 1 which is called 'red
> flower' (Pan Zhiheng's 'wang ying' which is 'zero cash'. Wang Ying has
> short legs and black boots - just like in this card) is 'zero cash'
> and should be placed at the left end of the cash suit.
>
> 'White Flower' is the card on the right of the middle 'strings' suit
> in Plate 1. Wilkinson said this corresponds to 'golden flower' in
> other packs and is a stylised flower. This corresponds to Pan's 'half
> cash' which he also calls 'sprig of flowers'. This card is therefore
> 'half cash' and goes in between red flower/zero cash and the # 1 cash.
> Thus there are 11 cards in the cash suit.
>
> NOW, the cash suit is reversed or flipped over so-to-speak, so that
> the 9 of cash is on the left and we count up to the 1 of cash, half
> cash then zero cash/red flower on the right.
>
> The 'strings' suit stays the same.
>
> The 'myriads' suit stays the same.
>
> Thus, when the 9 of cash, 1 of strings and 1 of myriads are aligned,
> then at the other end the top/head cards are red flower/wang ying, 9
> of strings and old thousand. These are precisely the cards with stamp
> marks on them in Plate 1.
>
> When the cards are arranged like this then the combinations of kan hu
> described by Culin make sense.
Hello,
Yes, the arrangment is like:(B stands for strings, C stands for
myriads, D stands for cashs)
9D 8D 7D [...] 1D Whilte Red
1B 2B 3B [...] 7B 8B 9B
1C 2C 3C [...] 8C 9C Thousand
> > I have heard the game reported by Chen Jitong(?) from Thierry. The
> > game is also similar with a game called "Kai Shang" reported by Jin
> > Shoushen in his "Bei jing tong". I take it as a variant of Penghu. The
> > famous seven special sets existed in Hunjiang, Shihu, the existing
> > Neimenggu Zuihu, Shanxi Menghu, and can trace back earliest to Pan
> > Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu"(before 1644).
>
> I am still a little confused here. Can either you or Dan tell me what
> the 'seven special three card sets' are called? That is, what are the
> cards names? I have my suspicion but I would like to be sure.
The seven special sets are:
[1] 9D 1B 1C,
[2] 8D 2B 2C,
[3] 7D 3B 3C,
[4] White 8B 9C,
[5] Red 9B Thousand,
[6] Red 9B 9C,
[7] 1D 2D 3D,
Every set has its name, but the names are awkward-sounding and hard to
understand, and have few meanings to help us understand the game. Of
the seven special sets, [1], [2], [3], [5], [6] can be found in the
game named "kanhu" in Pan Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu".
Cheers,
ithinc
Tom Sloper
> I have no idea. "Cheng kan yu" sounds not much like "Kan hu".
We've come to learn through painful experience that many early romanizations
of Chinese were very different from one another. Two different authors often
romanized the same Chinese term in wildly different ways. Michael was
comparing the "kan yu" part to "kan hu" (which is the same thing as "kan u"
or "khanhoo").
> But have
> you forgotten the game reported by Culin? It is also called "Kan
> hu"(Kan U, Khanhoo) and was played with 120 cards.
That's surely precisely the game Michael was talking about.
It's unfortunate that this sort of misunderstanding happens so frequently
when talking about Chinese terms from over 100 years ago.
Tom
ithinc
wrote:
> "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
Hello Tom, do you know what's a trick-taking game? And what's the
trick-taking game of 'kan hu'?
That's not Culin's, but Pan Zhiheng's.
ithinc
ithinc
> The seven special sets are:
> [1] 9D 1B 1C,
> [2] 8D 2B 2C,
> [3] 7D 3B 3C,
> [4] White 8B 9C,
> [5] Red 9B Thousand,
> [6] Red 9B 9C,
> [7] 1D 2D 3D,
Besides the seven special sets, there are also some normal sets.
Horizontal sets, or "Bao", which is three identical numbers of three
suits;
Vertical sets, or "Shun"(Sequence), which is three continuing cards of
the same suit;
Three or Four of the same kind.
In many games, the speical sets and the horizontal sets can be
attached with any number of cards in it(meaning 777D33B3C is a legal
set), and the vertical sets can be extended to at most 9 cards. As to
why [7] 1D 2D 3D is taken as a special set, is that it scores one
point, while a sequence scores nothing.
The Red, White and Thousand are called "Yao" cards, or somewhere Red
cards(against Black cards). They can be alone in the winning hand.
Besides these three cards, some other cards are also of the kind.
That's 1B, 1C and 1D. In some games 9B also. In some rare games 5C and
8C also.
Cheers,
ithinc
ithinc
> On Jul 26, 7:34?am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 17 , 6 00 , mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > As to the anticlockwise rotation - there is evidence from the
> > > relationship of the Directions to the 4 Seasons. I know that the pairs
> > > are east/spring, south/summer, west/autumn and north/winter and these
> > > are found in ancient chinese philosopical texts. So following the
> > > Seasonal progression of SSAW gives us ESWN.
>
> > Hello,
>
> > So a possible explanation appears. The sequence of ESWN comes from the
> > ancient Chinese philosophy, Wuxing, while the anticlockwise movement
> > comes from the gameplay of the ancestor of the mahjong, Penghu pai.
>
> Hello ithinc. The problem at this point is that we do not have
> evidence that penghe was played in an anticlockwise direction.
Hello Michael,
I think this problem could be easily settled. You cannot find any
games played Counterclockwise with the Chinese money-suited cards, can
you? We still have lots of games played in the wide country with the
money-suited cards. They mostly inherited from Penghu games. We can
survey what's the playing rotation in those games.
> IF it was, then putting the 4 Directions and their corresponding 4
> Seasons on top of that rotation of play would give you the desired
> result.
>
> Hence, IF the initial pillar position was determined by the 1st Season
> and IF the 1st Season was Spring then the Pillar position would be
> East.
"East" in Chinese has another meaning, the owner/host. For example, if
I plan to invite you to a dinner, then I am the East. This meaning has
existed for quite a long time. It is said from Qin Dynasty. At this
meaning, it is similar with "Zhuang"(the dealer). So East attached
with the dealer could be easily understood.
> THEREFORE, since the anticlockwise rotation was there already, and IF
> Spring/East is the pillar Season/Direction(or position), then going
> anticlockwise we can put Summer/South on East's right and so on, in
> the anticlockwise direction.
>
> HOWEVER, one can arrive at an anticlockwise rotation of play without
> resorting to a penghe heriditary solution.
>
> (1) IF the *relative positions* of the 4 Directions are celestial in
> origin then we have the order of S being on the right of E and N being
> on the left of E and W being opposite E.
> (2) Now, which way do we go around these positions? IF the wuxing is
> applied then we have the correlation of Spring to East, Summer to
> South etc etc.
> (3) IF the beginning Season is considered to be Spring, then following
> through the order of Seasons SSAW allows us to have the Directions
> order of ESWN.
