Bamboo 筒 is called copper coin. Why?
al
therefore mahjong were wrong?
I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
bamboo radical, 筒.
筒 sounds like tong and it means ‘tube’ or pipe, 管.
筒 is a section of bamboo trunk. Yes. A section of bamboo trunk is
called tong.
Tong is also called a round coin with a square hole. How did that come
about if that was not a mistake?
Think about it. A length of stick or rod that looks like a section of
bamboo and sometimes referred to as “bam” is historically the 索, Suo3,
which is known as “string of Cash”.
Where is the logic? A length of Bam is called a ‘string of Cash’,
while a symbol with a bamboo radical like this, 筒, is called by a name
that has a metal radical signifying it as being made of copper, 铜钱. I
cannot recognize it if that is supposed to be Oriental logic.
Let me reiterate. Bamboo 筒 is called copper coin. Why?
Julian Bradfield
> Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
> therefore mahjong were wrong?
What do you mean by "wrong"?
> I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
> different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
> bamboo radical, 筒.
It is in mah-jong.
> 筒 is a section of bamboo trunk. Yes. A section of bamboo trunk is
> called tong.
> Tong is also called a round coin with a square hole. How did that come
> about if that was not a mistake?
Who calls it a round coin with a square hole? I don't think any
mah-jong player calls the circles suits "coins", do they?
> while a symbol with a bamboo radical like this, 筒, is called by a name
> that has a metal radical signifying it as being made of copper, 铜钱. I
> cannot recognize it if that is supposed to be Oriental logic.
> Let me reiterate. Bamboo 筒 is called copper coin. Why?
Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
What do you find wrong with the obvious explanation: when the cards
were cash-based, tong2 铜 was a reasonable nickname for the single cash
cards. By the time mah-jong came around, the original cash basis was
no longer relevant, and as the strings morphed into bamboos, it
became natural to reinterpret "tong2" as something to do with bamboo
also, namely 筒.
al
> On 2009-06-30, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
> > therefore mahjong were wrong?
>
> What do you mean by "wrong"?
>
according to the different meaning in the Chinese words 铜钱 and 筒.
I further speculate the bamboo tube (suit) should have been 筒 and not
Suo3.
Then I am, in effect, saying that Suo3 is a wrong name for the 'bam'
suit.
++++++++++++
> > I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
> > different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
> > bamboo radical, 筒.
>
> It is in mah-jong.
>
Then it might be also wrong particularly in mah-jong. There is
uncertainty as to the source of mahjong and how or why those names
were given for the suit-symbols.
> > 筒 is a section of bamboo trunk. Yes. A section of bamboo trunk is
> > called tong.
> > Tong is also called a round coin with a square hole. How did that come
> > about if that was not a mistake?
>
> Who calls it a round coin with a square hole? I don't think any
> mah-jong player calls the circles suits "coins", do they?
>
"Cash" is a term based on a round coin with[out] a square hole.
Mahjong players in China don't call it that. They call the circle suit
筒, whereas 筒 is a bamboo section. That is why I suspect a mistake made
a long time ago by the Chinese in China.
If a new player was introduced to the game and 筒 was explained to him
that its literal meaning is a length or tube of bamboo trunk, what
symbol-suit do you think he would likely try for a match, Circle, Bam
or Wan?
My point is that for a match with 筒, Bam is a logical choice. But in
the mahjong game the world over, Circle goes with 筒. That I think is a
mistake from antiquity, because the earliest documentation does not
show differently.
> > while a symbol with a bamboo radical like this, 筒, is called by a name
> > that has a metal radical signifying it as being made of copper, 铜钱. I
> > cannot recognize it if that is supposed to be Oriental logic.
> > Let me reiterate. Bamboo 筒 is called copper coin. Why?
>
> Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
>
Whoever calls 'Suo3' as 'string of cash'. Copper (Tong) was the basis
for Himly's definition of Cash.
'String of Cash' is based on the assumption of existence of single
copper coins which when strung together become a 'hanging'. A 'hang'
of copper coins through square holes is called in MDH a 'string of
cash'.
> What do you find wrong with the obvious explanation: when the cards
> were cash-based, tong2 铜 was a reasonable nickname for the single cash
> cards. By the time mah-jong came around, the original cash basis was
> no longer relevant, and as the strings morphed into bamboos, it
> became natural to reinterpret "tong2" as something to do with bamboo
> also, namely 筒.
How sure are you in this line of reasoning?
Give it to me in steps.
You are going by mah-jong is from ma diao, right?
Why should 'string' morph into bamboo?
Basically I see mahjong as a separate and different design with its
unique features. The morphing of 'string' into 'bamboo' is
unacceptable.
+++++++++++
Cheers.....
Julian Bradfield
>> On 2009-06-30, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
>> > therefore mahjong were wrong?
>> What do you mean by "wrong"?
> By "wrong" I mean 筒 should not be 铜钱, and "Suo3" should not be "bam".
> according to the different meaning in the Chinese words 铜钱 and 筒.
That's not an explanation - you're just replacing "wrong" by "should
not be". I want to know what independent criterion of correctness
you're applying. Why "according to the different meaning"?
> I further speculate the bamboo tube (suit) should have been 筒 and not
> Suo3.
>
> Then I am, in effect, saying that Suo3 is a wrong name for the 'bam'
> suit.
Which is rubbish, because as you point out, Suo3 *is* the name for the
'bam' suit, all over China. For this statement to make sense, you need
to tell me what "should have been" means. "Should" requires some
outside standard of correctness or good behaviour - what is that
standard?
> If a new player was introduced to the game and 筒 was explained to him
> that its literal meaning is a length or tube of bamboo trunk, what
> symbol-suit do you think he would likely try for a match, Circle, Bam
> or Wan?
>
> My point is that for a match with 筒, Bam is a logical choice. But in
> the mahjong game the world over, Circle goes with 筒. That I think is a
> mistake from antiquity, because the earliest documentation does not
> show differently.
Ah, I see your point. Yes, I quite agree that if the meaning of 筒 is
tube of bamboo, then on many (but certainly not all) mah-jong sets,
the bam suit would be the first one you'd choose.
Note, however that it depends on the design. Sets (as were common in
the 20s) with straight bamboos look very tube-like; the most popular
design now harks back to the coin-strings - if they're bamboo sticks,
the segment-joining circles are very exaggerated compared to real
bamboo.
However, I think the explanation I proposed accounts for it, by simple
re-interpretation of the sound tong2.
>> Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
>>
> Whoever calls 'Suo3' as 'string of cash'. Copper (Tong) was the basis
> for Himly's definition of Cash.
Nobody calls the mah-jong suo3 'string of cash'. You are yet again
failing to distinguish between mah-jong, and the pre-history of
mah-jong. Likewise, nobody calls the mah-jong circle suit tong2.
I proposed that in earlier time, tong2 铜 might have been a name for
the ma-diao single cash suit, which, according to the MDH, is the
ancestor of the mah-jong circle suit.
>> What do you find wrong with the obvious explanation: when the cards
>> were cash-based, tong2 铜 was a reasonable nickname for the single cash
>> cards. By the time mah-jong came around, the original cash basis was
>> no longer relevant, and as the strings morphed into bamboos, it
>> became natural to reinterpret "tong2" as something to do with bamboo
>> also, namely 筒.
>
> How sure are you in this line of reasoning?
> Give it to me in steps.
> You are going by mah-jong is from ma diao, right?
By mah-jong *cards* are from ma-diao *cards*.
> Why should 'string' morph into bamboo?
By random reinterpretation of the pictures. A stylized string of cash
small enough to fit on a tile doesn't look much like a string of cash,
so could be easily reinterpreted (or misinterpreted in your vocabulary).
> Basically I see mahjong as a separate and different design with its
> unique features. The morphing of 'string' into 'bamboo' is
> unacceptable.
That's not an argument. "I want mah-jong to be separate, therefore
any evidence that is isn't, is unacceptable."
Now if you want to argue that my proposed reinterpretation is
implausible, that's fine - but then we just have a balance of
probabilities disagreement.
al
> On 2009-06-30, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 4:54 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> On 2009-06-30, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
> >> > therefore mahjong were wrong?
> >> What do you mean by "wrong"?
> > By "wrong" I mean 筒 should not be 铜钱, and "Suo3" should not be "bam".
> > according to the different meaning in the Chinese words 铜钱 and 筒.
>
> That's not an explanation - you're just replacing "wrong" by "should
> not be". I want to know what independent criterion of correctness
> you're applying. Why "according to the different meaning"?
>
The independent criterion for correctness is the dictionary.
筒 is by definition in Kangxi a section of bamboo.
Yet the same symbol 筒 is Cash in Western mahjong.
Without further explanation. 筒 is not Cash. Therefore that is wrong.
++++++++++++++++
> > I further speculate the bamboo tube (suit) should have been 筒 and not
> > Suo3.
>
> > Then I am, in effect, saying that Suo3 is a wrong name for the 'bam'
> > suit.
A bamboo section is 筒 by definition. Check it out.
Therefore. Bam in mahjong looks more like bamboo and it is for that
reason the elongated sections are nicknamed Bam for bamboo.
In view of this, I speculate mistakes were made long ago, even before
Ma Diao, that the 'Bam' sections were 筒 but called by the wrong name.
I am saying Bam is not Suo3. Somebody goofed.
++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Which is rubbish, because as you point out, Suo3 *is* the name for the
> 'bam' suit, all over China. For this statement to make sense, you need
> to tell me what "should have been" means. "Should" requires some
> outside standard of correctness or good behaviour - what is that
> standard?
>
I have just explained above. Did I not already said that the Chinese
made that mistake a long while back? Again the standard auuthority is
the dictionary.
筒 is not tong2 铜. Neither is Suo3 a 'string of cash'.
> > If a new player was introduced to the game and 筒 was explained to him
> > that its literal meaning is a length or tube of bamboo trunk, what
> > symbol-suit do you think he would likely try for a match, Circle, Bam
> > or Wan?
>
I would bet it would not be the Circle.
> > My point is that for a match with 筒, Bam is a logical choice. But in
> > the mahjong game the world over, Circle goes with 筒. That I think is a
> > mistake from antiquity, because the earliest documentation does not
> > show differently.
>
tong2 铜 and 筒 for the Circle symbol has been a mistake for ages.
> Ah, I see your point. Yes, I quite agree that if the meaning of 筒 is
> tube of bamboo, then on many (but certainly not all) mah-jong sets,
> the bam suit would be the first one you'd choose.
I am glad you see that now. 筒 is a word related to bamboo by virtue of
its etymological composition.
> Note, however that it depends on the design. Sets (as were common in
> the 20s) with straight bamboos look very tube-like; the most popular
> design now harks back to the coin-strings - if they're bamboo sticks,
> the segment-joining circles are very exaggerated compared to real
> bamboo.
You cannot trust the engravers to be the authority on the subject.
Rely on the word, 筒, and what is depicted in the dictionary. Look at
the variety of drawings and carvings in the different countries as
illustrated in the MJ Book. Artists can add to the mistakes or create
their own.
> However, I think the explanation I proposed accounts for it, by simple
> re-interpretation of the sound tong2.
>
This is unclear to me. What are you saying? Accounts for what?
> >> Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
>
Tong2 means copper; copper implies copper coin or Himly calls 'Cash'.
That is how I read. As I said,
> > Whoever calls 'Suo3' as 'string of cash'. Copper (Tong) was the basis
> > for Himly's definition of Cash.
>
> Nobody calls the mah-jong suo3 'string of cash'. You are yet again
> failing to distinguish between mah-jong, and the pre-history of
> mah-jong. Likewise, nobody calls the mah-jong circle suit tong2.
> I proposed that in earlier time, tong2 铜 might have been a name for
> the ma-diao single cash suit, which, according to the MDH, is the
> ancestor of the mah-jong circle suit.
>
MDH is still alive. Those terms are relevant and held by MDH
proponents now.
However, this post is more than that.
Here I am saying 筒 is not Circle! 筒 is a length. This is fundamental
dispute.
> >> What do you find wrong with the obvious explanation: when the cards
> >> were cash-based, tong2 铜 was a reasonable nickname for the single cash
> >> cards. By the time mah-jong came around, the original cash basis was
> >> no longer relevant, and as the strings morphed into bamboos, it
> >> became natural to reinterpret "tong2" as something to do with bamboo
> >> also, namely 筒.
>
This sounds like you are saying the mistake, assuming it was, just
carried forward.
> > How sure are you in this line of reasoning?
> > Give it to me in steps.
> > You are going by mah-jong is from ma diao, right?
>
> By mah-jong *cards* are from ma-diao *cards*.
>
There I disagree. And where is the evidence in your claim?
> > Why should 'string' morph into bamboo?
>
> By random reinterpretation of the pictures. A stylized string of cash
> small enough to fit on a tile doesn't look much like a string of cash,
> so could be easily reinterpreted (or misinterpreted in your vocabulary).
>
The word 'random' seems fitting rather. There is no rhyme nor reason.
> > Basically I see mahjong as a separate and different design with its
> > unique features. The morphing of 'string' into 'bamboo' is
> > unacceptable.
>
> That's not an argument. "I want mah-jong to be separate, therefore
> any evidence that is isn't, is unacceptable."
> Now if you want to argue that my proposed reinterpretation is
> implausible, that's fine - but then we just have a balance of
> probabilities disagreement.
It is not how or what I want mahlong to be different. I assumed you
see and already know that mahjong is vastly different from Ma Diao.
Compare the illustrations in the MJ Book. They are different breeds.
+++++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> The independent criterion for correctness is the dictionary.
> 筒 is by definition in Kangxi a section of bamboo.
So that's what the Kangzi Zidian says it is - fine. But the Kangxi
Zidian was compiled a hundred years before the birth of mah-jong, and
doesn't in any case cover vernacular language.
I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
> Yet the same symbol 筒 is Cash in Western mahjong.
No, it isn't. Only you keep saying this. Nobody else does.
> In view of this, I speculate mistakes were made long ago, even before
> Ma Diao, that the 'Bam' sections were 筒 but called by the wrong name.
>
> I am saying Bam is not Suo3. Somebody goofed.
Somebody goofed, and not only did somebody goof, they managed to
persuade all the other madiao players in China that they were right?
> I have just explained above. Did I not already said that the Chinese
> made that mistake a long while back? Again the standard auuthority is
> the dictionary.
You're quoting a dictionary which is 300 years old, 150 years before
mah-jong was invented.
>> Ah, I see your point. Yes, I quite agree that if the meaning of 筒 is
>> tube of bamboo, then on many (but certainly not all) mah-jong sets,
>> the bam suit would be the first one you'd choose.
>
> I am glad you see that now. 筒 is a word related to bamboo by virtue of
> its etymological composition.
>
>> Note, however that it depends on the design. Sets (as were common in
>> the 20s) with straight bamboos look very tube-like; the most popular
>> design now harks back to the coin-strings - if they're bamboo sticks,
>> the segment-joining circles are very exaggerated compared to real
>> bamboo.
>
> You cannot trust the engravers to be the authority on the subject.