> (4) Since we already have the relative positions of the 4 Directions,
> then the progression around the table is deduced to be anticlockwise.
So we have two possible explanations sounding reasonable. And we have
no hard evidences. We still need to study hard. :)
Cheers
ithinc
Tom Sloper
> Hello Tom, do you know what's a trick-taking game? And what's the
> trick-taking game of 'kan hu'?
> That's not Culin's, but Pan Zhiheng's.
Apparently I missed the fact that there are two entirely different games,
both called by the same name. Sorry about that.
I did observe the phrase "trick-taking" being used in this discussion, but
hadn't thought much about it being inappropriate to the game I learned. I'm
most aware of the game Wilkinson described (I presume it's similar to the
one described by Culin).
Forgive me if I'm asking for something I've missed by an imprecise reading
of the posts - but is there somewhere that I can learn the details of the
trick-taking game described by Pan Zhiheng, in English?
Thanks
Tom
msta...@aol.com
Ok. Then getting any rules of this game should be a priority. Lo says
that Himly's 2 articles have detailed rules. I have both articles but
they are in dense German. I cannot read German unfortunately, so I
will try and get them translated - the sections which describe shi hu.
Lo gives the page numbers fortunately.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> > When the cards are arranged like this then the combinations of kan hu
> > described by Culin make sense.
>
> Hello,
>
> Yes, the arrangment is like:(B stands for strings, C stands for
> myriads, D stands for cashs)
> 9D 8D 7D [...] 1D Whilte Red
> 1B 2B 3B [...] 7B 8B 9B
> 1C 2C 3C [...] 8C 9C Thousand
That's right. I was worried my description might be confusing.
> > > I have heard the game reported by Chen Jitong(?) from Thierry. The
> > > game is also similar with a game called "Kai Shang" reported by Jin
> > > Shoushen in his "Bei jing tong". I take it as a variant of Penghu. The
> > > famous seven special sets existed in Hunjiang, Shihu, the existing
> > > Neimenggu Zuihu, Shanxi Menghu, and can trace back earliest to Pan
> > > Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu"(before 1644).
>
> > I am still a little confused here. Can either you or Dan tell me what
> > the 'seven special three card sets' are called? That is, what are the
> > cards names? I have my suspicion but I would like to be sure.
>
> The seven special sets are:
> [1] 9D 1B 1C,
> [2] 8D 2B 2C,
> [3] 7D 3B 3C,
> [4] White 8B 9C,
> [5] Red 9B Thousand,
> [6] Red 9B 9C,
> [7] 1D 2D 3D,
>
> Every set has its name, but the names are awkward-sounding and hard to
> understand, and have few meanings to help us understand the game. Of
> the seven special sets, [1], [2], [3], [5], [6] can be found in the
> game named "kanhu" in Pan Zhiheng's "Xu ye zi pu".
Excellent. Thanks. Interestingly, there is one combination or set in
Culin's article which appears to be a mistake. I cant remeber which
one at this time.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
wrote:
> "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> > But have
> > you forgotten the game reported by Culin? It is also called "Kan
> > hu"(Kan U, Khanhoo) and was played with 120 cards.
>
> That's surely precisely the game Michael was talking about.
> It's unfortunate that this sort of misunderstanding happens so frequently
> when talking about Chinese terms from over 100 years ago.
Not just unfortunate, but annoying. However, it keeps us 'on our toes'
so-to-speak, ie., it keeps us alert and to duble check everything -
hence my questions etc.
Cheers
msta...@aol.com
> On 7 27 , 8 04 , ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The seven special sets are:
> > [1] 9D 1B 1C,
> > [2] 8D 2B 2C,
> > [3] 7D 3B 3C,
> > [4] White 8B 9C,
> > [5] Red 9B Thousand,
> > [6] Red 9B 9C,
> > [7] 1D 2D 3D,
>
> Besides the seven special sets, there are also some normal sets.
> Horizontal sets, or "Bao", which is three identical numbers of three
> suits;
Interesting terminology ^_^. I used a slightly different wording. To
me, a 'bao' involves a *meld of *similar* pieces* - that is, they are
of the *same rank* but are *not necessarily identical* (because the
suit is different). It is precisely one of these melds - a 'bao' -
that is present in Wilkinson's 'chung fa' list of melds.
> Vertical sets, or "Shun"(Sequence), which is three continuing cards of
> the same suit;
Ok.
> Three or Four of the same kind.
I presume you mean of the same suit? If so, I would say these involve
melds of *identical pieces*, that is, they are of the *same rank* and
the *same suit*.
> In many games, the speical sets and the horizontal sets can be
> attached with any number of cards in it(meaning 777D33B3C is a legal
> set), and the vertical sets can be extended to at most 9 cards. As to
> why [7] 1D 2D 3D is taken as a special set, is that it scores one
> point, while a sequence scores nothing.
>
> The Red, White and Thousand are called "Yao" cards, or somewhere Red
> cards(against Black cards). They can be alone in the winning hand.
> Besides these three cards, some other cards are also of the kind.
> That's 1B, 1C and 1D. In some games 9B also. In some rare games 5C and
> 8C also.
Interesting. This shows that Culin's remarks are consistent with the
above. He said the ones or aces of each suit and the redflower,
whiteflower and ols thousand have extraordinary powers and may be
added to the 'eyes' (your special sets) or the 'boys' (your bao').
Some of my remarks are taken from John Berry's excellent little
analysis.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> > Hello ithinc. The problem at this point is that we do not have
> > evidence that penghe was played in an anticlockwise direction.
>
> Hello Michael,
Hello ithinc.
> I think this problem could be easily settled. You cannot find any
> games played Counterclockwise with the Chinese money-suited cards, can
> you?
Yep! Ma Diao of the late Ming.
> We still have lots of games played in the wide country with the
> money-suited cards. They mostly inherited from Penghu games. We can
> survey what's the playing rotation in those games.
Ok. However, I can accept that anticlockwise rotation was in existence
- at least for ma diao. But if I can get the rules of shi hu out of
Himly's articles then we may know more about this.
> > IF it was, then putting the 4 Directions and their corresponding 4
> > Seasons on top of that rotation of play would give you the desired
> > result.
> > Hence, IF the initial pillar position was determined by the 1st Season
> > and IF the 1st Season was Spring then the Pillar position would be
> > East.
> "East" in Chinese has another meaning, the owner/host. For example, if
> I plan to invite you to a dinner, then I am the East. This meaning has
> existed for quite a long time. It is said from Qin Dynasty. At this
> meaning, it is similar with "Zhuang"(the dealer). So East attached
> with the dealer could be easily understood.
Interesting. In Lo's account of Ma Diao the 'pillar', 'zhuang' is
*assumed* by one of the four players.
So this explanation is that a player, either assumes or through a
throw of dice or whatever, becomes the host and the meaning of a
'host' is similar to the meaning of a 'dealer'/'pillar' 'zhuang. Since
a 'host' is called 'east' then, by association, the 'zhuang' is called
'east'. Is that correct?