> Rely on the word, 筒, and what is depicted in the dictionary. Look at
Why on earth should I trust a 300-year old dictionary over the people
who actually make and play the game, who are by definition those who
best know it?
>> However, I think the explanation I proposed accounts for it, by simple
>> re-interpretation of the sound tong2.
>>
> This is unclear to me. What are you saying? Accounts for what?
The explanation I propose accounts for the fact that the circle suit
is called 茼, even though this looks inappropriate.
>> >> Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
>>
> Tong2 means copper; copper implies copper coin or Himly calls 'Cash'.
> That is how I read. As I said,
If Himly (whom I haven't read carefully) records 銅 as the name of the
circles, that just bears out my proposed explanation.
>> > You are going by mah-jong is from ma diao, right?
>>
>> By mah-jong *cards* are from ma-diao *cards*.
>>
> There I disagree. And where is the evidence in your claim?
All the evidence that has been discussed at length in this newsgroup.
Go back and read it, if you can't remember it.
>> > Why should 'string' morph into bamboo?
>>
>> By random reinterpretation of the pictures. A stylized string of cash
>> small enough to fit on a tile doesn't look much like a string of cash,
>> so could be easily reinterpreted (or misinterpreted in your vocabulary).
>>
> The word 'random' seems fitting rather. There is no rhyme nor reason.
In real life, rather than your fantasy world, we don't always get
rhyme or reason. (Why do think people have religion?)
> It is not how or what I want mahlong to be different. I assumed you
> see and already know that mahjong is vastly different from Ma Diao.
> Compare the illustrations in the MJ Book. They are different breeds.
So are Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But they're still very closely
related.
al
> On 2009-07-01, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [..]
Just a quick note for now...
I said:
> > It is not how or what I want mahlong to be different. I assumed you
> > see and already know that mahjong is vastly different from Ma Diao.
> > Compare the illustrations in the MJ Book. They are different breeds.
>
> So are Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But they're still very closely
> related.
++++++++++++
I did not know Great Dane is ancestor of Chihuahua or is it the
reverse?
You are saying that the two breeds are closely related as mahjong and
ma diao?
+++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
>> > see and already know that mahjong is vastly different from Ma Diao.
>> > Compare the illustrations in the MJ Book. They are different breeds.
>> So are Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But they're still very closely
>> related.
> I did not know Great Dane is ancestor of Chihuahua or is it the
> reverse?
Of course not.
> You are saying that the two breeds are closely related as mahjong and
> ma diao?
If you want a slightly more accurate analogy, take wolves and
chihuahuas. The point is only that things can be very different
(though mah-jong cards are not *very different* from ma-diao cards -
closer than western cards, for example) and still be very closely
related.
al
> On 2009-07-01, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > The independent criterion for correctness is the dictionary.
> > 筒 is by definition in Kangxi a section of bamboo.
>
> So that's what the Kangzi Zidian says it is - fine. But the Kangxi
> Zidian was compiled a hundred years before the birth of mah-jong, and
> doesn't in any case cover vernacular language.
Here is a fundamental difference of opinion. Age of mahjong is
undetermined.
A set of tiles were seen by the first westerner and was written about
since then. But that is not the "birth" of mahjong.
I have been saying diamond was discovered about 5000 years ago in
India. To say that was the time of "birth" of diamond is incorrect.
> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>
It's easy to check that. 筒 is a pipe or a tule, but never a circle or
a coin. Check it online.
++++++++++
> > Yet the same symbol 筒 is Cash in Western mahjong.
>
> No, it isn't. Only you keep saying this. Nobody else does.
>
Did I reply satisfactorily on this? The is base of MDH.
++++++++++
> > In view of this, I speculate mistakes were made long ago, even before
> > Ma Diao, that the 'Bam' sections were 筒 but called by the wrong name.
>
> > I am saying Bam is not Suo3. Somebody goofed.
>
Bam is bamboo tube or pipe.
> Somebody goofed, and not only did somebody goof, they managed to
> persuade all the other madiao players in China that they were right?
>
That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
There is where foreigners never can not appreciate the cultural
background of olden day China. Card players learned the game by what
they heard. They did not have to learn how the symbols relate and most
of them did not read. People only needed to associate the symbols by
their sounds. They can play the game by following a simple rule, like
I said, '2 and 3; that 's the key'.
Why do you think there was never any instruction books for ages? No
book was needed!
Western historians go by written evidence and can not visualize
"outside the box". They can not understand how an old game did not get
written in volumes if it ever existed earlier than when they first saw
it played.
A mistake can travel down the time-path unquestioned and just
repeating.
++++++++++
> >[..]
The Chinese have made the mistake themselves long ago.
>
> You're quoting a dictionary which is 300 years old, 150 years before
> mah-jong was invented.
>
Again: on the age of mahjong, I think you are wrong.
> >> Ah, I see your point. Yes, I quite agree that if the meaning of 筒 is
> >> tube of bamboo, then on many (but certainly not all) mah-jong sets,
> >> the bam suit would be the first one you'd choose.
>
Bam has bamboo radical. So does 筒.
> > I am glad you see that now. 筒 is a word related to bamboo by virtue of
> > its etymological composition.
>
> >> Note, however that it depends on the design. Sets (as were common in
> >> the 20s) with straight bamboos look very tube-like; the most popular
> >> design now harks back to the coin-strings - if they're bamboo sticks,
> >> the segment-joining circles are very exaggerated compared to real
> >> bamboo.
>
When the artist had no idea what they were doing and that is obvious
if you study the silly designs in the Illustrated Book, then anything
can show up. Look at the fish-strings as one example.
> > You cannot trust the engravers to be the authority on the subject.
> > Rely on the word, 筒, and what is depicted in the dictionary. Look at
>
> Why on earth should I trust a 300-year old dictionary over the people
> who actually make and play the game, who are by definition those who
> best know it?
>
There is where an assumption can be wrong. The people who make the
game or those who play the game do not necessarily know best about the
HISTORY of the game.
Even now the origin and age of mahjong is not certain and
questionable. Why do you jump to conclude that the players and
manufacturers know it best?
That is no substantiated claim.
> >> However, I think the explanation I proposed accounts for it, by simple
> >> re-interpretation of the sound tong2.
>
Yours is no explanation. Think again.
> > This is unclear to me. What are you saying? Accounts for what?
>
> The explanation I propose accounts for the fact that the circle suit
> is called 茼, even though this looks inappropriate.
>
That is equivalent to admitting there was a mistake. It is like saying
it is okay calling Ringo as Michael Jackson, perhaps?
> >> >> Let me reiterate. Who calls the circle suit "copper"?
>
> > Tong2 means copper; copper implies copper coin or Himly calls 'Cash'.
> > That is how I read. As I said,
>
> If Himly (whom I haven't read carefully) records 銅 as the name of the
> circles, that just bears out my proposed explanation.
>
Exactly. That was a mistake on Himly's part. He heard it from the
'players' whom you regard as authority on the game.
> >> > You are going by mah-jong is from ma diao, right?
>
> >> By mah-jong *cards* are from ma-diao *cards*.
>
> > There I disagree. And where is the evidence in your claim?
>
> All the evidence that has been discussed at length in this newsgroup.
> Go back and read it, if you can't remember it.
>
You too. Read again. I have been saying mahjong is not from ma diao.
Mahjong is a game with unique features.
> >> > Why should 'string' morph into bamboo?
>
> >> By random reinterpretation of the pictures. A stylized string of cash
> >> small enough to fit on a tile doesn't look much like a string of cash,
> >> so could be easily reinterpreted (or misinterpreted in your vocabulary).
>
Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
this.
> > The word 'random' seems fitting rather. There is no rhyme nor reason.
>
> In real life, rather than your fantasy world, we don't always get
> rhyme or reason. (Why do think people have religion?)
>
I don't see your point of logic here. Real life is void of rhyme and
reason. Rhyme and reason belong to the ream of fantasy?
Religion is in real life or is it in fantasy land? Not clear.
> > It is not how or what I want mahlong to be different. I assumed you
> > see and already know that mahjong is vastly different from Ma Diao.
> > Compare the illustrations in the MJ Book. They are different breeds.
One is flexible paper; the other is solid block. One is 'trick-
taking'; the other is not.
One is in verbal description; the other is in engraved symbols. One
has only three suits; the other has additional cards like East, South,
West and North). How else can the two games be more different?
I wonder he was the first person to say the two games are closely
related and how.
>
> So are Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But they're still very closely
> related.
Not the way ma diao and mahjong is said to be.
++++++++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> Here is a fundamental difference of opinion. Age of mahjong is
> undetermined.
> A set of tiles were seen by the first westerner and was written about
> since then. But that is not the "birth" of mahjong.
Not only westerners. Tam Wing Kwong states flat out not only the MDH
but a much stronger version: he says that mah-jong is a direct
descendant of madiao!
Can you provide any reason for us to believe that mah-jong predates
the 1800s, *other than* because you say it must?
You could, of course be right - the fact that we have no evidence of
mah-jong before 1800 does not mean that it did not exist. But unless
there's some argument (other than your personal fantasies), the
simplest thing is to believe that indeed it didn't exist till then.
> I have been saying diamond was discovered about 5000 years ago in
> India. To say that was the time of "birth" of diamond is incorrect.
So? That's a rather useless analogy, since diamonds are not a human
creation.
>> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
>> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>>
> It's easy to check that. 筒 is a pipe or a tule, but never a circle or
> a coin. Check it online.
I'm not aware of a large up to date Chinese dictionary online.
If you are, I'd be happy to hear of it.
(There are no large up to date English-Chinese dictionaries, or I'd
have it! But there must be reasonably up to date dictionaries within
China.)
>> > Yet the same symbol 筒 is Cash in Western mahjong.
>> No, it isn't. Only you keep saying this. Nobody else does.
> Did I reply satisfactorily on this? The is base of MDH.
No, and no. The MDH states that the mah-jong circle suit *derives
from* the ma-diao cash suit. It does not say "筒 is Cash in Western
mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
close your eyes and ears.
>> > In view of this, I speculate mistakes were made long ago, even before
^^^^^^^^^
Hooray! At last, something accurate. Yes, you speculate. Nothing wrong
with that, but don't take it for anything more than speculation
>> Somebody goofed, and not only did somebody goof, they managed to
>> persuade all the other madiao players in China that they were right?
>>
> That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
What planet are you on? The number of people in all history who have
read Himly's articles is probably less than a hundred.
Also, I don't know what you mean by believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
Let me remind you what Himly actually said. I'll translate; [ ]
encloses Himly's own footnotes, < > encloses my own notes.
We must now deal with the _bamboo cards_ of _Ningpo_ [寧<actually
printed as a slightly simplified character 寕, if you can see it>波
竹牌 _Ning-po-ću-pai_], which next to the already known 36 _so_ and
36 _wan_ have, instead of the 36 _ping_, 36 _thung_ [同 "with",
apparently an abbreviation for 銅 _thung_ "copper", which in those
times could also mean _thung ćhien_ "copper piece" <i.e. 銅錢>]/
Then when he goes on to describe the _thung_ tiles in detail, he says:
On the _thung_ the blue colour shows to its best advantage; the 4
and 8 are entirely blue, the 5 has only a red dot in the middle of
the well-known hole-coins placed in a circle, the 1 is blue and red,
the 2 has two coins, one green, one blue with an edge and a red dot
instead of the hole, the 3 has three somewhat smaller coins, one
green, one red, one blue, the 6 has four red circles and two blue,
separated, as is done on a domino stone, on which four would also
be red; just the same is the 7, on which also there are four red
and the diagonally arranged three are blue. The 9 shows three
green, three red and three blue circles.
And you want us to believe that when he was making this very detailed
description of what is almost exactly a mah-jong circle suit, he was
confusing its name with the name of the "so" suit? Or what?
> "outside the box". They can not understand how an old game did not get
> written in volumes if it ever existed earlier than when they first saw
> it played.
I don't think anybody is surprised at the lack of instruction manuals;
but the complete lack of any mention in literature, when madiao (for
example) is quite frequently mentioned in novels, is the problem.
> The Chinese have made the mistake themselves long ago.
Yeah, right. All the Chinese are wrong, and you're right.
> When the artist had no idea what they were doing and that is obvious
> if you study the silly designs in the Illustrated Book, then anything
> can show up. Look at the fish-strings as one example.
Pardon? What fish strings? And why do you call the designs "silly",
rather than "creative"?
>> Why on earth should I trust a 300-year old dictionary over the people
>> who actually make and play the game, who are by definition those who
>> best know it?
>>
> There is where an assumption can be wrong. The people who make the
> game or those who play the game do not necessarily know best about the
> HISTORY of the game.
That's not what I said. Those who play the game know the game.
They probably don't know the history - but neither do you, and nor
does the Kangxi dictionary. The Kangxi dictionary says nothing about
mah-jong. It doesn't mention it at all. Whereas the players play it!
> Yours is no explanation. Think again.
Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
_thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
just in sound.
>> The explanation I propose accounts for the fact that the circle suit
>> is called 茼, even though this looks inappropriate.
> That is equivalent to admitting there was a mistake. It is like saying
> it is okay calling Ringo as Michael Jackson, perhaps?
No, it's not a mistake. It's a re-interpretation. The term "mistake"
implies that there is something to be correct. There isn't; there are
only cards, which at one time were understood as cash, and later as
sections of bamboo (or so my explanation goes). "Correctness" does not
come into it.
>> If Himly (whom I haven't read carefully) records 銅 as the name of the
>> circles, that just bears out my proposed explanation.
>>
> Exactly. That was a mistake on Himly's part. He heard it from the
> 'players' whom you regard as authority on the game.
It's not a mistake! He recorded what he saw and heard. We have no
reason to think he erred.
> Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
> that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
> this.
What mah-jong players call them now is not the point. You say Himly
was wrong: how do you know? Were you there? Can you point out any
internal inconsistency in his observations (without assuming your
theory)?
> One is flexible paper; the other is solid block. One is 'trick-
> taking'; the other is not.
> One is in verbal description; the other is in engraved symbols. One
> has only three suits; the other has additional cards like East, South,
> West and North). How else can the two games be more different?
Easily. By not having any of the same cards, for example.
> I wonder he was the first person to say the two games are closely
> related and how.
Himly doesn't mention mah-jong at all, as far as I know. He describes
a set of tiles which are very like a modern mah-jong set.
Julian Bradfield
> Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
> that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
> this.
P.S. Let me quote Tam Wing Kwong again.
The mah-jong tiles are
"The SOGS (索子, Sog Dzee) meaning the _strings_ or _bamboo
numerals_,... "
and then in his appendix:
"there evolved a kind of cards known as Maa Due (馬吊) which
consisted of pieces similar to what we now call in the game of Maa
Jong, Sogs (Strings) Cashes (circles) and Maans (myriads)."
al
> On 2009-07-02, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
> > that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
> > this.
>
> P.S. Let me quote Tam Wing Kwong again.
I remember reading his book you had posted.
My impression, as I said after reading, was that he didn't seem to be
a Chinese native. His writing style seemed too English. I paid only
minor attention to the content.
> The mah-jong tiles are
> "The SOGS (索子, Sog Dzee) meaning the _strings_ or _bamboo
> numerals_,... "
>
I know I am saying now that by the time Tam learned about mahjong, the
suit names were established and propagated for centuries. In other
words he was like anybody else in mahjong history repeating the same
mistake over and over.
And everybody else would be just like you, refuses to accept anything
different from what is in the book, except people in China who could
not read or write. Illiterates are more gullible. They tend to believe
and repeat what they are told. That is one reason why the meaning of
suo3 is not truly understood even now.
This is personal experience. When I learned mahjong I did not know
what Sok was. I never question how the word was written. Sok is a knot
in my dialect. I never ask why a knot is in a game. At that I had some
schooling; the other players had less.
I would not have known any better if I didn't join the discussion
group. Only now my education and old age tell me that the game is
screwed up in more than one ways.
> and then in his appendix:
> "there evolved a kind of cards known as Maa Due (馬吊) which
> consisted of pieces similar to what we now call in the game of Maa
> Jong, Sogs (Strings) Cashes (circles) and Maans (myriads)."
Similar in what way, by your own observation? Never mind what other
people say.
Zero Cash and Half Cash, what are those?
Taiji diagram for One-Cash? Why is that? Where is it in mahjong?
Circles are called 'guo" which are fruits, in ma diao. Circles are
called tules or bamboo pipes in mahjong.
Are these the similarities you acknowledged?
And you talk about fantasy land!
The only item similar is the Mhan (Cantonese). In Chinese writing,
mhann means many things depending on context. You know all that.
10^4 is mhann. 10^12 is the most meaningful word. It got eliminated
due to ignorance for the game's design.
From reading Tam's Appendix, I would guess he had no clue of that. I
take everything mahjong with a grain of salt, including this!
Read this again. "The SOGS (索子, Sog Dzee) meaning the _strings_ or
_bamboo."
How did you take that to mean? "string" or "bamboo" or either or
both?.
Some people even fantasize it to be "string of Cash"!
++++++++
Cheers...
al
> On 2009-07-02, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jul 2, 4:53 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Here is a fundamental difference of opinion. Age of mahjong is
> > undetermined.
> > A set of tiles were seen by the first westerner and was written about
> > since then. But that is not the "birth" of mahjong.
>
"birth" of maahjong.
> Not only westerners. Tam Wing Kwong states flat out not only the MDH
> but a much stronger version: he says that mah-jong is a direct
> descendant of madiao!
And you believe Tam Wing Kwong,"flat out", so to speak?
Did he give evidence and can you name any?
> Can you provide any reason for us to believe that mah-jong predates
> the 1800s, *other than* because you say it must?
I gave my reasons more than once. Here they are again.
Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
about that. Is there? Dice is a perfect example of an early game.
Liu Bo used bamboo sticks with engraving. Mahjong has bamboo material
and engraving. It is an early game of typical solid material. Next is
Tien-Gow dominoes. Games of solid materials of wood, bone and bamboo
came earlier than paper cards.
Also games belong to the privileged; only the rich and the regal had
idle time for playing leisure in early history of China. Mahjong was
not born in the home of a commoner. Can you imagine the resources
needed to design, to produce and to test and to complete the first
game-set?
We do not know how old mahjong is. Based on civilization in history, I
believe bone tiles came before paper cards. Only time will tell
eventually.
> You could, of course be right - the fact that we have no evidence of
> mah-jong before 1800 does not mean that it did not exist. But unless
> there's some argument (other than your personal fantasies), the
> simplest thing is to believe that indeed it didn't exist till then.
>
> > I have been saying diamond was discovered about 5000 years ago in
> > India. To say that was the time of "birth" of diamond is incorrect.
>
> So? That's a rather useless analogy, since diamonds are not a human
> creation.
>
I gvae examples of comparable human creations. Liu Bo, Tien-Gow and
dice.
> >> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
> >> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>
That is not necessary. No significant change or alteration you can
find for the word 筒. Its intrinsic meaning is intact. People use
abbreviated form for their convenience are exceptions. 筒 is bamboo
pipe or bamboo tube or bamboo-like tubular tool.
As I said:
> > It's easy to check that. 筒 is a pipe or a tule, but never a circle or
> > a coin. Check it online.
Check it. You don't need a huge dictionary.
>
>[..]
>
> >> > Yet the same symbol 筒 is Cash in Western mahjong.
> >> No, it isn't. Only you keep saying this. Nobody else does.
The circle is not 筒.? or 筒. is not Cash? Not sure what you mean to
say.
> > Did I reply satisfactorily on this? The [ 筒.] is basic [unit] of MDH.
MDH says 筒. is Cash. No?
>
> No, and no. The MDH states that the mah-jong circle suit *derives
> from* the ma-diao cash suit. It does not say "筒 is Cash in Western
> mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
> close your eyes and ears.
>
That is no difference by MDH in saying 筒.= Cash!
By the way, if mahjong circle derives from ma diao Cash, who actually
made the transition and when? That would be during Qing dynasty or
Ming. Who said it was actually done according to some sort of scheme?
Why the Directions/ Winds were mixed without a word of evidence
documented?
The fact that no mention of the addition of East West North South to
the 3 symbol suits give me reason to believe mahjong or ma que did not
inherit its symbol suits from ma diao. Game history in Qing would have
recorded something like that if ma que is ma diao transformed with
alteration and for no reason.
Isn't that something: E W N S Z F B (7 tiles) added for an
unexplainable purpose or no purpose. And that was supposed to have
been done so secretly nobody heard or write about the job. Incredible!
> >> > In view of this, I speculate mistakes were made long ago, even before
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Hooray! At last, something accurate. Yes, you speculate. Nothing wrong
> with that, but don't take it for anything more than speculation
>
Speculation is part of exploration, going beyond the status quo.
Right. Nothing wrong.
How it should be taken? That depends on a number of factors.
> >> Somebody goofed, and not only did somebody goof, they managed to
> >> persuade all the other madiao players in China that they were right?
Here is what I mean. Pan said a string is a hundred Cash. The
dictionary and other sources affirmed it is a thousand Cash. Who
believe what since when?
>
> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>
> What planet are you on? The number of people in all history who have
> read Himly's articles is probably less than a hundred.
But do you how many writers used Himly as their reference?
> Also, I don't know what you mean by believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
Why don't you? Are you kidding me? We are on the same planet! We are
talking ma que.
If you believe in MDH, you believe the circle is Tong2, but the
traditional Chinese circle is Tong3,筒.
> Let me remind you what Himly actually said. I'll translate; [ ]
> encloses Himly's own footnotes, < > encloses my own notes.
>
> We must now deal with the _bamboo cards_ of _Ningpo_ [寧<actually
> printed as a slightly simplified character 寕, if you can see it>波
> 竹牌 _Ning-po-ću-pai_], which next to the already known 36 _so_ and
> 36 _wan_ have, instead of the 36 _ping_, 36 _thung_ [同 "with",
> apparently an abbreviation for 銅 _thung_ "copper", which in those
> times could also mean _thung ćhien_ "copper piece" <i.e. 銅錢>]/
>
Here is what I mean when I said players are no authority on the game.
Some place the circle is called Ping and other place its called Tong.
With Chinese abbreviations for the tong, nobody knows right from wrong
or bothers to know what each symbol really means. People repeat what
they hear. They don't know or care what it means. I am telling you. I
played with people like that, including myself years ago.
> Then when he goes on to describe the _thung_ tiles in detail, he says:
>
> On the _thung_ the blue colour shows to its best advantage; the 4
> and 8 are entirely blue, the 5 has only a red dot in the middle of
> the well-known hole-coins placed in a circle, the 1 is blue and red,
> the 2 has two coins, one green, one blue with an edge and a red dot
> instead of the hole, the 3 has three somewhat smaller coins, one
> green, one red, one blue, the 6 has four red circles and two blue,
> separated, as is done on a domino stone, on which four would also
> be red; just the same is the 7, on which also there are four red
> and the diagonally arranged three are blue. The 9 shows three
> green, three red and three blue circles.
>
Such description is irrelevant. All these details are useless
information to me. What do they tell you?
> And you want us to believe that when he was making this very detailed
> description of what is almost exactly a mah-jong circle suit, he was
> confusing its name with the name of the "so" suit? Or what?
>
Yes. He did not know any better, because the people who told Himly the
Ping and the Tong did not know either. I said the Chinese people
learned it wrong from way back.
筒 has always been a namboo pipe or bamboo tube.
Let me tell you something else. Bamboo pipe 筒 is a musical instrument
long long ago. You know what else? Bamboo pipe was used in archery.
There is a place that grows a special kind of bamboo suitable for use
in shooting arrows.
I need to read about Wilkinson's Zhong Fa or whatever next. I am
"speculating".
> > "outside the box". They can not understand how an old game did not get
> > written in volumes if it ever existed earlier than when they first saw
> > it played.
>
> I don't think anybody is surprised at the lack of instruction manuals;
> but the complete lack of any mention in literature, when madiao (for
> example) is quite frequently mentioned in novels, is the problem.
>
Could it be under a totally different name?
What if the game was an exclusive toy for some time?
> > The Chinese have made the mistake themselves long ago.
>
> Yeah, right. All the Chinese are wrong, and you're right.
>
Not impossible. Most people are like you. They don't speculate.
> > When the artist had no idea what they were doing and that is obvious
> > if you study the silly designs in the Illustrated Book, then anything
> > can show up. Look at the fish-strings as one example.
>
> Pardon? What fish strings? And why do you call the designs "silly",
> rather than "creative"?
>
Alright. How about creatively silly?
Do you see the things they put in the cards and copy each other?
> >> Why on earth should I trust a 300-year old dictionary over the people
> >> who actually make and play the game, who are by definition those who
> >> best know it?
>
> > There is where an assumption can be wrong. The people who make the
> > game or those who play the game do not necessarily know best about the
> > HISTORY of the game.
>
> That's not what I said. Those who play the game know the game.
> They probably don't know the history - but neither do you, and nor
> does the Kangxi dictionary. The Kangxi dictionary says nothing about
> mah-jong. It doesn't mention it at all. Whereas the players play it!
>
Thanks to you for your lead that took me to the Kangxi dictionary.
There is more than you know because your lack of Chinese language.
I will have a separate post on the topic later. You have been helpful.
> > Yours is no explanation. Think again.
>
> Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
> but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
> _thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
> explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> just in sound.
So Himly is highest authority on Chinese?
When I read what Himly said, I know how much influence he had on
Western readers of mahjon history. At the same time I recognize how
little Himly knew what the ma que game is about. Himly gave no hint of
correlation among the ma que pieces. He was too busy learning the
sounds. When I noticed he described a complete set including 8 blanks
and 148 pieces in total. I had my doubts that he ever played the game.
There is apparently no evidence that he ever played a game. Yet he is
your authority on the subject. You forgot Himly's reference source was
the players who knew little about the ma que history.
>
> >> The explanation I propose accounts for the fact that the circle suit
> >> is called 茼, even though this looks inappropriate.
More than look that is inappropriate. The difference is elementary.
> > That is equivalent to admitting there was a mistake. It is like saying
> > it is okay calling Ringo as Michael Jackson, perhaps?
>
> No, it's not a mistake. It's a re-interpretation. The term "mistake"
> implies that there is something to be correct. There isn't; there are
> only cards, which at one time were understood as cash, and later as
> sections of bamboo (or so my explanation goes). "Correctness" does not
> come into it.
>
Misinterpretation. That is about right.
> >> If Himly (whom I haven't read carefully) records 銅 as the name of the
> >> circles, that just bears out my proposed explanation.
>
> > Exactly. That was a mistake on Himly's part. He heard it from the
> > 'players' whom you regard as authority on the game.
>
> It's not a mistake! He recorded what he saw and heard. We have no
> reason to think he erred.
>
That was a mistake undeniably so. The mistake was at the source and
through his interpreter if that was there. The result was a mistaken
name for a symbol in ma que.
In the case of 'suo3',
> > Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
> > that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
> > this.
>
> What mah-jong players call them now is not the point. You say Himly
> was wrong: how do you know? Were you there? Can you point out any
> internal inconsistency in his observations (without assuming your
> theory)?
>
But you missed my point. We have single terms for quantities.
As in the examples you and Tsia cited in another post. String of Cash
is not common expression in Chinese. Every 10^4 is different term in
one word only.
Also, 'Min' = string of coins. There is a single Chinese term for
that. Suo3 is only a 'string'. You saw there could be a string of
fish. Suo3 if it is a string, then it can be non-specific. 'String of
Cash' was Himly's work in Chinese phraseology.
> > One is flexible paper; the other is solid block. One is 'trick-
> > taking'; the other is not.
> > One is in verbal description; the other is in engraved symbols. One
> > has only three suits; the other has additional cards like East, South,
> > West and North). How else can the two games be more different?
>
> Easily. By not having any of the same cards, for example.
>
Clever. That is exactly what the proponents of MDH do; maintain a
tactic of avoidance. MDH exclude anything outside the 3 suits.
Some scientific approach...or what?
> > [..]
++++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> "birth" of maahjong.
Your "objection" is uninteresting until sustained by evidence that can
be considered.
>> Not only westerners. Tam Wing Kwong states flat out not only the MDH
>> but a much stronger version: he says that mah-jong is a direct
>> descendant of madiao!
>
> And you believe Tam Wing Kwong,"flat out", so to speak?
> Did he give evidence and can you name any?
STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!
You keep doing this - you take what I say, and accuse me of saying
something quite different. As it happens, I don't believe TWK's
historical account particularly; but he demonstrates that not only
Western historians think that mahjong emerged in the 1860s in Ningbo
(he even says that).
> Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
> cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
> about that. Is there?
No, I don't think there's any doubt.
> Also games belong to the privileged; only the rich and the regal had
> idle time for playing leisure in early history of China. Mahjong was
> not born in the home of a commoner. Can you imagine the resources
> needed to design, to produce and to test and to complete the first
> game-set?
For a set made of plain bamboo, less than a day, I would guess.
(Produce? Test? This is handwork, not a production line in a factory!)
One you start making fancy sets, I agree it becomes more resource
intensive, and I agree that the production of mah-jongs sets in the
modern form requires leisure time (or servants). But I would guess
that even among the peasantry, not everybody had to work every hour of
every day. Even slaves play games sometimes.
>> We do not know how old mahjong is. Based on civilization in history, I
> believe bone tiles came before paper cards. Only time will tell
> eventually.
You're confusing the material and the game. The fact that bone game
pieces predate paper cards tells us nothing about the games. It's like
saying that iron came before trees (which is true), so iron tools must
have been invented before wooden tools (which is false).
>> >> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
>> >> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>>
> That is not necessary. No significant change or alteration you can
> find for the word 筒. Its intrinsic meaning is intact. People use
> abbreviated form for their convenience are exceptions. 筒 is bamboo
> pipe or bamboo tube or bamboo-like tubular tool.
This is typical of you. The meaning is whatever you say it is, and the
real meaning that people use is a mistake. Whether you like it or not,
it now means "the circle suit in mah-jong", as well as "tube".
Check it on-line!