This seems to me to be a good explanation also.
[snip]
> So we have two possible explanations sounding reasonable. And we have
> no hard evidences. We still need to study hard. :)
Actually I count three explanations? Is that right?
You sure are right, more research is needed. I am very confident we
can find some more data to help us sort out which of these
explanations are more reasonable than others. ^_^
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
wrote:
> "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
Hello Tom. Do you have Andrew Lo's articles? There is "Pan Zhiheng's
'Xu Yezi Pu' (Sequel to a Manual of Leaves) - Part 1" in The Playing-
Card, Volume 31, Number 5. This gives a pretty detailed run-down of
the game.
Note that in his description he lists the three suits and the *cash
suit is reversed*. Also note how the three special cards of redflower,
white flower and old thousand are specifically aligned to a specific
suit (cash and myriads in this case).
Cheers
Michael
Tom Sloper
> Hello Tom. Do you have Andrew Lo's articles? There is "Pan Zhiheng's
> 'Xu Yezi Pu' (Sequel to a Manual of Leaves) - Part 1" in The Playing-
> Card, Volume 31, Number 5. This gives a pretty detailed run-down of
> the game.
No, I have the 2nd part of that article (vol 31, #6). I'll check to see if I
can order the back issue from the IPCS.
Cheers,
Tom
ithinc
Hello Michael,
Yes, Himly's article must be going to be proved the most valuable. He
had lived near the mahjong origin place. I'm expecting you'll make it
available for us soon.
Cheers,
ithinc
msta...@aol.com
wrote:
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
If not, I can send you a photocopy of each - Lo and John Berry's,
which comes straight after Lo's.
msta...@aol.com
I'll make it my top priority. ^_^
Cheers
ithinc
wrote:
> but is there somewhere that I can learn the details of the
> trick-taking game described by Pan Zhiheng, in English?
Hello Tom,
I can simply introduce it here. Kanhu is a trick-taking game, i.e a
Madiao-like game, or a Tianjiu-like game. Kanhu uses 30 cards, getting
rid of the "ten myriads" suit from Madiao pai but keeping the Thousand
Myriads only. Kanhu can be played by two or three people. If two, each
gets 13 cards and 4 cards remains secret; if three, each gets 9 cards
and 3 cards remains secret. In each round the first player can play a
single card or a combination of three cards. There are such
combinations:
"Bao"(leopard), three cards of the same rank of the three suits;
"Shun"(sequence), three consecutive cards of the same suit;
"Qian Tong", 8C 9C Thousand;
"Ban Bao"(half a leopard), Red White 1D;
"Yao Bao"(first leopard), 1D 1B Thousand;
"Bo", Red White 1C;
"Chuan Shan Jia", 7D 3B 3C;
"Qiong", 8D 2B 2C;
"Hu"(tiger), 9D 1B 1C;
"Jia", Red 9B Thousand;
"Fu", Red 9B 9C;
"Xiong", 1B 1C Thousand.
But which is bigger than another is not very clear in the book. Below
is my understanding.
By a single card, Myriads are bigger than Strings, and Strings are
bigger than Cashes, and Thousand is bigger than Myriads(but only
Myriads, i.e, Thousand cannot compare with Strings or Cashes). In each
suit, a bigger number is bigger.
By a sequence or a leopard, it is similar. Here there're some
interesting things. "Qian Tong"(8C 9C Thousand) is treated as the
biggest sequence. "Ban Bao"(Red Whilte 1D) is bigger than all the
sequences and "Qian Tong", but smaller than all the leopards. "Bo"(Red
Whilte 1C) is only bigger than "Yao Bao"(1D 1B Thousand), meaning it
cannot compare with other combinations.
As to how to compare the other special combinations, I'm not clear.
Scoring method is also mentioned in the book.
1 point: For every winning round, every card worthes 1 point. Winning
by "Qian Tong"(8C 9C Thousand), "Ban Bao"(Red White 1D), or "Bo"(Red
White 1C) gets 1 point more as reward.
2 points: Winning by 5C gets 2 points as a reward.
3 points: Winning by 8C gets 3 points as a reward. "Chuan Shan Jia"(7D
3B 3C) gets 3 points(whether winning or not).
4 points: "Qiong"(8D 2B 2C) gets 4 points.
5 points: "Hu"(9D 1B 1C) gets 5 points.
6 points: "Jia"(Red 9B Thousand) gets 6 points.
7 points: The leopard of Nine(9D 9B 9C) gets 7 points.
8 points: "Fu"(Red 9B 9C) gets 8 points.
9 points: "Xiong"(1B 1C Thousand) gets 9 points.
How to determine the winner of a game is not mentioned. I think "side
settlement" is needed.
That's all.
Cheers,
ithinc
al
> On Jul 19, 4:43 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 10:41 am, pa...@email.unc.edu wrote:
> > > I think that examining the questions concerning the 'Winds' is
> > > important. But I feel that your use of traditional Chinese 'flat,
> > > stationary earth' surrounded by four seas vs. the modern 'round,
> > > circling around the sun and revolving earth' viewpoint as a way to
> > > date the game of MJ (timeline) is flawed.
>
> > > [snip] Hong was an educated man. In 1837 he
> > > wrote "Ode on the Sword" stating "Within the four seas all are one
> > > family..."
>
> > What does that quote mean?
> > What else did he actually say in the Ode? Is it a long poem, Dan? Can
> > you copy it?
> > How did that indicate the following interpretation to you?
>
> > >which indicates to me that even as late as the 19th century,
> > > at least some educated Chinese retained the traditional Chinese view
> > > of the world. I do not know if this was due to lack of knowledge, or
> > > if it was pride in Chinese and/or anti-western sentiments.
>
> > > Dan
>
> > Cheers......AL (I see your point)
>
> Al,
>
> I did not copy the entire poem when I was researching the Taiping. I
> would need to return to the library to get the quote for you. Better
> would be if you looked it up (it is not a very long poem). It is
> presented in translation in "The Taiping Rebellion: History and
> Documents" (1966) in 3 vol., by Franz Michael. Perhaps you could
> locate an original Chinese version of the poem somewhere.
>
> This poem just indicated to me that Hong used the traditional Chinese
> view of the world being surrounded by the four seas.
>
> Dan
Hello, Dan,
I am just back from a vacation...
Just a quick question: was the poem about an event in a certain
period? Is the description "surrounded by 4 seas" itself a mistaken
situation? That would help, but I will try to look up the reference
you gave.
Cheers.......AL
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Let me restate my hypothesis on MJ (Sparrow) Directions.
>
> > The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
> > counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
> > ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
> > would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
> > the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
>
> > In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
> > the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
> > counterclockwise when he designed the game,
>
> Actually, according to a program I videotaped last night on the History
> Channel, the Chinese inventor Su Song created a "cosmic engine" in 1092 - a
> huge 12-meter-tall complicated water-powered astronomical computer (using
> the first known example of an escapement mechanism) that calculated time,
> based on an understanding of a heliocentric astronomical system. An
> observatory based on this understanding was built in Deng Feng, Henan, and
> survives to this day. Detailed blueprints of Su Song's cosmic engine survive
> as well. Some scholars regard Su Song's engine to be the greatest mechanical
> achievement of the middle ages.
>
> So perhaps geocentric models were used for poetic purposes, whereas the
> heliocentric model was actually known and documented.
>
> I think we need a different explanation for why the order of the winds is
> ESWN, counterclockwise around the table.
> Tom
Very interesting...Tom.
I was unaware of the invention you described above. I assume there is
reference documentation in the web.
Even though poetic expression is more likely associated with games and
the arts development, your point is deserving of reconsideration...
AL
al
wrote:
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >>> Hello Cofa. Ok. I see. So the Method of Play(MOP) is the only
> >>> condition that guarantees whether a game is a form of peng he pai.
> >>> Therefore, since both peng he pai and maque have the same Method of
> >>> Play = (Draw&Discard(DD)) + the same types of Melds(M), so maque is
> >>> guaranteed to be a form of peng he pai.
> I wrote:
> >> If that's the argument, then Khanhoo and Rummy are both also forms of
> >> peng
> >> he pai.
>
> "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >Khanhoo is indeed a type of penghu pai, Sise also, but Rummy seems not
> >originated in China.
>
> Meaning Rummy is not a form of peng he pai? But that means the original
> equation is insufficient.
>
> The original equation said "if [MOP of game X = MOP of peng he pai] then
> [game X = a form of peng he pai]."
> Now you're saying the equation is, instead: "if [MOP of game X = MOP of peng
> he pai] AND [game X originated in China] then [game X = a form of peng he
> pai]."
>
> I disagree with this new equation. Not that I agreed with the original
> equation in the first place, mind you.
> Tom
*****************************************
Hello...
There is something in the fundamental essential feature of MJ missing
in all the discussion on what the game is, so far. Think about this
for change: what is the theme of the MJ game?
The MOP is similar in so many games, it's not a distinguishing factor.
The symbols are called so many names by so many different people at
different places, they too are no better in deciding the name of the
game.
However, the only differentiating characteristic of MJ from all other
games is its design and hidden meaning. For example, there are words
in this game; no other games have them. That is unique.
I have an idea, but I let you gentlemen think about it before you
start shooting it down. Think theme....
Cheers...AL
ithinc
> However, the only differentiating characteristic of MJ from all other
> games is its design and hidden meaning. For example, there are words
> in this game; no other games have them. That is unique.
Hello Allan,
You seems having ignored the Hunan/Sichuan Zi pai, which is composed
of all words.
ithinc
al
Hello, Ithinc,
I didn't ignore that. I was ignorant of of it. What is it?
I knew Shi-Pai was all words on wooden blocks. MJ is the only game I
knew that has both words and symbols. And the words and symbols in
combination presents a meaningful theme (I believe). It's the theme
that makes all the difference (not the MOP nor the "base") between MJ
and other games in the world. For example, you can play bridge with
tile-blocks in the regular 4 suits; tile-blocks don't make that a MJ
game.
AL
ithinc
> On Jul 28, 2:15 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Allan,
>
> > You seems having ignored the Hunan/Sichuan Zi pai, which is composed
> > of all words.
>
> > ithinc
>
> Hello, Ithinc,
> I didn't ignore that. I was ignorant of of it. What is it?
Hello, you can refer to http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards47.htm
> I knew Shi-Pai was all words on wooden blocks.
Zipai is not Shipai. They have differences. Zipai is a Penghu-like
game, or a Mahjong-like game. I mean their gameplay is alike. Here is
the introduction of Changde Zipai rules in Chinese.
http://hnhhwjd.bokee.com/viewdiary.13772795.html
Cheers,
ithinc
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Let me restate my hypothesis on MJ (Sparrow) Directions.
>
> > The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
> > counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
> > ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
> > would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
> > the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
>
> > In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
> > the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
> > counterclockwise when he designed the game,
>
> Actually, according to a program I videotaped last night on the History
> Channel, the Chinese inventor Su Song created a "cosmic engine" in 1092 - a
> huge 12-meter-tall complicated water-powered astronomical computer (using
> the first known example of an escapement mechanism) that calculated time,
> based on an understanding of a heliocentric astronomical system. An
> observatory based on this understanding was built in Deng Feng, Henan, and
> survives to this day. Detailed blueprints of Su Song's cosmic engine survive
> as well. Some scholars regard Su Song's engine to be the greatest mechanical
> achievement of the middle ages.
>
> So perhaps geocentric models were used for poetic purposes, whereas the
> heliocentric model was actually known and documented.
>
> I think we need a different explanation for why the order of the winds is
> ESWN, counterclockwise around the table.
> Tom
Hello, Tom,
Here is another way to interpret your "invention report", perhaps.
Technical innovation news was not transmitted or disseminated quickly.
General knowledge acquired slowly in olden days among only the elite
class. Or the game was created or designed even earlier than (late
12th century) the date you mentioned. That is a possibility.
Cheers......AL
al
Hello, Dan,
I read the "land reform" of the TaiPing (period 1850's) by Franz.
It sounded like fiction to me. I didn't know Western religion was so
wide spread by then either. I supposed the worshipers were reading
translated version of the Bible. I can tell you my ancestors never
mentioned any land given to our family.
I noticed one interesting thing. There was prohibition of gambling,
drinking and other vises like opium smoking etc. I wonder what effect
that had on the game of MJ (Sparrow). Did you come across anything on
that? Anyways, I didn't find the poem you mentioned. The list of books
and articles on the subject is too long. Post it if you come across it
again.
Cheers....AL
al
> On 7 28 , 3 02 , al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 2:15 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello Allan,
>
> > > You seems having ignored the Hunan/Sichuan Zi pai, which is composed
> > > of all words.
>
> > > ithinc
>
> > Hello, Ithinc,
> > I didn't ignore that. I was ignorant of of it. What is it?
>
>
> > I knew Shi-Pai was all words on wooden blocks.
>
> Zipai is not Shipai. They have differences. Zipai is a Penghu-like
> game, or a Mahjong-like game. I mean their gameplay is alike. Here is
> the introduction of Changde Zipai rules in Chinese.http://hnhhwjd.bokee.com/viewdiary.13772795.html
>
> Cheers,
> ithinc
Do you have the time period the game was introduced? What history do
you have for this game, Ithinc?
There are no symbols, only words on the blocks, right?
AL
al
> On Jul 19, 1:20?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > The Directions in MJ play are in reversed order (i.e. ESWN
> > counterclockwise) because the game of MJ was created at a time when
> > ESWN counterclockwise was thought to be the correct order and that
> > would have been quite correct if it was the SUN that revolves around
> > the EARTH as believed in the whole world at one time.