>> No, and no. The MDH states that the mah-jong circle suit *derives
>> from* the ma-diao cash suit. It does not say "筒 is Cash in Western
>> mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
>> close your eyes and ears.
> That is no difference by MDH in saying 筒.= Cash!
Yes, it is different. It's the same as the difference between "you are
descended from an ape" and "you are an ape".
> By the way, if mahjong circle derives from ma diao Cash, who actually
> made the transition and when? That would be during Qing dynasty or
> Ming. Who said it was actually done according to some sort of scheme?
I've proposed an explanation; as to when, I can't say. I'd guess
in the late 1800s, but that's only a guess.
> Isn't that something: E W N S Z F B (7 tiles) added for an
> unexplainable purpose or no purpose. And that was supposed to have
> been done so secretly nobody heard or write about the job. Incredible!
It's not incredible for you, because you don't believe that there is
any evidence for mah-jong anyway, even though you think it existed.
For us, the addition of the winds etc. is an interesting puzzle.
>> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
>> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>> What planet are you on? The number of people in all history who have
>> read Himly's articles is probably less than a hundred.
> But do you how many writers used Himly as their reference?
Andrew Lo and Michael Stanwick, as far as I know. Even my German
language mah-jong books from the 1920s don't mention Himly.
> If you believe in MDH, you believe the circle is Tong2, but the
> traditional Chinese circle is Tong3,筒.
As I keep telling you, this is false. We don't believe the circle *is*
copper, we believe it came from copper.
> Here is what I mean when I said players are no authority on the game.
> Some place the circle is called Ping and other place its called Tong.
> With Chinese abbreviations for the tong, nobody knows right from wrong
> or bothers to know what each symbol really means. People repeat what
> they hear. They don't know or care what it means. I am telling you. I
> played with people like that, including myself years ago.
Again, you say that we have to believe your own unsupported intuitions
over all the actual historical evidence we have. The players *are* the
authority - there is no other authority. In some places, it's bing, in
some it's tong; that just the way it is.
>> And you want us to believe that when he was making this very detailed
>> description of what is almost exactly a mah-jong circle suit, he was
>> confusing its name with the name of the "so" suit? Or what?
>>
> Yes. He did not know any better, because the people who told Himly the
> Ping and the Tong did not know either. I said the Chinese people
> learned it wrong from way back.
> 筒 has always been a namboo pipe or bamboo tube.
Go and
> Let me tell you something else. Bamboo pipe 筒 is a musical instrument
> long long ago. You know what else? Bamboo pipe was used in archery.
> There is a place that grows a special kind of bamboo suitable for use
> in shooting arrows.
Yes. So?
>> I don't think anybody is surprised at the lack of instruction manuals;
>> but the complete lack of any mention in literature, when madiao (for
>> example) is quite frequently mentioned in novels, is the problem.
> Could it be under a totally different name?
That's possible. If you want to do some actual research yourself,
instead of getting us to do all your research for you, why don't you
start reading all the available Middle Chinese literature looking for
references to a game like mah-jong?
> What if the game was an exclusive toy for some time?
Possible, and an often told story (even by Tam Wing Kwong), and could
be true for a few decades - but for centuries? And plenty of
literature (most of it, for obvious reasons) was written by the
leisured classes.
>> Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
>> but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
>> _thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
>> explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
>> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
>> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
>> just in sound.
>
> So Himly is highest authority on Chinese?
You're doing it again. Read what I say, and stop twisting it to suit
your argument. I take it that Himly correctly reported what he
observed. That's all.
> little Himly knew what the ma que game is about. Himly gave no hint of
> correlation among the ma que pieces. He was too busy learning the
> sounds. When I noticed he described a complete set including 8 blanks
> and 148 pieces in total. I had my doubts that he ever played the game.
I don't suppose he played it either. So what? He was recording data,
and occasionally speculating on the history of the data he recorded.
> There is apparently no evidence that he ever played a game. Yet he is
> your authority on the subject. You forgot Himly's reference source was
> the players who knew little about the ma que history.
So? We use Himly as a source of evidence - his interpretations can be
discussed.
>> It's not a mistake! He recorded what he saw and heard. We have no
>> reason to think he erred.
>>
> That was a mistake undeniably so. The mistake was at the source and
> through his interpreter if that was there. The result was a mistaken
> name for a symbol in ma que.
Yes, it is deniable. The only reason we have to believe there was a
mistake is because you say so, based on your personal unsupported
theories. You could be right, and you have some points, but your
overall argument is full of holes.
> In the case of 'suo3',
>> > Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
>> > that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
>> > this.
>>
>> What mah-jong players call them now is not the point. You say Himly
>> was wrong: how do you know? Were you there? Can you point out any
>> internal inconsistency in his observations (without assuming your
>> theory)?
>>
> But you missed my point. We have single terms for quantities.
Which you didn't even know - you had to ask me to look up the
historical terms, and Mu-Tsun to tell you the modern terms.
> As in the examples you and Tsia cited in another post. String of Cash
> is not common expression in Chinese.
Pardon? When strings of cash were the unit of currency, it was a very
common term.
> Also, 'Min' = string of coins. There is a single Chinese term for
> that. Suo3 is only a 'string'. You saw there could be a string of
> fish. Suo3 if it is a string, then it can be non-specific. 'String of
> Cash' was Himly's work in Chinese phraseology.
How you know that it was his work, rather than being explained to him
by his informants?
>> > taking'; the other is not.
>> > One is in verbal description; the other is in engraved symbols. One
>> > has only three suits; the other has additional cards like East, South,
>> > West and North). How else can the two games be more different?
>>
>> Easily. By not having any of the same cards, for example.
>>
> Clever. That is exactly what the proponents of MDH do; maintain a
> tactic of avoidance. MDH exclude anything outside the 3 suits.
> Some scientific approach...or what?
You asked a question; I gave you an answer. If you don't want such
questions answered, don't ask them.
Yes, it is a scientific approach. You attempt to explain whatever you
can explain, and leave the rest for later scientists to deal with.
(Read "The Origin of Species" some time.)
msta...@talktalk.net
> >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
This is utterly false.
同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
for 銅.
The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
Suo3 and wan are also the names of two of the suits found in preceding
money suited card games. 銅 is also a name used for another money suit.
Himly's inference is supported by this chain of evidence.
> > If you believe in MDH, you believe the circle is Tong2, but the
> > traditional Chinese circle is Tong3,筒.
The earliest evidence in the literature for 筒 as the name for the
'circle' suit is 1892.
[JB]
> >> Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
> >> but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
> >> _thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
> >> explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> >> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> >> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> >> just in sound.
Can you direct me to where I may find this piece of info from the
Kangxi? It is a very important piece of supporting evidence.
Or if you can supply me with the piece of Chinese text from the
dictionary, I would be very grateful.
msta...@talktalk.net
wrote:
[I said]
>The other suit names engraved on the
> tiles were suo2 and wan.
I meant suo3, not suo2.
msta...@talktalk.net
> The circle is not 筒.? or 筒. is not Cash?
The latter.
> > > Did I reply satisfactorily on this? The [ 筒.] is basic [unit] of MDH.
Completely false.
> MDH says 筒. is Cash. No?
NO.
al
wrote:
> [AL}
>
> > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>
> This is utterly false.
>
> 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
> tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> for 銅.
>
The plain fact is that 銅 never ever appear in ma que sets. Is that
correct?
Himly "speculated" that 同 = 銅 and you needed no proof of validity? His
speculation is good enough for you to accept that 同 is unquestionably
the abbreviation for 銅.
How come 銅 can be abbreviated to 同 ? You have looked up the word 同 and
know what it means.
同 could have been the abbrev. for 筒 in this case, right? I mean 筒 and
銅 and 同 all have entirely different meanings except that they have
approx. the same sound. The only thing 同 is their pronunciation. ^z^
Was there reason given by Himly for his speculated conclusion? Let me
guess. Progeny.
Why should a westerner's speculation become an Asian standard meaning?
That I find it difficult to understand. Now historians and scholars
come to his defense, because Himly had speculated as such at one time
when he encountered the new game he had never knew before. His
speculated is held to be indisputable. The irony is that the man might
not have played the game that he wrote about.
In retrospect, the engraver made the abbreviation without knowing what
mistake he committed. That is obvious.
> The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
>
What means "reference to 銅"?
Who did what specifically in 1814. It is unclear in the above
statement.
How did 'Cash' from one era get into something of another era?
> Suo3 and wan are also the names of two of the suits found in preceding
> money suited card games. 銅 is also a name used for another money suit.
What is the name of this game?
>
I wonder what Zero Cash is and if it means absent of 銅. And if 銅 is
abbreviated to 同 as what the engraver did to the Himly set, Zero Cash
is 'not 同'.
> Himly's inference is supported by this chain of evidence.
>
> > > If you believe in MDH, you believe the circle is Tong2, but the
> > > traditional Chinese circle is Tong3,筒.
Not sure how that supports Himly's reference.
First 銅 for ma que is wrong. Its abbreviation is more wrong.
筒 is so far the name for the circles, not 銅 nor 同.
Now, i can see 筒 has been wrong all along, because a circle is NOT a
bamboo pipe.
Yes. I am saying 筒 is the bamboo pipe which has been mistaken for a
rope.
>
> The earliest evidence in the literature for 筒 as the name for the
> 'circle' suit is 1892.
What form is this evidence manifested in? By any chance that is first-
hand info?
>
> [JB:]
>
> > >> Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
> > >> but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
> > >> _thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
> > >> explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> > >> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> > >> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> > >> just in sound.
Now I can tell you that is conglomerate rubbish.
But you know what? That is how Chinese people learn the game and their
language in the old days.
I can tell you even now some idiomatic expressions still not in
written form but understood by my people. We go by sounds. The
situation is familiar but full of errors/ambiguity.
You can try to defend your explanation, but I know you can do better
than that.
>
[MS:]
> Can you direct me to where I may find this piece of info from the
> Kangxi? It is a very important piece of supporting evidence.
>
> Or if you can supply me with the piece of Chinese text from the
> dictionary, I would be very grateful.
Yes. I could not find it either.
+++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Jul 3, 8:01 am, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> wrote:> [AL}
>
> > > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>
> > This is utterly false.
>
> How so? I can show you what I said is no-nonsense and simply true.
Go ahead. Show me.
> > 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> > composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
> > tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> > for 銅.
>
> The plain fact is that 銅 never ever appear in ma que sets. Is that
> correct?
Correct.
> Himly "speculated" that 同 = 銅 and you needed no proof of validity?
I told you before that we did!
Do you not remember?
> His
> speculation is good enough for you to accept that 同 is unquestionably
> the abbreviation for 銅.
Do you not remember me saying that it was a prediction of the MDH?
That if the three suits were derived from the three suits of money
suited card decks then 同 = 銅 and so we should find some instance of
its use in a money suited card game described in literature.
After much searching an instance was found.
Do you not remember that I then reported it?
> How come 銅 can be abbreviated to 同 ? You have looked up the word 同 and
> know what it means.
> 同 could have been the abbrev. for 筒 in this case, right?
Yes. But no instance whatsoever has been found of its (筒) use prior to
1892.
Therefore there is no reason to consider it was used prior to that
time and so not prior to 1870.
Therefore there is no reason to think that 同 could have been the
abbrev. for 筒 in this case.
Further, the other two suits in Himly's 1870 set had suo3 and wan
engraved on tiles for those two suits.
These are found as the names for the money suits in preceding money-
suited card game cards.
銅 was used as the name for the cash suit in a description of a money-
suited card game from 1814.
同 is used alongside suo3 and wan as the name of one of the suits in
Himly's tile set.
Therefore it is justifiable to infer that 同 = 銅.
> Was there reason given by Himly for his speculated conclusion? Let me
> guess. Progeny.
No. He gave that speculation within the context of his article
detailing and discussing money suited playing cards.
> Why should a westerner's speculation become an Asian standard meaning?
Spare me your cultural bigotry.
It has nothing to do with the person's culture - only with his
reasons.
[snipped ranting monologue]
> > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
>
> What means "reference to 銅"?
In literature from 1814, describing a game that appears to be ma diao.
> > Suo3 and wan are also the names of two of the suits found in preceding
> > money suited card games. 銅 is also a name used for another money suit.
>
> What is the name of this game?
From the description it appears to be Ma diao.
> Not sure how that supports Himly's reference.
I said inference.
[snipped monologue]
> > The earliest evidence in the literature for 筒 as the name for the
> > 'circle' suit is 1892.
>
> What form is this evidence manifested in? By any chance that is first-
> hand info?
In literature from 1892. The literature is part of evidence being used
in a forthcoming article.
[snipped monologue]
al
wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 8:01 am, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> > wrote:> [AL}
>
> > > > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > > > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>
> > > This is utterly false.
>
> > How so? I can show you what I said is no-nonsense and simply true.
>
> Go ahead. Show me.
What do you want shown? Something dated?
>
> > > 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> > > composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
> > > tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> > > for 銅.
Just because a word used in one set of tiles from an unknown source
but through Himly; that word is held by MDH proponents as proof of
cash-base for a conceptual derivation of an ancient game on Himly's
"speculation.
Is that how I should read and understand your paragraph above?
Perhaps I am interpreting your meaning incorrectly, because it does
sound a bit ridiculous and flimsy logic.
+++++++++++
Have to cut short here...
++++++++++
Give me your comment on this.
My curiosity and question concern more with why those huge outlandish
numbers [ in the 4th suit ] were used.
Also why and who dropped them. There had to be reason for putting them
in at first and reason for taking them out afterward.
I think I found a plausible explanation in Dao De Jing.
Obviously all those big [ BIG ] numbers did not intend to quantify
actual
amounts of money. They are metaphors for bigness.
The quote from Kangxi dictionary holds my explanation for the concept
[purpose]
to include the big numbers in a suit of cards.
《老子·道德經》域中有四大，道大，天大，地大，王亦大。
Then, of course, ignorance was the cause for their elimination.
++++++++++++++
P.S. I should include a simple version of translation for the above.
It says:
The universe has four BIGs. Dao BIG. Heavens BIG. Earth BIG.
King also BIG.
++++++++++ But imagine who would remove something BIG like that!
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Jul 3, 5:21 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > > > > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
> > > > This is utterly false.
> > > How so? I can show you what I said is no-nonsense and simply true.
> > Go ahead. Show me.
> What do you want shown? Something dated?
Don't be obtuse.
You said you can show me that what you said "is no-nonsense and simply
true."
So go ahead and show me. Go on.
Or are you bragging?
> > > > 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> > > > composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
> > > > tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> > > > for 銅.
>
> Just because a word used in one set of tiles from an unknown source
> but through Himly;
We do not know the name of the manufacturer, but we do know the tile
set came from Ningbo from between 1868 and 1876. There are three
words, not just one.
His set is evidence that that the three suits *can be explained* as
derivations from the suits of three-suited money cards.
> that word is held by MDH proponents as proof of
> cash-base for a conceptual derivation of an ancient game on Himly's
> "speculation.