>
> > In other words the Chinese MJ (Sparrow) game creator still believed
> > the earth was stationary and the sun was revolving around it
> > reversed order of ESWN directions in MJ play can be simply explained
> > by a geocentric system. That is ESWN CCW (counterclockwise) was the
> > proper order if the sun was revolving around the earth and the earth
> > was the center of the universe as people believed prior to the
> > seventeenth century.
>
> Hello Allan. I think you mean if the earth were stationary in space
> but was still rotating anticlockwise on its axis. Thus the sun, in an
> anticlockwise orbit would be seen by an observer on the earth as
> rising in the east and setting in the west?
>
> Is this the geocentric model you are describing?
>
> I am still perplexed by your ESWN. Do you mean that under this model
> the sun goes from east to west, or, in winter it would at least seem
> to be going ESW, which would be in a clockwise progression - not
> anticlockwise?
>
> Cheers
> Michael
Hello, Michael,
I noticed I haven't replied to you on this.
We need some one with more knowledge on the subject of astronomy to
analyze the question. Some one in the group may know of such person.
This question based on evidence that we can see and it relates to an
obvious anomaly unexplained to date.
My simple picture was just a flat earth like the inside of the round
coin which represents heaven & earth. The 4 sides of the inner square
are ESWN and are stationary (no rotation on any axis and no revolving
around anything); only the sun moves in an orbit like the circular
circumference of the coin. This way, in a counterclockwise movement,
ESWN is obvious, just as in Mahjong play.
Otherwise, if the earth was the moving square, ESWN would reverse from
Mahjong, to just as it should be and is in real life.
Here I am simply trying to create a situation based on ancient belief.
Cheers, AL
Tom Sloper
> I can simply introduce it here. [snip]
Thanks very much. Interesting. So Kanhu the trick-taking game shares many
similarities with Kanhu the rummylike/mahjonglike hand-building game. Same
name, same playing pieces, and many shared scoring elements. Just a
different method of play. Instead of taking discards to build a set, one
plays a set to take the trick. Very tasty food for thought! Thanks again.
Tom
al
>
> > I should point out first though, the argument is NOT the directions
> > themselves. Rather it is the implication and the affect on the history
> > timeline of mahjong. In other words, assuming the game designer was
> > not aware of the reality that the earth was not stationary, when was
> > that time?
>
> Allan,
>
> I think that examining the questions concerning the 'Winds' is
> important. But I feel that your use of traditional Chinese 'flat,
> stationary earth' surrounded by four seas
Hello, Dan,
I did use the "flat earth", 4-sided as in the symbol of "heaven &
earth" in the Chinese money coin. I did not use the surrounding "four
seas". I am not sure the difference if any that would make.
>vs. the modern 'round,
> circling around the sun and revolving earth' viewpoint as a way to
> date the game of MJ (timeline) is flawed.
>
"Flawed" means imperfect. How bad a flaw do you think? In MJ history,
there seems to be nothing "perfectly clear". It's "probably this or
that" most the time.
We take passages from novels and quoting words in conversational
recording by third parties. So...
Is a poem an exception case that would render the all other reasoning
useless or how should we assess the point?
I think prevailing knowledge should be at least a guide.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dan
Cheers, AL
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 21, 9:53?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > I am not quite sure about your latter part. But it is certain the
> > "Head" pais are non-suit pais. That's why I say Penghe (the game as a
> > whole) has all the characteristics of maque and modern mahjong.
>
> I do not agree with the way the last sentence is stated. It might be
> ambiguous. Penghe does not have all the characteristics of maque. For
> example, penghe does not have ESWN playing pieces for a start. Penghe
> has some of the characteristics of maque...
Mmmm. Apparently "modern mahjong" should not be included here. As with
respect to "Maque", I would choose to hold for further comment because
when Maque was created (if it was) and what are the contents at its
creation are still unknown. (Therefore, whether ESWN were in Maque at
its creation is yet to be verified.)
On the other hand, it should be safe to say that Maque, perhaps modern
mahjong included, do have all the characteristics of Penghe pai. No,
more precisely, I should say: most essential characteristics of Penghe
and of Maque are in common.
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
> On Jul 21, 11:21?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > > That is correct. But that is not my contention if you are proposing
> > > just that criteria. I propose to define the game on the basis of a
> > > game-play + playing instruments.
>
> > This is essentially in line with my suggestion; and I do add that the
> > instruments shall not be the essential elements of the definition.
>
> I think this is incorrect logically.
My understanding is sthat if the instruments are essential, then they
cannot be modified (in part or in whole). You can of course use a very
broad definition to specify what those instruments are - depending on
how broad your definitions are, there is a limit for a game to remain
the same game or to become a new one. Hence the term "essential" and
the definitions and the limits are inter-related.
In other word, my opinion is that the game-play portion of the
definition is more essential and should be strictly followed, while
the instrument portion of the definition is less essential and may be
subject to a wider range of deviation.
>
> > > I think Tom has supplied some exceptions to your rule as well -
> > > khanhoo and rummy as I recall.
> > But my suggestion that Penghe is the original form of Maque is based
> > on both the game play and instruments of Penghe Pai. I am not sure if
> > Khanhoo and Rummy could meet this requirement.
>
> Can you explain why? Just interested.
That was just my uncertainty about the statement before I get to know
more about Khanhoo and Rummy.
[snip]
> Ths all depends on what our definition is for the game maque. If we
> agree to define it by its essential features, as you propose, then we
> have something to go on - a comparison using an analogical argument
> would be possible. But we would have to compare the properties of
> indentical features of each game to make an evaluation.
Sounds reasonable! Since Penghe seems to be the earliest game found to
be the closest to Maque as we know today, the study may start with the
properties of the Penghe pai - Just my opinion.
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@aol.com
> I noticed I haven't replied to you on this.
> We need some one with more knowledge on the subject of astronomy to
> analyze the question. Some one in the group may know of such person.
Hello Allan. Well, I am perfectly capable of talking about the
subject. I studied Astronomy and Planetary Science at undergraduate
level at university as part of my BSC Honours degree. I merely state
this as evidence of my confidence in my capability, not of my absolute
authority or expertise on the subject.
[snip]
> My simple picture was just a flat earth like the inside of the round
> coin which represents heaven & earth. The 4 sides of the inner square
> are ESWN and are stationary (no rotation on any axis and no revolving
> around anything); only the sun moves in an orbit like the circular
> circumference of the coin. This way, in a counterclockwise movement,
> ESWN is obvious, just as in Mahjong play.
Thank you. You have partly answered my question. Your square has the
sides with say..
(1) East, then South on its left, North on the right and West
opposite. Is that correct?
(2) Or is it East, with South on its right, North on its left and West
opposite?
(3) Or the relative positions of the Directions do not matter?
Further, if the Earth was completely stationary with no rotation, then
would not the sun progress from East to West in a clockwise orbit, not
anticlockwise?