Wrong. The three suits plus the names of two of them plus the tong =
copper inference plus the identical names of money suited cards plus
the copper name as one of those suits plus the fact that tong(copper)
plus suo3 plus wan predate Himly's set names plus their mention in
dated Chinese literature.
The MDH only explains the derivation of the three suits and their
terms - nothing more.
Where is your evidence the game is ancient and that it is based on a
concept?
> Is that how I should read and understand your paragraph above?
Your understanding is wrong. You read my last post but chose not to
answer my replies because you cannot answer them with coherent logic
and evidence. Because of that all you can do is answer my points in a
rude and spiteful manner.
> Give me your comment on this.
No. This thread is not about your next question - it is off topic.
al
> > I see you have no argument against my objection to your meaning of
> > "birth" of maahjong.
>
> Your "objection" is uninteresting until sustained by evidence that can
> be considered.
>
They were added for a purpose and eliminated for no purpose.
Obviously all those big numbers did not intend to quantify actual
amounts of money. I mean how big would the annual budget be for a
kingdom in olden days?
They are metaphors for bigness. The quote from Kangxi dictionary
infers a meaningful concept in relation to the big numbers in Ma Diao.
《老子·道德經》域中有四大，道大，天大，地大，王亦大。
A simple version of translation reads like this.
The universe has four BIGs. Dao is BIG. Heavens BIG. Earth BIG.
King also BIG.
+++++++++++
Those BIG numbers represent evidence of Daoism concept in Ma Diao.
Whoever dropped them off from the deck was definitely ignorant of
their purpose and meaning.
++++++++++
Now, it is clear that the Thousand Myriads are not Cash. Is Myriad
Cash? Not likely.
Myriad or Ten-Thousand is not Cash. Then should there be a String of
Cash. No.
The "string" is unraveled. Where is the Cash?
Give that some thought.
+++++++++++++
> >> Not only westerners. Tam Wing Kwong states flat out not only the MDH
> >> but a much stronger version: he says that mah-jong is a direct
> >> descendant of madiao!
What did Tan Wing Kwong say about those amounts of 10*6, 10^12?
>
> > And you believe Tam Wing Kwong,"flat out", so to speak?
> > Did he give evidence and can you name any?
>
> STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!
What did you try to say by a reference to a published author other
than a conveyance of "authority"?
> You keep doing this - you take what I say, and accuse me of saying
> something quite different. As it happens, I don't believe TWK's
Then don't use him to argue my point.
> historical account particularly; but he demonstrates that not only
> Western historians think that mahjong emerged in the 1860s in Ningbo
> (he even says that).
>
People the world over said the earth is flat at one time or another
for many centuries. Your objection is not that strong. Right? We don't
know who or if TWK was a pen-name or not.
> > Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
> > cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
> > about that. Is there?
>
> No, I don't think there's any doubt.
>
Bone before paper. There is no doubt about that.
> > [..]
>
> You're confusing the material and the game. The fact that bone game
> pieces predate paper cards tells us nothing about the games.
Where have you been? "Medium is message". You missed the 21st century
communication concept. In our civilization products and tools depend
on materials available.
No paper; then no paper cards. No silk cloth; no silk cloth writing.
No wood/bone; no dice. Simple.
It's like
> saying that iron came before trees (which is true), so iron tools must
> have been invented before wooden tools (which is false).
>
You are trying to be clever in twisting words or playing with
semantics, are you?
You know the the answers. I think. But let me explore.
Iron came first? in what form? in iron ore as in mineral rocks?
What is defined as a tool in your question? A hammer or a chisel?
What is wooden tool? A simple stick from a branch of a tree for stir-
frying?
So, as I see your argument in detail, it is too tricky for me to
handle.
> >> >> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
> >> >> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>
You have probably the best resource library in the world at hand.
> > That is not necessary. No significant change or alteration you can
> > find for the word 筒. Its intrinsic meaning is intact. People use
> > abbreviated form for their convenience are exceptions. 筒 is bamboo
> > pipe or bamboo tube or bamboo-like tubular tool.
>
> This is typical of you. The meaning is whatever you say it is, and the
> real meaning that people use is a mistake. Whether you like it or not,
> it now means "the circle suit in mah-jong", as well as "tube".
>
I am saying a mistake was made at one time and that error lives on
even now and probably forever with helps of people like you.
But to go back to the roots and make sense of the mess of undocumented
development, this needs to be recognized. What the suit symbols are
supposed to be have bearing on the meaning in the design of the game.
Origin of the game depends on a correct understanding of the symbols.
> >> [..] The MDH states that the mah-jong circle suit *derives
> >> from* the ma-diao cash suit.
Circle cash in Ma Diao becomes circle in mahjong. Correct. That means
"derives from"?
Circle in mahjong is cash in mahjong. Cash in mahjong is circle in
mahjong. Correct?
You say:
" It does not say "筒 is Cash in Western mahjong."
But "筒" is circle in mahjong. Are we talking mahjong? 筒 = circle =
Cash by MDH.
++++++
> >> mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
> >> close your eyes and ears.
How can anybody not confused if MDH is saying 筒=Circle=Cash?
You and your "we" have to explain one more time. Show it in an
equation for comparison.
> > [I thought] That is no difference by MDH in saying 筒.= Cash!
>
> Yes, it is different. It's the same as the difference between "you are
> descended from an ape" and "you are an ape".
>
Clever semantics again. Same difference then? The important difference
is that you are not descendant of an ape. Therefore you are not an
ape.
> > By the way, if mahjong circle derives from ma diao Cash, who actually
> > made the transition and when? That would be during Qing dynasty or
> > Ming. Who said it was actually done according to some sort of scheme?
How come no one cries for evidence and exact date in documented form?
>
> I've proposed an explanation; as to when, I can't say. I'd guess
> in the late 1800s, but that's only a guess.
>
What is your proposed explanation then? Lay it on.
Give your guesstimate, and why late 1800s?
By the way no one else explained that to the group? No one speculated?
> > Isn't that something: E W N S Z F B (7 tiles) added for an
> > unexplainable purpose or no purpose. And that was supposed to have
> > been done so secretly nobody heard or write about the job. Incredible!
>
> It's not incredible for you, because you don't believe that there is
> any evidence for mah-jong anyway, even though you think it existed.
If the changes took place in the late 1800s, why there is no trace of
related activities? Think about that.
And if mahjong was not designed with solid tiles as it is, the game
would have disappeared without a trace. Yes. I believe it existed long
before Ma Diao. An old set may be buried in a tomb somewhere yet.
> For us, the addition of the winds etc. is an interesting puzzle.
That is scientific attitude?
There is a puzzle in cosmology now. 'Dark energy' is the new
hypothesis. It's about time you guys find something better than MDH.
> [..]
> > If you believe in MDH, you believe the circle is Tong2, but the
> > traditional Chinese circle is Tong3,筒.
>
> As I keep telling you, this is false. We don't believe the circle *is*
> copper, we believe it came from copper.
>
From copper (money) or copper (coin)shape? It's ambiguous still.
This is even more ridiculous! The round circle is a universal shape
with symbolic meanings in every culture. The circle can mean many
things. It also means completion, continuity and repeating cycle. It
does not have to come from Ma Diao.
No wonder I didn't get what you have tried to tell me all this time. I
could not think of such suggestion from scholars like the MDH clan.
Are you saying that is MDH tenet?
> > Here is what I mean when I said players are no authority on the game.
> > Some place the circle is called Ping and other place its called Tong.
> > With Chinese abbreviations for the tong, nobody knows right from wrong
> > or bothers to know what each symbol really means. People repeat what
> > they hear. They don't know or care what it means. I am telling you. I
> > played with people like that, including myself years ago.
>
> Again, you say that we have to believe your own unsupported intuitions
> over all the actual historical evidence we have. The players *are* the
> authority - there is no other authority. In some places, it's bing, in
> some it's tong; that just the way it is.
>
Not intuitions, it's personal experience. I was in China 60 years ago.
Those players and I were no authorities. Believe you me!
> >> And you want us to believe that when he was making this very detailed
> >> description of what is almost exactly a mah-jong circle suit, he was
> >> confusing its name with the name of the "so" suit? Or what?
My group of players didn't question and didn't know which symbols
meant what. No need to know. No book to read about the game. We can
tell the difference among suits of tiles and learn a few simple rules
and there we went.
That is why it's possible for the game to have existed thousands years
earlier and not a word needed written. Same as a language and the
numerous dialects existed thousands of years in an area. Local people
speak their own dialect without referring to a single piece of written
instruction.
>
> > Yes. [Himly] He did not know any better, because the people who told Himly the
> > Ping and the Tong did not know either. I said the Chinese people
> > learned it wrong from way back.
> > 筒 has always been a [bamboo] pipe or bamboo tube.
> [..]
> > Let me tell you something else. Bamboo pipe 筒 is a musical instrument
> > long long ago. You know what else? Bamboo pipe was used in archery.
> > There is a place that grows a special kind of bamboo suitable for use
> > in shooting arrows.
>
> Yes. So?
>
So there may well be a connection to ZFB.
+++++++++++
> >>[..].
[..]
> >> Um, sorry, it is an explanation. You may not find it plausible enough,
> >> but that's a different matter. Indeed, the fact that Himly said the
> >> _thung_ suit was actually referred to as 同 strengthens my
> >> explanation: if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> >> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> >> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> >> just in sound.
>
You may review what you read. The similarity applies to the sound or
pronunciation.
Meaning is entirely different.
> >[..]
> >[..] the ma que game is about. Himly gave no hint of
> > correlation among the ma que pieces. He was too busy learning the
> > sounds. When I noticed he described a complete set including 8 blanks
> > and 148 pieces in total. I had my doubts that he ever played the game.
>
> I don't suppose he played it either. So what? He was recording data,
> and occasionally speculating on the history of the data he recorded.
>
Not much I can tell you if you don't mind some one recording data
indiscriminately and without some appreciation from experience. How
much to believe what is told by whom influence recording accuracy and
relevance.
Occasional speculation is unavoidable, but don't take his words of
speculation as the gospel on the game.
> > There is apparently no evidence that he ever played a game. Yet he is
> > your authority on the subject. You forgot Himly's reference source was
> > the players who knew little about the ma que history.
>
> So? We use Himly as a source of evidence - his interpretations can be
> discussed.
>
> >> It's not a mistake! He recorded what he saw and heard. We have no
> >> reason to think he erred.
That is arguable conclusion. No?
You assume "He recorded what he saw and heard. [accurately; therefore]
we have no
reason to think he erred." [Unless we have reason to think the people
who gave him information had erred. And that I said is highly likely.]
>
> > That was a mistake undeniably so. The mistake was at the source and
> > through his interpreter if that was there. The result was a mistaken
> > name for a symbol in ma que.
>
> Yes, it is deniable. The only reason we have to believe there was a
> mistake is because you say so, based on your personal unsupported
> theories. You could be right, and you have some points, but your
> overall argument is full of holes.
>
Those little holes are going to be plugged up one by one.
Thanks for your help, by the way.
> > In the case of 'suo3',
> >> > Himly was the one misinterpreted. Mahjong players in China never call
> >> > that 'string of cash'; not even now. I dare someone to correct me on
> >> > this.
Cash concept does not exists in the 3 suits. The suits are only called
Huong, Sok and Mhan. Players generally don't know and care less what
the symbols are. That is the reality I know. Somebody may want to
confirm or deny it for you.
>
> >> What mah-jong players call them now is not the point. You say Himly
> >> was wrong: how do you know? Were you there? Can you point out any
> >> internal inconsistency in his observations (without assuming your
> >> theory)?
The very simple fact that he equated the abbreviation (which means
similarity or togetherness) to 'copper or cash' is "internal
inconsistency" or major misinformation.
>
> > But you missed my point. We have single terms for quantities.
>
> Which you didn't even know - you had to ask me to look up the
> historical terms, and Mu-Tsun to tell you the modern terms.
>
That is true and which I did. My dictionary reference only give 'large
amounts'
> > As in the examples you and Tsia cited in another post. String of Cash
> > is not common expression in Chinese. Like 'ping string' I might add.
>
> Pardon? When strings of cash were the unit of currency, it was a very
> common term.
>
No. 'string of anything' is uncommon, especially when 'string' can be
100 or 1000 wen.
> > Also, 'Min' = string of coins. There is a single Chinese term for
> > that. Suo3 is only a 'string' [ or a rope, or a cable ]. You saw there could be a string of
> > fish. Suo3 if it is a string, then it can be non-specific. 'String of
> > Cash' was Himly's work in Chinese phraseology.
>
> How you know that it was his work, rather than being explained to him
> by his informants?
He "speculated" and wrote about it. It was credited to him.
>
[difference between Ma Diao and mahjong:]
> >> >[one is trick] taking'; the other is not.
> >> > One is in verbal description; the other is in engraved symbols. One
> >> > has only three suits; the other has additional cards like East, South,
> >> > West and North). How else can the two games be more different?
>
> >> Easily. By not having any of the same cards, for example.
>
> > Clever. That is exactly what the proponents of MDH do; maintain a
> > tactic of avoidance. MDH exclude anything outside the 3 suits.
> > Some scientific approach...or what?
> [..]
> Yes, it is a scientific approach. You attempt to explain whatever you
> can explain, and leave the rest for later scientists to deal with.
In effect, you are comparing grapefruit with grape. Modern science?
Here is the problem. You guys have been applying a scientific approach
to a unscientific puzzle.
Neither Ma Diao nor Ma Que was ever a scientific problem. Why treat it
as such?
I suppose MDH proponents are like you; they pride themselves on being
scientific, methodical and logical. That in itself seems to be
effective defense.
> (Read "The Origin of Species" some time.)
This year is Darwin;s 200th birthday. I listened to few articles on my
i-pot.
May be you need a review too. Evolution process goes from simple to
complex.
The design pictures of Ma Diao and paper cards are far more complex
than Ma Que symbols.
What do you think had happened there in terms of evolutionary process?
Simple to complex: another reason to believe Ma Que is before Ma Diao.
+++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> Evidently the 4th suit in Ma Diao was meant for BIGGER things,
> They were added for a purpose and eliminated for no purpose.
Many things are evident to you that are not evident to anybody else. I
see no reason to ascribe any meaning to the big numbers in madiao cards
other than to establish the relative strengths of the suits.
> What did Tan Wing Kwong say about those amounts of 10*6, 10^12?
Nothing. He gave no details of ma-diao; he may have read the manuals,
or he may have heard about from others. I have no idea. He wasn't a
historian, unfortunately, so didn't give the sources of his beliefs.
> What did you try to say by a reference to a published author other
> than a conveyance of "authority"?
You stated that the belief that mah-jong developed in Ningbo in the
1860s was a belief of Western historians. I quoted a 1910s Hong-Kong
writer who also said this. That's enough to show that not only Western
historians thought that. I said nothing (there) about the truth or
falsity of the belief.
>> You keep doing this - you take what I say, and accuse me of saying
>> something quite different. As it happens, I don't believe TWK's
> Then don't use him to argue my point.
Your point was one that he provides evidence against. Perhaps you've
forgotten the point you were making.
> People the world over said the earth is flat at one time or another
> for many centuries. Your objection is not that strong. Right? We don't
As I said, I was not addressing the truth or otherwise of the
statement.