Note, I am only asking questions to clarify your description of a
geocentric model.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 23, 5:37 am, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 9:53?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Cofa.
[snip]
> > > I am not quite sure about your latter part. But it is certain the
> > > "Head" pais are non-suit pais. That's why I say Penghe (the game as a
> > > whole) has all the characteristics of maque and modern mahjong.
>
> > I do not agree with the way the last sentence is stated. It might be
> > ambiguous. Penghe does not have all the characteristics of maque. For
> > example, penghe does not have ESWN playing pieces for a start. Penghe
> > has some of the characteristics of maque...
>
> Mmmm. Apparently "modern mahjong" should not be included here. As with
> respect to "Maque", I would choose to hold for further comment because
> when Maque was created (if it was) and what are the contents at its
> creation are still unknown. (Therefore, whether ESWN were in Maque at
> its creation is yet to be verified.)
Er, you said Penghe has **all** the characteristics of maque (leaving
out your modern mahjong, at your suggestion). Also, you did not say
anywhere you were talking about maque when it "was created".
Therefore, can you tell me the period of time you are talking about
when you talk about maque? That way I can be sure we are talking about
the same thing.
I have argued that one of the earliest dated precursor maque tile sets
has a quadruplicated group of ESWN. I have also argued that these were
sometimes expressed with alternative symbols. Bearing that in mind, I
have argued that this group has been present back through time to the
earliest tile sets we know of. Therefore, as I have argued, this group
is an essential constituent of the maque tile set and gameplay.
But the main point is that I can say with confidence, this group is
overwhelmingly represented in maque and is a characteristic of maque.
Since your Penghe does not have this characteristic of maque, it
therefore does not have **all** the characteristics of maque.
Ok, you can say that we do not know what maque looked like at its
inception, therefore we cannot say whether ESWN was in maque at its
inception. But on this reasoning **we do not know what maque looked
like at all, at its inception**. Therefore ***we cannot make any
meaningful comparison between Penghe characteristics and the
characteristics of maque at its inception***.
We can only make meaningful statements about comparisons with respect
to the knowledge we have about the games in question. Hence, between
penghe and maque from the earliest dated materials to the present day.
> On the other hand, it should be safe to say that Maque, perhaps modern
> mahjong included, do have all the characteristics of Penghe pai. No,
> more precisely, I should say: most essential characteristics of Penghe
> and of Maque are in common.
You had better be more specific than that Cofa. I have no idea what
are the "most essential charactistics of Penghe and of Maque are in
common".
Can you list them please?
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 23, 5:55 am, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:21?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > That is correct. But that is not my contention if you are proposing
> > > > just that criteria. I propose to define the game on the basis of a
> > > > game-play + playing instruments.
>
> > > This is essentially in line with my suggestion; and I do add that the
> > > instruments shall not be the essential elements of the definition.
>
> > I think this is incorrect logically.
>
> cannot be modified (in part or in whole). You can of course use a very
> broad definition to specify what those instruments are - depending on
> how broad your definitions are, there is a limit for a game to remain
> the same game or to become a new one. Hence the term "essential" and
> the definitions and the limits are inter-related.
You may have misunderstood me. My mistake perhaps. When I wrote "I
propose to define the game on the basis of a game-play + playing
instruments" I was describing this equation as the *basis* for a
definition. Perhaps 'template' is a better term. Once this is agreed,
then we plug in what we consider are the specific details of the game-
play and playing instruments.
I would like to know what you mean by "Modified (in part or in
whole)".
I included the 'playing instruments' because of my argument from My
post of July 18th @ 5.31. I quote it below...
"[snip] the core of your claim is that maque is a form of peng he
pai?
According to this reasoning it seems that when the Peng He Pai MOP is
present *any* game is guaranteed to be a form of Peng He Pai. Am I
interpreting you correctly?
But I maintain that there is another necessary condition to this and
that is the presence of three types of quadruplicated suits derived
from money. In other words when the three money suits are absent,
Peng
He Pai cannot occur. Now I am talking about when Peng He Pai was
being
played. I have not seen or heard of any documentation or evidence to
the contrary - that the Peng He Pai MOP was used with any other type
of playing instruments. Is there any evidence you know about Cofa?
It seems to me that the Peng He Pai Method of Play(MOP) is directly
and unconditionally linked to three, quadruplicated, money suits
(apart from the extra cards). If this is the case then, as I
maintain,
their absence prevents Peng He Pai from being played. The presence of
the 3 suits does not guarantee the presence of Peng He Pai, however,
as other games were played with these cards (such as shi hu (ten
points or ten pots) and suo hu (shuttle/strings harmony).
I am not sure if this also applies to the MOP of Peng He Pai however.
Were their other games played at the same time that also utilised the
Peng He Pai Method of Play? I am going to look into shi hu about
this.
The sum of this discussion is that, in my view, both the Peng He Pai
MOP + the 3 Quadruplicated Suits (3QS) need to be present for Peng He
Pai to occur. Hence, this is also the case for Maque."
Sorry for the long quote, but I felt it was the best way to explain
why I consider the 'Playing instruments' must be part of any
description of 'essential' elements or characteristics.
> In other word, my opinion is that the game-play portion of the
> definition is more essential and should be strictly followed, while
> the instrument portion of the definition is less essential and may be
> subject to a wider range of deviation.
I disagree. As I have argued, the 3 quadruplicated money suits are
essential characteristics of Penghe/Penghu and therefore of maque.
I would be interested in your counterarguments to my points in my
argument quoted above.
[snip]
> > This all depends on what our definition is for the game maque. If we
> > agree to define it by its essential features, as you propose, then we
> > have something to go on - a comparison using an analogical argument
> > would be possible. But we would have to compare the properties of
> > indentical features of each game to make an evaluation.
>
> Sounds reasonable! Since Penghe seems to be the earliest game found to
> be the closest to Maque as we know today, the study may start with the
> properties of the Penghe pai - Just my opinion.
It is worth a try.
Cheers
Michael
al
> On Jul 29, 8:38?pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 5:55 am, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 21, 11:21?am, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> [snip]
> I disagree. As I have argued, the 3 quadruplicated money suits are
> essential characteristics of Penghe/Penghu and therefore of maque.
>
> I would be interested in your counterarguments to my points in my
> argument quoted above.
******************************
Hello, Michael & Cofa,
In terms of unique features, the "worded" suit stands out more than
all other suits of whatever base. Without the "worded" suit, a game is
"no-mahjong".
I will have more to say about the composition of the whole game and
its meaning. The meaning implied by the words is what made this MJ
game so very special...
***************************
> [snip]
>
> > > This all depends on what our definition is for the game maque. If we
> > > agree to define it by its essential features, as you propose, then we
> > > have something to go on - a comparison using an analogical argument
> > > would be possible. But we would have to compare the properties of
> > > indentical features of each game to make an evaluation.
>
*********************
Again, in my view, the most essential feature is a "woerded" suit.
************************
> > Sounds reasonable! Since Penghe seems to be the earliest game found to
> > be the closest to Maque as we know today, the study may start with the
> > properties of the Penghe pai - Just my opinion.
>
> It is worth a try.
>
> Cheers
> Michael
***************************
Let me reiterate: the "worded" suit is most essential to the game of
MJ. That is the unique identifier for the game, regardless when and
what the first words were used and why or who made changes to them. I
will explain later.
***************** Cheers,AL
al
> This is a "winds order" discussion apart from the topic "Why a sparrow?"
>
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1183414640....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 11:19 am, "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 1, 9:35?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >> I have not tested your circle experiment yet. But you figured that was
> >> >> how the Chinese decided south is to the right of east, right? Anybody
> >> >> else tested it?
>
> >> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >> > I didn't 'figure it'. ^_^ It is an explanation, that's all.
> >> > Check out this site
> >> >http://analyzer.depaul.edu/paperplate/Directions-Terrestrial%20and%20...
>
> >> I tend to think the wind ordering was more accidental than that.
> > Hello, Tom, what make you think that was accident?
> >>The winds
> >> are ordered E, S, W, N because that's the order of the seasons. In the
> >> spring the wind comes from the east, in the summer it comes from the
> >> south... or so they say.
> > Was this Chinese "saying" or Westerners'? It would be interesting to
> > know when, if the Chinese had said that ; and/or if Westerners had
> > given an interpretation.
> >> Then, once the order is in place, couple that with the fact that the
> >> order > of play goes counterclockwise around the table.
> > Tom, my question to that is "since when?" And my point is that such
> > pattern of rotation could have been that way, before if not long
> > before, Galileo and Copericus who proved the Earth rotate around the
> > sun. The MJ rotation plan was based on the sun going around the earth.
>
> >> It's just an accident that looking down on the table does not acorrespond
> >> to
> >> looking down on a map. If the game's designer had considered that factor,
> >> the order of play being changed to clockwise would have fixed it. But
> >> then
> > The knowledge on the solar system was not available then. That says
> > the approx. age of MJ. That is my evidence.
> >> it's expected to "feed" someone with the right hand...
> >> Of course, staying with counterclockwise play order, to make the table
> >> work
> >> as a map, the winds order would have to be E, N, W, S instead.
> >> So even if the game's designer considered the "table as map" factor, this
> >> aspect of the game might not have been changed.
> > Established pattern and habit are hard to change, granted that...but
> > when the pattern and habit were practised that is the question.
> >> Cheers
> >> Tom
> > I don't think that was accidental result. It's solid reason I see it.
>
> > Cheers.....AL
>
> END-QUOTE
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I believe treating East, South, West, North and its anti-compass
> (anti-clockwise) rotating direction as an original feature of the game
> mahjong (maque) could be the source of the problems.
>
> My opinion is that the game mahjong (maque, majiang, etc.) in its original
> form could be the same as Mo He Pai (ĬºÍÅÆ or "Mo Hu Pai"), based on its
> game play - seehttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205a.html
>
> Note the definition of mahjong among some non-Chinese speaking regulars of
> the MJ newsgroup could be different - They insist mahjong was formed only
> when its playing pieces reached the form of "solid blocks"; games in the
> form of "paper cards" were not yet mahjong.
>
********************
Only when the full complement of suits consists at least one "worded"
suit like ESWN, (besides the wan which stands for things).
**************************************
> On the other hand, if you accept the concept that Mo He Pai was the original
> form of mahjong, their playing sequence is anticlockwise, AND that East
> South West North were added to the game at a much later time, then it would
> be easy to understand why ESWN in mahjong are counted different than the
> compass direction. ESWN in mahjong don't have their meaning of direction;
> they simply are the positions in the game rotation (try substituting ESWN
> with 1234 and you'll understand).
>
*************************************
I can not accept that, Cofa. The "directions and seasons form part of
the the MJ THEME. Without these "worded" pieces, the game would not be
MJ, in my view.
***********************************
> [snip]
> With this explanation, problems about rotation related to other (perhaps all
> other) sets of pais having directional or sequential nature that are later
> added to the game, would not be problems any more, or could be treated as
> problems (if still) apart from the original design of the game.
>
************************
To my understanding, the original design includes the "directions"
that form a part of the THEME. And furthermore, the THEME (not MOP) is
what distinguishes MJ from all other games.
******************************
> However, I have to admit that I am yet to find the evidence that Mo He Pai
> is in fact played in the anticlockwise direction. Any help with this please?
>
**************************
I noticed ithinc seems to have an unfathomable source of old games and
rules. He might be able to come up with something. On the other hand,
have you or any one heard of any old game played in clockwise
rotation? Or was MJ ever played in clockwise rotation?
*******************************
> Cheers!>
> --
> Cofa Tsui
> International Mahjong[r] Infowebwww.iMahjong.com
*****************************************
Cheers..........AL
*********************
al
Hello, Michael,
Now you are asking the hard questions which we should be examining. As
I said, I was looking at the universe from the ancient Chinese point
of view. My question was basically this: "why did the "directions" get
mixed up in MJ game-play?"
I believed the confusion comes from the misconception of the
geocentric system of the day (old day, that is). Now that I know you
have the knowledge to analyze the situation. You might come up with an
answer to the puzzling question
Cheers, AL.
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> > > My simple picture was just a flat earth like the inside of the round
> > > coin which represents heaven & earth. The 4 sides of the inner square
> > > are ESWN and are stationary (no rotation on any axis and no revolving
> > > around anything); only the sun moves in an orbit like the circular
> > > circumference of the coin. This way, in a counterclockwise movement,
> > > ESWN is obvious, just as in Mahjong play.
>
> > Thank you. You have partly answered my question. Your square has the
> > sides with say..
>
> > (1) East, then South on its left, North on the right and West
> > opposite. Is that correct?
>
> > (2) Or is it East, with South on its right, North on its left and West
> > opposite?
>
> > (3) Or the relative positions of the Directions do not matter?
>
> > Further, if the Earth was completely stationary with no rotation, then
> > would not the sun progress from East to West in a clockwise orbit, not
> > anticlockwise?
>
> > Note, I am only asking questions to clarify your description of a
> > geocentric model.
> Hello, Michael,
> Now you are asking the hard questions which we should be examining. As
> I said, I was looking at the universe from the ancient Chinese point
> of view. My question was basically this: "why did the "directions" get
> mixed up in MJ game-play?"
> I believed the confusion comes from the misconception of the
> geocentric system of the day (old day, that is). Now that I know you
> have the knowledge to analyze the situation. You might come up with an
> answer to the puzzling question
Hello Allan. In your original post, which I have put at the beginning
of this post, you described to me your idea for the ESWN anticlockwise
rotation. I was confused so I have asked some questions that should
help me understand what you are proposing.