>> You're confusing the material and the game. The fact that bone game
>> pieces predate paper cards tells us nothing about the games.
>
> Where have you been? "Medium is message". You missed the 21st century
> communication concept. In our civilization products and tools depend
> on materials available.
> No paper; then no paper cards. No silk cloth; no silk cloth writing.
> No wood/bone; no dice. Simple.
But it does not follow from that that if there are dice, there is no
paper.
>> saying that iron came before trees (which is true), so iron tools must
>> have been invented before wooden tools (which is false).
> Iron came first? in what form? in iron ore as in mineral rocks?
Meteoric iron will do.
> What is defined as a tool in your question? A hammer or a chisel?
> What is wooden tool? A simple stick from a branch of a tree for stir-
> frying?
OK, it was not a great analogy. A better analogy would be, it's like
saying that metal came before plastic, so any wooden item must have
been invented before any plastic item. Nonetheless, I have plenty of
metal items that were designed after the invention of plastic.
>> >> >> I'm sure a large up to date Chinese dictionary will list "one of the suits
>> >> >> of mah-jong" as a meaning for 筒.
>>
> You have probably the best resource library in the world at hand.
I do? The Library of Congress is 2000 miles away; the British Library
is 500 miles away. Neither of those is "at hand" by European
standards, though I suppose 500 miles might seem "at hand" to an
American!
> I am saying a mistake was made at one time and that error lives on
> even now and probably forever with helps of people like you.
> But to go back to the roots and make sense of the mess of undocumented
> development, this needs to be recognized. What the suit symbols are
> supposed to be have bearing on the meaning in the design of the game.
> Origin of the game depends on a correct understanding of the symbols.
If there was a theme, yes. There's no reason to think that there was -
any more than there need have been a "theme" when the game of rummy
was invented using existing decks of cards.
> Circle cash in Ma Diao becomes circle in mahjong. Correct. That means
> "derives from"?
Correct.
> Circle in mahjong is cash in mahjong. Cash in mahjong is circle in
> mahjong. Correct?
False. (Now, at least. Possibly true when the game was invented.)
>> >> mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
>> >> close your eyes and ears.
>
> How can anybody not confused if MDH is saying 筒=Circle=Cash?
Since MDH doesn't say that, there's no call for confusion.
> You and your "we" have to explain one more time. Show it in an
> equation for comparison.
Ma-diao cash -> mah-jong circle.
I would guess that in more detail:
ma-diao cash -> mah-jong cash -> mah-jong circle -> mah-jong 筒
>> > [I thought] That is no difference by MDH in saying 筒.= Cash!
>> Yes, it is different. It's the same as the difference between "you are
>> descended from an ape" and "you are an ape".
> Clever semantics again. Same difference then? The important difference
> is that you are not descendant of an ape. Therefore you are not an
> ape.
In scientific terms, I am an ape. But in the common language, where
ape means "non-human ape", I'm not an ape, but I am descended from
one.
>> > By the way, if mahjong circle derives from ma diao Cash, who actually
>> > made the transition and when? That would be during Qing dynasty or
>> > Ming. Who said it was actually done according to some sort of scheme?
>
> How come no one cries for evidence and exact date in documented form?
We do. We would dearly love to have some. Unlike you, some of us
(mostly Michael and his unnamed "Chinese colleague") are actively
looking.
>> I've proposed an explanation; as to when, I can't say. I'd guess
>> in the late 1800s, but that's only a guess.
> What is your proposed explanation then? Lay it on.
I've already told you. Go back and read - I'm not going to type it
again.
> Give your guesstimate, and why late 1800s?
Because the earliest reference to 筒 so far found is 1892.
> If the changes took place in the late 1800s, why there is no trace of
> related activities? Think about that.
You keep telling us that China was an ignorant oral culture. Why should
it have been documented?
> And if mahjong was not designed with solid tiles as it is, the game
> would have disappeared without a trace. Yes. I believe it existed long
> before Ma Diao. An old set may be buried in a tomb somewhere yet.
"Raiders of the lost ma-que set?" I can just see you - Indiana Al.
> There is a puzzle in cosmology now. 'Dark energy' is the new
> hypothesis. It's about time you guys find something better than MDH.
Dark energy is a problem because its apparent existence is not only
not explained by existing theory, but is incompatible with existing
theory. The other features of mah-jong are not explained by MDH, but
they are not incompatible with it.
> From copper (money) or copper (coin)shape? It's ambiguous still.
> This is even more ridiculous! The round circle is a universal shape
> with symbolic meanings in every culture. The circle can mean many
> things. It also means completion, continuity and repeating cycle. It
> does not have to come from Ma Diao.
Indeed. So it was very easy for the mah-jong to lose its former
association with copper coins, when that association plays no part
in the game at all.
> Not intuitions, it's personal experience. I was in China 60 years ago.
> Those players and I were no authorities. Believe you me!
You are an authority on the way the game was played in your community
in your childhood. The way we try to do history is to find such
authorities for every time, and then try to understand the changes
between their differing accounts.
> Not much I can tell you if you don't mind some one recording data
> indiscriminately and without some appreciation from experience. How
> much to believe what is told by whom influence recording accuracy and
> relevance.
That is a fair point: all observational sciences know that
preconceptions affect what is observed. However, the amount of detail
given is quite persuasive.
> Occasional speculation is unavoidable, but don't take his words of
> speculation as the gospel on the game.
Nobody does.
> Cash concept does not exists in the 3 suits. The suits are only called
> Huong, Sok and Mhan. Players generally don't know and care less what
> the symbols are. That is the reality I know. Somebody may want to
> confirm or deny it for you.
Why would I want to confirm something I know perfectly well for myself?
>> >> What mah-jong players call them now is not the point. You say Himly
>> >> was wrong: how do you know? Were you there? Can you point out any
>> >> internal inconsistency in his observations (without assuming your
>> >> theory)?
> The very simple fact that he equated the abbreviation (which means
> similarity or togetherness) to 'copper or cash' is "internal
> inconsistency" or major misinformation.
Why? Such abbreviations have happened all the time throughout the
history of Chinese writing.
For example, the word you probably know as 鬥, meaning "fight, contend",
is now written in mainland China as 斗, which you probably think means
"a cup or dipper; about 10 litres". If someone reports that 斗 means
"fight, contend", that doesn't indicate their observation is wrong!
> No. 'string of anything' is uncommon, especially when 'string' can be
> 100 or 1000 wen.
I don't understand what you're saying, then. Tell me the Chinese
words that you say are uncommon.
>> Yes, it is a scientific approach. You attempt to explain whatever you
>> can explain, and leave the rest for later scientists to deal with.
> In effect, you are comparing grapefruit with grape.
Er, no.
> I suppose MDH proponents are like you; they pride themselves on being
> scientific, methodical and logical. That in itself seems to be
> effective defense.
It's the only way human knowledge has ever been significantly
advanced.
>> (Read "The Origin of Species" some time.)
> May be you need a review too. Evolution process goes from simple to
> complex.
No, not necessarily. Your appendix (if you still have one) is an
example of the reverse direction, as is your vestigial tailbone.
Human culture works very well in both directions: language simplifies,
and becomes more complex, often both at the same time.
al
> On 2009-07-04, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Evidently the 4th suit in Ma Diao was meant for BIGGER things,
> > They were added for a purpose and eliminated for no purpose.
This is an important part of the game. It got removed and the game
lost its BIG root.
>
> Many things are evident to you that are not evident to anybody else. I
> see no reason to ascribe any meaning to the big numbers in madiao cards
> other than to establish the relative strengths of the suits.
>
Perhaps for one thing, you have not noticed where these big numbers
come from.
They refer to Buddhism as stated in a footnote on that web page.The
implication is religion or Daoism related.
If you look down to the lower scale, you will come to a quantity
called VOID and its value given is 10^-20.
There is the 'Zero Cash' for your MDH. It's worth something after all!
++++++++++++++
> > What did Tan Wing Kwong say about those amounts of 10*6, 10^12?
>
> Nothing. He gave no details of ma-diao; he may have read the manuals,
> or he may have heard about from others. I have no idea. He wasn't a
> historian, unfortunately, so didn't give the sources of his beliefs.
>
> > What did you try to say by a reference to a published author other
> > than a conveyance of "authority"?
>
> You stated that the belief that mah-jong developed in Ningbo in the
> 1860s was a belief of Western historians. I quoted a 1910s Hong-Kong
> writer who also said this. That's enough to show that not only Western
> historians thought that. I said nothing (there) about the truth or
> falsity of the belief.
>
Then try state it one way or another instead of being ambiguous or
'sitting on the fence'.
> >> You keep doing this - you take what I say, and accuse me of saying
> >> something quite different. As it happens, I don't believe TWK's
> > Then don't use him to argue my point.
Don't use him as reference or declare your purpose.
+++++++++++
>
>]..]
>
> >> You're confusing the material and the game. The fact that bone game
> >> pieces predate paper cards tells us nothing about the games.
You missed the key point here. My point is mahjong, made of bone, did
not get its symbols from ma diao which is paper-made involved a later
printing process.
>
> > Where have you been? "Medium is message". You missed the 21st century
> > communication concept. In our civilization products and tools depend
> > on materials available.
> > No paper; then no paper cards. No silk cloth; no silk cloth writing.
> > No wood/bone; no dice. Simple.
>
> But it does not follow from that that if there are dice, there is no
> paper.
But that is not the argument. The question is what comes first. Bone
and wood or paper and printing?
Then bone-made things come first or paper-made things come first? You
know what I mean.
>
> >> [..]
> > I am saying a mistake was made at one time and that error lives on
> > even now and probably forever with helps of people like you.
> > But to go back to the roots and make sense of the mess of undocumented
> > development, this needs to be recognized. What the suit symbols are
> > supposed to be have bearing on the meaning in the design of the game.
> > Origin of the game depends on a correct understanding of the symbols.
>
> If there was a theme, yes. There's no reason to think that there was -
> any more than there need have been a "theme" when the game of rummy
> was invented using existing decks of cards.
>
How do you know rummy was "invented"? And how do you know it has no
theme?
Generally, a good game has theme, a bad game has no theme. It's no
different than a story book or a movie. A simple game needs no theme;
a sophisticated game has theme. That is generally speaking.
I was not talking rummy. How about a better comparison? Look at photo
11, page 14 of Illustrated Book of MJ Museum?
Yes. Sometimes I see what you do not see. I see a game as a work of
art, a poetic composition or an intellectual expression.
We may be looking at the same 'fruits' but what you see may be just
apples.
> > Circle cash in Ma Diao becomes circle in mahjong. Correct. That means
> > "derives from"?
>
> Correct.
>
> > Circle in mahjong is cash in mahjong. Cash in mahjong is circle in
> > mahjong. Correct?
>
> False. (Now, at least. Possibly true when the game was invented.)
>
> >> >> mahjong". We have explained this to you many many times, but you
> >> >> close your eyes and ears.
>
> > How can anybody not confused if MDH is saying 筒=Circle=Cash?
>
> Since MDH doesn't say that, there's no call for confusion.
>
> > You and your "we" have to explain one more time. Show it in an
> > equation for comparison.
>
> Ma-diao cash -> mah-jong circle.
>
> I would guess that in more detail:
>
> ma-diao cash -> mah-jong cash -> mah-jong circle -> mah-jong 筒
>
Likewise, m-d Not Cash --> mj Not Cash --> mj circle --> mj 筒.
If the symbols in ma diao are not Cash, then the circles in mahjong
are not Cash. Correct?
MDH would be nullified and MDH baseless if ma diao had no Cash.
Correct?
> >> > [..]
>
+++++++++++++++++
> >> > By the way, if mahjong circle derives from ma diao Cash, who actually
> >> > made the transition and when? That would be during Qing dynasty or
> >> > Ming. Who said it was actually done according to some sort of scheme?
>
> > How come no one cries for evidence and exact date in documented form?
>
> We do. We would dearly love to have some. Unlike you, some of us
> (mostly Michael and his unnamed "Chinese colleague") are actively
> looking.
>
So, MDH is not only unconfirmed, it is nowhere to be found of
documented evidence. Is that understood correctly?
Acceptable?
+++++++++
> >> I've proposed an explanation; as to when, I can't say. I'd guess
> >> in the late 1800s, but that's only a guess.
> > What is your proposed explanation then? Lay it on.
>
> I've already told you. Go back and read - I'm not going to type it
> again.
Give me an approximate date of your post on that. I was totally
unaware of your "proposed" explanation relating MDH. You don't mean
that exchange between MS and you a while ago. That was no proposal.
You guys were looking for the decimals.
>
> > Give your guesstimate, and why late 1800s?
>
> Because the earliest reference to 筒 so far found is 1892.
>
Where is your source on that? It is important reference.
++++++++++++++++
> > If the changes took place in the late 1800s, why there is no trace of
> > related activities? Think about that.
>
> You keep telling us that China was an ignorant oral culture. Why should
> it have been documented?
You overlooked the time-frame of reference here. Written records kept
in the late 1800.
Remember Wilkinson's diary did not show anything relating to MDH then;
he was taught how to play the game, as I recall in a post a few months
ago.
>
You are reading out of context. Chinese "ignorant oral culture" was
only up to a point in time.
My explanation for the absence of older written MJ records as I said
was influenced by the oral culture in China. The other cultural factor
is that gaming was never seen as a virtue. No forward-looking scholars
waste time studying mahjong. Their time would be better spent on
calligraphy, poetry composition or the next promotion in office. They
may play it but not spend time writing it. Credit in gaming art is a
debit in career-resume.
One more important reason. There was no money in writing or publishing
books on mahjong. Players did not need to read instructions in order
to enjoy the game. Most people didn't know and didn't have to know how
to read. People did not have money to buy books. Libraries were non-
existent or never stock a book om games. Simply put: no market demand
for MJ books.
++++++++++
> > And if mahjong was not designed with solid tiles as it is, the game
> > would have disappeared without a trace. Yes. I believe the MJ game existed long
> > before Ma Diao. An old set may be buried in a tomb somewhere yet.
I can see (but you don't). The MJ set is a 'medium with a message'.
>
> "Raiders of the lost ma-que set?" I can just see you - Indiana Al.
I probably won't see that. You might.
> +++++++++++++
> > There is a puzzle in cosmology now. 'Dark energy' is the new
> > hypothesis. It's about time you guys find something better than MDH.
>
> Dark energy is a problem because its apparent existence is not only
> not explained by existing theory, but is incompatible with existing
> theory. The other features of mah-jong are not explained by MDH, but
> they are not incompatible with it.
>
By your reply I interpret it to mean MDH is no problem. The reason is
MDH is not incompatible with mahjong.
Although MDH cannot explain the whole game of mahjong, but it is
computable with it. Right?
+++++++
> > From copper (money) or copper (coin) shape? It's ambiguous still.
> > This is even more ridiculous! The round circle is a universal shape
> > with symbolic meanings in every culture. The circle can mean many
> > things. It also means completion, continuity and repeating cycle. It
> > does not have to come from Ma Diao.
>
> Indeed. So it was very easy for the mah-jong to lose its former
> association with copper coins, when that association plays no part
> in the game at all.
>
You are jumping to a wrong interpretation too. The circular shape is
the associated feature, if I read you correctly. Copper coin is your
assumed object. Copper or coins are incompatible with EWSN and ZFB.
They never will.
> > Not intuitions, it's personal experience. I was in China 60 years ago.
> > Those players and I were no authorities. Believe you me!
>
> You are an authority on the way the game was played in your community
> in your childhood. The way we try to do history is to find such
> authorities for every time, and then try to understand the changes
> between their differing accounts.
>
I am surprised at your choice of words. That is what you call
"authority"?
> > Not much I can tell you if you don't mind some one recording data
> > indiscriminately and without some appreciation from experience. How
> > much to believe what is told by whom influence recording accuracy and
> > relevance.
>
> That is a fair point: all observational sciences know that
> preconceptions affect what is observed. However, the amount of detail
> given is quite persuasive.
>
The detail is about which tile has what colors. What meaningful
information do the circles carry? How come none of the so-called
copper coins had a square hole. By definition to be precise and
accurate in detail each copper coin should be a circular outer disc
with a square hole at the center.
Strictly speaking, a circle without a square hole is not a copper
coin. That is forgery and unlawful claim.
++++++++++++++
'Sring of X' as a phrse is not common.
++++++++++
> >> Yes, it is a scientific approach. You attempt to explain whatever you
> >> can explain, and leave the rest for later scientists to deal with.
> > In effect, you are comparing grapefruit with grape.
>
> Er, no.
>
Why not? Grape is taken as abbreviation for grapefruit! ^z^. This
just came to my mind.
> > I suppose MDH proponents are like you; they pride themselves on being
> > scientific, methodical and logical. That in itself seems to be
> > effective defense.
>
> It's the only way human knowledge has ever been significantly
> advanced.
>
Disagree.
Correlative thinking has contributed in Chinese medicine and healing
arts.
Besides, mahjong is not a science. The game is a work of art as I said
before.
A work of art is a composition of related component parts. The
significance of each part is viewed in context of its relation with
other parts and together as a whole. It needs a holistic approach to
fully appreciate its beauty in unity.
Your 'scientific' dissection is the wrong approach, in my opinion.
Try to explain mahjong by MDH using just the 3 suits is not unlike
looking at the real view of a horse without its head. ^z^
> >> (Read "The Origin of Species" some time.)
> > May be you need a review too. Evolution process goes from simple to
> > complex.
>
> No, not necessarily. Your appendix (if you still have one) is an
> example of the reverse direction, as is your vestigial tailbone.
>
> Human culture works very well in both directions: language simplifies,
> and becomes more complex, often both at the same time.
You get 2 points. But can you imagine the process getting from Ma Diao
to mahjong if it did?
Not a trace of how, when and why that 'evolution' was done (only
within the last 200 years)?
++++++++++++++
al
>
> > On Jul 3, 8:01 am, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> > wrote:> [AL}
>
> > > > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > > > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
>
> > > This is utterly false.
>
> > How so? I can show you what I said is no-nonsense and simply true.
>
> Go ahead. Show me.
>
sound interchangeably without regards for where and it is applied in
context.
同 is not 銅. 銅 is not 筒. Therefore 筒 is not 同. Where is your
consultant? Does he have an opinion? Do you ever ask him?
You can call it what you want by its sound so long as fellow players
know you tile you discard. but when you try analyze them for
historical significance. you can not use them indiscriminately. 銅 is
not 筒. In Chinese, 銅 不 同 筒.
銅 is metalic whereas 筒 is bambooish; the two words not same 不 同.
Himly's "speculation basically betrayed his utter lack of depth in
understanding the Chinese language and appreciation for the game of
mahjong as a work of art. He failed like most if not all westerners
did to
see the composition is cultural masterpiece that is the epitome of
simplicity, variability and constancy.
Mahjong has been a game played by people of all classes, scholars and
illiterates, men and women. No written instruction is needed. No
records of its ancient history. It has been a game in China for an
unknown number of centuries before westerners found it. It's likely to
be a popular game for ages to come. And it is uniquely different in
its one-of-a-kind design.
++++++++++++++
> > > 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> > > composed of coloured circles.
There is supposed to be a square at the center, if that is money.
Colored circles are symbols for something else.
Where is the square hole in the middle of the circular shape? This is
forgery. Yet you accepted it.
Ah, Himly talked you into it.
++++++++
The other suit names engraved on the
> > > tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> > > for 銅.
Suo2 was never engraved in word. Wan is 'myriad' and it can be an
indeterminate or undetermined or indefinite amount in ancient China.
>
> > The plain fact is that 銅 never ever appear in ma que sets. Is that
> > correct?
>
> Correct.
>
Again, 銅 is not 筒 and not 同.
I would like to see that set of tiles with 同 engraved for circles.
Where is it now?
> > Himly "speculated" that 同 = 銅 and you needed no proof of validity?
>
> I told you before that we did!
>
Who is "we"? [..]
>
> > His
> > speculation is good enough for you to accept that 同 is unquestionably
> > the abbreviation for 銅.
>
> Do you not remember me saying that it was a prediction of the MDH?
You shouldn't predict anything. I always remember your prediction for
the 'wan' on the assumption that the circle was money cash. I thought
that was an odd thing to do. You either see it and know it or leave
it. You also follow somebody else 'prediction' that a 'string' is a
'string of cash'. 'String' is only one single word. 'String of cash'
is essentially a 'prediction' based on the same assumption that circle
without square hole is cash.
JB or someone said my argument is full of holes. Ironic isn't it? Your
MDH argument is lack of a hole. *z*
++++++++
> That if the three suits were derived from the three suits of money
> suited card decks then 同 = 銅 and so we should find some instance of
> its use in a money suited card game described in literature.
>
Don't forget the big 'if'.
The fact is never seen engraved on mahjong.
nd get this. 同 is not 銅.
> After much searching an instance was found.
> Do you not remember that I then reported it?
>
I remember that. I thought this "much searching" was a joke. There was
no searching. That was the only thing similar and visibly so. You even
push aside the Zero Cash, Half Cash, which are meaningless to you abd
unexplainable, and the Taiji diagram (the only specific symbo) and
jump to conclude string is string of cash and wan is wan whatever.
l
> > How come 銅 can be abbreviated to 同 ? You have looked up the word 同 and
> > know what it means.
> > 同 could have been the abbrev. for 筒 in this case, right?
>
> Yes. But no instance whatsoever has been found of its (筒) use prior to
> 1892.
What is the basis for that statement? What significance is this?
Mahjong could have been in existence long before 1892 and had (筒) with
it.
Age of mahjong is not a certainty.
The date it was seen for the first time by a westerner is not the date
of its birth.
> Therefore there is no reason to consider it was used prior to that
> time and so not prior to 1870.
1870 is when Himly or someone acquired his set of mahjong tiles. That
does not mean all mahjong sets are engraved like that.
> Therefore there is no reason to think that 同 could have been the
> abbrev. for 筒 in this case.
>
Wrong. A more effective test is to examine the sets of all ages known
and see if 銅 is engraved on the tiles and search for 銅 used instead of
筒 in literature of all ages.
> Further, the other two suits in Himly's 1870 set had suo3 and wan
> engraved on tiles for those two suits.
It did not have 筒 nor 銅. Correct?
> These are found as the names for the money suits in preceding money-
> suited card game cards.
I don't take Pan's description without questions. He got his knowledge
of the ma diao game from folks through oral tradition of generations
back and he put it in a manual for the game.
> 銅 was used as the name for the cash suit in a description of a money-
> suited card game from 1814.
> 同 is used alongside suo3 and wan as the name of one of the suits in
> Himly's tile set.
Pan had no idea why the high-number suit got eliminated I presumed.
Nobody knew why the big numbers like thousand-myriads were there, it
seems; and no mention by Pan or Feng why those cards were removed from
the deck. I read of no explanation from the translator either. Why? I
raised this question in another post already. Now I ask you. Do you
seriously believe those numbers of billions were cash? Keep in mind 1-
Cash is a tenth of one cent in those days.
I also mentioned elsewhere. Your Zero Cash is not absolutely zero
after all. In ancient numerical scale Zero Cash = Void = 10^-20. But
Half Cash is not there. 0.5 x10^-20 logically, I suppose.
Is that where your money base is derived from?
What is meant by alongside?
In written description or in engraved tiles?
> Therefore it is justifiable to infer that 同 = 銅.
Depends what you do with the abbreviation. It's unjustifiable to use
one for the meaning of another anywhere else in different context. The
two words have their own meanings. They are not interchangeable in all
situations or any situation strictly speaking. The substitution is
tolerable in this case only because it is not preventable after the
deed is done. The mistake is in the engraving by the engraver bought
by someone who did not know the difference and ended up in confusion
today. The tiles are usable. That's all. It should not have been done.
Wrong engraving got into the wrong hands.
> > Was there reason given by Himly for his speculated conclusion? Let me
> > guess. Progeny.
>
> No. He gave that speculation within the context of his article
> detailing and discussing money suited playing cards.
>
'Within context' does not say much really.
That article must be in German. Right?
[..]
> > > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > > suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
>
> > What means "reference to 銅"?
>
> In literature from 1814, describing a game that appears to be ma diao.
>
Not Ma Diao, only appears to be ma diao?
I saw nothing like 銅 in the article on ma diao. I do remember reading
a description of "fruits".
> > > Suo3 and wan are also the names of two of the suits found in preceding
> > > money suited card games. 銅 is also a name used for another money suit.
>
> > What is the name of this game?
>
> From the description it appears to be Ma diao.
>
> > Not sure how that supports Himly's reference.
>
> I said inference.
>
Sounds like double-talk.[..]
Inference gives an impression of support.
> > > [..]
Julian Bradfield
> On Jul 5, 10:38 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-04, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > Evidently the 4th suit in Ma Diao was meant for BIGGER things,
>> > They were added for a purpose and eliminated for no purpose.
> This is an important part of the game. It got removed and the game
> lost its BIG root.
I wish you wouldn't reply to yourself so much - it's confusing.
However, as far as I can see, the fourth suit in madiao wasn't
particularly important - the game would have been much the same with
three, five or six suits.
>> Many things are evident to you that are not evident to anybody else. I
>> see no reason to ascribe any meaning to the big numbers in madiao cards
>> other than to establish the relative strengths of the suits.
> Perhaps for one thing, you have not noticed where these big numbers
> come from.
> They refer to Buddhism as stated in a footnote on that web page.The
> implication is religion or Daoism related.
You are free-associating again. Just because big numbers are used in
Buddhist metaphor, doesn't mean that madiao is a buddhist game.
In any case, the numbers in madiao are rather small; far smaller than
the numbers the Buddhists used to play games with.
> You missed the key point here. My point is mahjong, made of bone, did
> not get its symbols from ma diao which is paper-made involved a later
> printing process.
You state that, but that's an unsupported assertion, as usual.
Why should I believe it?
Indeed, I'd more likely argue the other way: the designs on a mah-jong
set are so complicated and fiddly to engrave that they must have been
copied from paper designs, because if the game originated on bone, the
designs would have been simpler and easier to carve (like dominoes).
> But that is not the argument. The question is what comes first. Bone
> and wood or paper and printing?
> Then bone-made things come first or paper-made things come first? You
> know what I mean.
The class of bone-made things came into existence before the class of
paper-made things; but that says nothing about the relation between
any given bone-thing and any given paper-thing.
>> If there was a theme, yes. There's no reason to think that there was -
>> any more than there need have been a "theme" when the game of rummy
>> was invented using existing decks of cards.
>>
> How do you know rummy was "invented"? And how do you know it has no
> theme?
If it wasn't invented, where did it come from?
There is no theme evident in it, so no reason to propose one.
> Generally, a good game has theme, a bad game has no theme. It's no
> different than a story book or a movie. A simple game needs no theme;
> a sophisticated game has theme. That is generally speaking.
Tell me the theme of bridge, which hundreds of
millions of people agree is a good game. Or poker. Or any other game
that isn't a 20th century invention.
> I was not talking rummy. How about a better comparison? Look at photo
> 11, page 14 of Illustrated Book of MJ Museum?
> Yes. Sometimes I see what you do not see. I see a game as a work of
> art, a poetic composition or an intellectual expression.
Game-making can be all of those. Quite possibly mah-jong was. But the
inventor didn't have to have a theme - he could just have been trying
to make an interesting game.
> If the symbols in ma diao are not Cash, then the circles in mahjong
> are not Cash. Correct?
If the symbols in madiao are not cash, then the circles in mahjong are
not derived from cash symbols.
> MDH would be nullified and MDH baseless if ma diao had no Cash.
> Correct?
Correct. Though there are two parts to MDH: (a) mahjong cards come
from madiao cards, (b) madiao cards represent money symbols. If (b)
fails, we would still maintain (a), but it wouldn't be MDH any more.
>> We do. We would dearly love to have some. Unlike you, some of us
>> (mostly Michael and his unnamed "Chinese colleague") are actively
>> looking.
>>
> So, MDH is not only unconfirmed, it is nowhere to be found of
> documented evidence. Is that understood correctly?
No. All the evidence we have repeatedly discussed supports
MDH. However, it's not strong enough to completely confirm it (that's
why it's a "hypothesis") - what we really need is evidence from the
time of the invention of mah-jong.
> Give me an approximate date of your post on that. I was totally
30 June, message <slrnh4jkl...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk>
>> > Give your guesstimate, and why late 1800s?
>>
>> Because the earliest reference to 筒 so far found is 1892.
>>
> Where is your source on that? It is important reference.
At the moment, my source is Michael. He hasn't yet revealed his
source.
> By your reply I interpret it to mean MDH is no problem. The reason is
> MDH is not incompatible with mahjong.
> Although MDH cannot explain the whole game of mahjong, but it is
> computable with it. Right?
Correct.
> You are jumping to a wrong interpretation too. The circular shape is
> the associated feature, if I read you correctly. Copper coin is your
> assumed object. Copper or coins are incompatible with EWSN and ZFB.
Why? What is the incompatibility?
>> > Not intuitions, it's personal experience. I was in China 60 years ago.
>> > Those players and I were no authorities. Believe you me!
>>
>> You are an authority on the way the game was played in your community
>> in your childhood. The way we try to do history is to find such
>> authorities for every time, and then try to understand the changes
>> between their differing accounts.
>>
> I am surprised at your choice of words. That is what you call
> "authority"?
Yes. The best sort: first-hand knowledge.
> The detail is about which tile has what colors. What meaningful
> information do the circles carry? How come none of the so-called
> copper coins had a square hole. By definition to be precise and
> accurate in detail each copper coin should be a circular outer disc
> with a square hole at the center.
If you bothered to read the passage from Himly that I translated for
you, he specifically said that the tiles bear "the well-known
hole-coins" (die bekannte Lochmünze).
>> > No. 'string of anything' is uncommon, especially when 'string' can be
>> > 100 or 1000 wen.