Could you answer each of my 4 questions above?
Cheers
Michael
al
Hello, Michael,
Assuming it was believed that the sun revolves around a flat earth, I
can visualize it rises from the east and goes above the earth and sets
in the west, then goes under the earth at night before returning for
another day. South is to the right of an observer looking east at a
rising sun but to the left of an observer looking west at a setting
sun. Thus south and north are relative to the observer's position and
viewing direction. Therefore Mah-Jong can be played with either
rotational pattern.
However, counterclockwise suits right-handed players better and it's
the conventional mode. That is my explanation for the apparent
contradiction.
My key point is of course the idea that timing of MJ game design could
have been influenced by the geocentric theory prevalent until the 17th
century. If it was possibly so, then Mah-Jong could be older than the
earliest set found (late 19th century).
Cheers,..............AL
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> > > > > My simple picture was just a flat earth like the inside of the round
> > > > > coin which represents heaven & earth. The 4 sides of the inner square
> > > > > are ESWN and are stationary (no rotation on any axis and no revolving
> > > > > around anything); only the sun moves in an orbit like the circular
> > > > > circumference of the coin. This way, in a counterclockwise movement,
> > > > > ESWN is obvious, just as in Mahjong play.
>
> > > > Thank you. You have partly answered my question. Your square has the
> > > > sides with say..
> > > > (1) East, then South on its left, North on the right and West
> > > > opposite. Is that correct?
> > > > (2) Or is it East, with South on its right, North on its left and West
> > > > opposite?
> > > > (3) Or the relative positions of the Directions do not matter?
> > > > would not the sun progress from East to West in a clockwise orbit, not
> > > > anticlockwise?
> > > > Note, I am only asking questions to clarify your description of a
> > > > geocentric model.
> > Could you answer each of my 4 questions above?
> Hello, Michael,
> Assuming it was believed that the sun revolves around a flat earth, I
> can visualize it rises from the east and goes above the earth and sets
> in the west, then goes under the earth at night before returning for
> another day. South is to the right of an observer looking east at a
> rising sun but to the left of an observer looking west at a setting
> sun. Thus south and north are relative to the observer's position and
> viewing direction. Therefore Mah-Jong can be played with either
> rotational pattern.
> However, counterclockwise suits right-handed players better and it's
> the conventional mode. That is my explanation for the apparent
> contradiction.
> My key point is of course the idea that timing of MJ game design could
> have been influenced by the geocentric theory prevalent until the 17th
> century. If it was possibly so, then Mah-Jong could be older than the
> earliest set found (late 19th century).
No, no, Allan. Sorry, that is not what I was asking about.
You said; "My simple picture was just a flat earth like the inside of
the round coin which represents heaven & earth. The 4 sides of the
inner square are ESWN and are stationary (no rotation on any axis and
no revolving around anything); only the sun moves in an orbit like the
circular circumference of the coin. This way, in a counterclockwise
movement, ESWN is obvious, just as in Mahjong play."
I asked **4** questions about what you said. Your explanation said
"counterclockwise movement" and "ESWN is obvious".
I would be very grateful if you could answer my **4** questions?
Can you list your answers underneath each of my 4 questions? Thanks.
That's all I want.
Cheers
Michael
al
Not according to the counterclockwise rotation of play-pattern for the
game; that would be opposite to ESWN
> (2) Or is it East, with South on its right, North on its left and West
> opposite?
>
This is the case according to the MJ game play rotation which is ESWN
counterclockwise (contrary to reality).
> (3) Or the relative positions of the Directions do not matter?
>
The game can be played either way. Rotation pattern does not affect
the game. I mean the change does not give any individual players
unfair advantage, as far as I know.
> Further, if the Earth was completely stationary with no rotation, then
> would not the sun progress from East to West in a clockwise orbit, not
> anticlockwise?
>
That depends on the tilt of the assumed orbital path.
> Note, I am only asking questions to clarify your description of a
> geocentric model.
>
> Cheers
> Michael
I hope I have answered your questions. I admit I know only very little
about astronomy. My interest is in getting an answer to my question
"why the MJ directions are contrary to reality?"
Cheers........AL
al
Hello, Michael,
Let me put it this way. I had envisioned the sun moving on an orbital
path more-or-less off-set from horizontal and tilting off
perpendicular towards the right of me, an observer, looking west in
the morning as it rises in the east behind me and travels
counterclockwise on a right-tilted orbit and disappears in the west
at dusk. South would be (mistaken) at the right of me, east, in ESWN
sequence.
The sun's orbit had to be tilted away from a level horizontal position
for it to disappear and re-appear each day if the earth was flat and
stationary. The sun's orbit can tilt because heaven was not flat as
earth. Bear in mind we are projecting backward in time...
My point of argument is that this would not occur if the rotational
directions had been based on knowledge of heliocentric theory. Now if
you can show me otherwise, I am receptive to your explanation.
Cheers.....AL
msta...@aol.com
Hello Allan. Well, that sort of clarifies things :7
It has been pointed out to me that this correspondence is perhaps very
two sided. I have not been unaware of this, but have given your ideas
what I considered a fair go.
Stick with them and see if you can come up with any data to
substantiate all the points you described. I wish you luck!
Cheers
Michael
ithinc
> On Jul 27, 2:13?am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Besides the seven special sets, there are also some normal sets.
> > Horizontal sets, or "Bao", which is three identical numbers of three
> > suits;
>
> Interesting terminology ^_^. I used a slightly different wording. To
> me, a 'bao' involves a *meld of *similar* pieces* - that is, they are
> of the *same rank* but are *not necessarily identical* (because the
> suit is different).
Hello Michael,
The term is not my invention. ^_^ Jin Shoushen has said in his "Bei
jing tong" when talking about a game, that "Vertical sets are allowed
but Horizontal ones not(this is also like in Mahjong), but the Special
sets are also allowed". In Meimenggu Zuihu, the name "Horizontal
sets"( ) is also used.
> It is precisely one of these melds - a 'bao' -
> that is present in Wilkinson's 'chung fa' list of melds.
Hmm, yes, but not so precisely. Wilkinson said "any 3 aces, or any 3
nines (not all of the same suit)". He seems not to say "of three
different suits".
[snip]
> > The Red, White and Thousand are called "Yao" cards, or somewhere Red
> > cards(against Black cards). They can be alone in the winning hand.
> > Besides these three cards, some other cards are also of the kind.
> > That's 1B, 1C and 1D. In some games 9B also. In some rare games 5C and
> > 8C also.
>
> Interesting. This shows that Culin's remarks are consistent with the
> above. He said the ones or aces of each suit and the redflower,
> whiteflower and ols thousand have extraordinary powers and may be
> added to the 'eyes' (your special sets) or the 'boys' (your bao').
Yes, so I think Culin's Kanhu might be the same game as Shihu but only
had a different name. They existed in the near period in different
areas. At least they are variations.
Cheers
ithinc