>> I don't understand what you're saying, then. Tell me the Chinese
>> words that you say are uncommon.
> 'Sring of X' as a phrse is not common.
That's not a Chinese phrase. Tell me the Chinese words that you say
are uncommon.
> Correlative thinking has contributed in Chinese medicine and healing
> arts.
Which may be why some of it works (the bits that use herbs that happen
to contain pharmacologically active ingredients), and the rest of it
works no better than any other placebo technique. (Not that one should
underestimate the power of placebo.)
> You get 2 points. But can you imagine the process getting from Ma Diao
> to mahjong if it did?
> Not a trace of how, when and why that 'evolution' was done (only
> within the last 200 years)?
I don't think that the game of mah-jong evolved from the game of
madiao. I suspect that mah-jong was most likely invented by one
person, as the traditional history has it. But I do think that person
adapted the game pieces that he already knew about.
ithinc
> > > > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > > > suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
>
> > > What means "reference to 銅"?
>
> > In literature from 1814, describing a game that appears to be ma diao.
>
> Not Ma Diao, only appears to be ma diao?
> I saw nothing like 銅 in the article on ma diao. I do remember reading
> a description of "fruits".
Wake up, sir! Do you know what is the 1814 literature? Where was you
sawing?
al
>
> > On Jul 3, 8:01 am, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> > wrote:> [AL}
>
> > > > >> > That is right. Look at how easily Himly persuaded all people to
> > > > >> > believe Tong2 銅 as Tong3 筒.
> > > This is utterly false.
> > How so? I can show you what I said is no-nonsense and simply true.
> Go ahead. Show me.
>
It says "同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set".
How was it engraved? "As the name of the suit composed of coloured
circles".
Questions:
Was '同' the name actually engraved on the tiles?
Or only the "coloured circles" engraved on the tiles?
Your description given seems misleading. If I read it wrong the first
time, I am reading it correctly now. I thought you meant the word '同'
was engraved on the tiles but I think I was wrong when I read your
statement the first time.
I think the paragraph basically says the familiar symbols were
engraved on the tiles. The only new item is that "Himly speculated
that 同 was an abbreviation for 銅." Correct? Why you need that many
words to say a simple thing?
> > > 同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name of the suit
> > > composed of coloured circles. The other suit names engraved on the
> > > tiles were suo2 and wan. Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
> > > for 銅.
A whole paragraph to say "Himly speculated that 同 was an abbreviation
for 銅."
>
> > The plain fact is that 銅 never ever appear in ma que sets. Is that
> > correct?
> Correct.
>
Just to be clear, did '同' ever appear as '同' (a word) and not as
circle in any set?
> >[..]
> > His
> > speculation is good enough for you to accept that 同 is unquestionably
> > the abbreviation for 銅.
>
> Do you not remember me saying that it was a prediction of the MDH?
> That if the three suits were derived from the three suits of money
> suited card decks then 同 = 銅 and so we should find some instance of
> its use in a money suited card game described in literature.
>
Ah, so your 'prediction' was based on Himly's 'speculation'.
How could anybody forget such intellectual exercise?
You 'predicted' the 'Wan' after Himly 'speculated' the '同'.
> After much searching an instance was found.
> Do you not remember that I then reported it?
>
Yes. I guess it must have been a job looking for that 'wan'.
[..]
>[..]
> 銅 was used as the name for the cash suit in a description of a money-
> suited card game from 1814.
From that you concluded other card games are based on money-suited
design. Correct?
One is no different from another, right? Simple. I am beginning to see
your MDH logic.
> 同 is used alongside suo3 and wan as the name of one of the suits in
> Himly's tile set.
Which '同'? Is it '同' the word itself or '同' a symbol representation in
circles?
> Therefore it is justifiable to infer that 同 = 銅.
>
Sure, if I had grape fruit for breakfast, I can say I had grapefruit
for breakfast. Grape and fruit are all there. So why not?
> > Was there reason given by Himly for his speculated conclusion? Let me
> > guess. Progeny.
>
> No. He gave that speculation within the context of his article
> detailing and discussing money suited playing cards.
>
Wow, within some context of an article discussing card games in
general? Now I see why you say he "speculated". He was speculating
that all card games are "money-based". Since mahjong although more
like dominoes but played like card games, it too must be money-based.
There was a connection when Himly heard that the round symbol was
called 'Tong' which could be the sound for the word, copper. Chinese
coin for one-tenth of one cent is made of copper and it's round. There
Himly got his reason for speculation and MDH proponents now have their
justification. Anything sound like 'tong' is acceptable as 'money'.
Himly was in luck, talking to the right people when he was in China
finding out all about mahjong.
> > [..]
> > > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > > suited ma diao card pack was in 1814.
>
> > What means "reference to 銅"?
>
'Reference' does not mean definition and a name mentioned is not
necessarily the original version with true meaning. A date like 1814
sounds impressive, but I would not attach much weight to it. It tells
me a game did exist at that time.
> In literature from 1814, describing a game that appears to be ma diao.
>
Again how much similarity does "appears" mean. What literature? and
what specific characteristic? Do you have any more than that to say?
1814 is useless.
> > > Suo3 and wan are also the names of two of the suits found in preceding
> > > money suited card games. 銅 is also a name used for another money suit.
>
Whatever is used in whatever other game and suit does not mean every
use is a correct application.
> > What is the name of this game?
>
> From the description it appears to be Ma diao.
>
> > Not sure how that supports Himly's reference.
>
> I said inference.
>
Sounds like speculating again, doesn't it?
> > > [..]
> ++++++++++
Your MDH needs a lot of work from you and JB. It 's not worth much.
Julian Bradfield
> On Jul 3, 5:21 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 9:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> The simple fact is you do not and you can not use words of the same
> sound interchangeably without regards for where and it is applied in
> context.
As I've pointed out, this is demonstrably false. Through Chinese
history, people have confused homophones - sometimes it's called
ignorance, sometimes it's deliberate when a new word is needed (when
the process even has a name, 假借), and sometimes it's part of the
simplification of characters.
> 銅 is metalic whereas 筒 is bambooish; the two words not same 不 同.
As I have already explained, if the understanding of the object
changes, it's quite reasonable for the word used to describe it to
change.
> There is supposed to be a square at the center, if that is money.
As I've pointed out twice already, Himly described the circles as the
"well known hole-coins". While this doesn't explicitly say they had
square holes, it certainly suggests it.
> Wrong. A more effective test is to examine the sets of all ages known
> and see if 銅 is engraved on the tiles and search for 銅 used instead of
> 筒 in literature of all ages.
That would be useful. Why don't you do it?
Julian Bradfield
>>
> Did I read the following correctly?
> It says "同 was engraved on a tile in Himly's set".
> How was it engraved? "As the name of the suit composed of coloured
> circles".
> Questions:
> Was '同' the name actually engraved on the tiles?
> Or only the "coloured circles" engraved on the tiles?
The set had "joker" tiles for each suit; these tiles had engraved on
them the characters 同化, 索化 and 萬化.
> Just to be clear, did '同' ever appear as '同' (a word) and not as
> circle in any set?
Yes.
al
It is probably a novel that has a scene that describes people playing
a card game. I would not take their words without some careful
scrutiny for any official version of a game's terminology.
Is there more I should know about this book? stories tend to carry
colloquial expressions which may be used by local people of certain
area only.
ithinc
> On Jul 6, 11:17 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 6, 12:21 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > > > > > suited ma diao card pack was in1814.
>
> > > > > What means "reference to 銅"?
>
>
> > > Not Ma Diao, only appears to be ma diao?
> > > I saw nothing like 銅 in the article on ma diao. I do remember reading
> > > a description of "fruits".
>
> > sawing?
>
> ++++++++++++++++
> It is probably a novel that has a scene that describes people playing
> a card game. I would not take their words without some careful
> scrutiny for any official version of a game's terminology.
Good point. Now please tell us what's your official version of which
game's terminology?
>
> Is there more I should know about this book? stories tend to carry
> colloquial expressions which may be used by local people of certain
> area only.
There maybe is or there maybe is not. Who knows?
al
> On 2009-07-06, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jul 3, 5:21 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net" <mstanw...@talktalk.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 3, 9:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The simple fact is you do not and you can not use words of the same
> > sound interchangeably without regards for where and it is applied in
> > context.
>
> As I've pointed out, this is demonstrably false. Through Chinese
> history, people have confused homophones - sometimes it's called
> ignorance, sometimes it's deliberate when a new word is needed (when
> the process even has a name, 假借), and sometimes it's part of the
> simplification of characters.
>
interchangeably when the meaning in context altered unintentionally.
In the case of substituting iwth 同, whether it is for copper or bamboo
pipe, it was ignorance. It's even foolishness, causing confusion and
argument in history.
It is not 假借, because there is no need, both words for copper and
bamboo-tube are readily available. Why bother borrowing a word that
has neither of the intended meaning?
Hey, why waste time? It was after all only some dead historian's
"speculation". The proper term should be the most prevailing term in
use subsequently for the game.
You did suggest players know best as first-hand source.
++++++++++
> > 銅 is metalic whereas 筒 is bambooish; the two words not same 不 同.
>
> As I have already explained, if the understanding of the object
> changes, it's quite reasonable for the word used to describe it to
> change.
>
How often did 同 appear anywhere?
MDH is based on one occurrence of such an event?
You guys remind me of the observation of Darwin's great-great-great
grandson. He described the state of mind among some die-hard
Creationists who will not accept evolution theory simply cannot live
without their religion.
> > There is supposed to be a square at the center, if that is money.
>
> As I've pointed out twice already, Himly described the circles as the
> "well known hole-coins". While this doesn't explicitly say they had
> square holes, it certainly suggests it.
>
The circle suggest other things, as I also pointed out, in different
cultures of this world. I don't take Himly's words on mahjong like
you do.
I notice MDH proponents sometimes use the square hole definition in Ma
Diao to fortify Cash symbol. Now you say it matters naught. And here
you take HImly's description as "spoken words".
> > Wrong. A more effective test is to examine the sets of all ages known
> > and see if 銅 is engraved on the tiles and search for 銅 used instead of
> > 筒 in literature of all ages.
>
> That would be useful. Why don't you do it?
Are you serious? I have thought of a x-tab study of card sets in the
Illustrated Book.
al
++++++++++++++
Now I recall. That was in MS TPC article.
I argued about 化. My argument was that 化 has a distinct meaning,
changeability, which is the characteristic of a 'joker'. Ithinc told
me that I was wrong. He was right then. 同 is like 化, an abbreviation.
That is agreed anyway. The thing yet to determine is what is 同
substituting for, copper or bamboo tube?
I say bamboo and I know you say it's copper.
++++++++++++++
al
> On Jul 7, 6:50 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:17 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 6, 12:21 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The earliest reference to 銅 as the name of the Cash suit in a four
> > > > > > > suited ma diao card pack was in1814.
>
> > > > > > What means "reference to 銅"?
>
> > > > > In literature from1814, describing a game that appears to be ma diao.
>
> > > > Not Ma Diao, only appears to be ma diao?
> > > > I saw nothing like 銅 in the article on ma diao. I do remember reading
> > > > a description of "fruits".
>
> > > Wake up, sir! Do you know what is the1814literature? Where was you
> > > sawing?
>
> > ++++++++++++++++
> > It is probably a novel that has a scene that describes people playing
> > a card game. I would not take their words without some careful
> > scrutiny for any official version of a game's terminology.
>
> Good point. Now please tell us what's your official version of which
> game's terminology?
>
Homophones, slang, and abbreviations...it's a mess.
I believe there should be an 'early version' for mahjong.
>
> >[..]
ithinc
> Now I recall. That was in MS TPC article.
> I argued about 化. My argument was that 化 has a distinct meaning,
> changeability, which is the characteristic of a 'joker'. Ithinc told
> me that I was wrong. He was right then. 同 is like 化, an abbreviation.
> That is agreed anyway. The thing yet to determine is what is 同
> substituting for, copper or bamboo tube?
>
> I say bamboo and I know you say it's copper.
We have a record of "銅" as the suit name from 1814, while “筒" as the
suit name from 1892. So "同" is more probable an abbreviation of ”銅“
than ”筒". People heard it as "tong" and saw it was made by bamboo, so
they might mistakenly take it as "竹筒“.
ithinc
> Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
> therefore mahjong were wrong?
> I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
> different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
> bamboo radical, 筒.
You have made a big mistake here, sir. There was never a symbol called
or written as "筒" in Madiao.
ithinc
> [...] if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> just in sound.
Hello Julian,
I have read the item of "同" in the Kangxi dictionary. I didn't find "同
is used as an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇" or something similar.
ithinc
> I gave my reasons more than once. Here they are again.
> Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
> cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
> Liu Bo used bamboo sticks with engraving. Mahjong has bamboo material
> and engraving. It is an early game of typical solid material. Next is
> Tien-Gow dominoes. Games of solid materials of wood, bone and bamboo
> came earlier than paper cards.
>
> [...]
>
> We do not know how old mahjong is. Based on civilization in history, I
> believe bone tiles came before paper cards. Only time will tell
> eventually.
http://auction.kongfz.com/show_pics.php?itemId=2888447
It's made of bone back and bamboo face. How old would you think of it?
Would you think Playing Cards was firstly in domino form then in paper
form?
Julian Bradfield
> On Jul 3, 5:55 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> [...] if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
>> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
>> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
>> just in sound.
> I have read the item of "同" in the Kangxi dictionary. I didn't find "同
> is used as an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇" or something similar.
Indeed, no. Sorry about that - I was relying too hastily on the crude
automatic translation. My friendly local East Asian Studies librarian
has corrected me!
msta...@talktalk.net
> As I've pointed out twice already, Himly described the circles as the
> "well known hole-coins". While this doesn't explicitly say they had
> square holes, it certainly suggests it.
I am still proof-reading my translator's version of Himly's 1901
article. He has completed about half of it.
Square brackets are the actual words of the sinograms he has given in
his footnotes.
On page 7 of Himly's article, when describing the ma que tile set, my
translation reads "...The nine so [suo3] are shown by the usual
strings of money...".
I hadn't come across this before and I was intrigued.
It is the wording that is interesting as he says "are shown by the
usual...". I would interpret this as being more explicit than the
'circles' above. This is because he has just described, in the same
paragraph, illustrations of actual strings of money on playing cards
in his collection. For example, he says "As in the case of so [suo3]
the cards are illustrated throughout with the still used money strings
of brass coins with a hole in the middle ...".
It is noteworthy that he didn't say that there were bars or rods
representing strings of money. He seems to me he could be describing
illustrations of strings of money that have some resemblance to those
that appear on playing cards?
This would be remarkable as that would be very complicated carving.
al
> On Jun 30, 8:08 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
> > therefore mahjong were wrong?
> > I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
> > different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
>
> You have made a big mistake here, sir. There was never a symbol called
++++++++++++++++++++
Here is what I said in he post for discussion now.
I asked:
"Has anyone considered the possibility that the symbols in Ma Diao and
therefore mahjong were wrong?"
(1) ma diao has 1-cash like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate),
Half-Cash like guest with no teeth, Zero Cash with a Persian and the
other cash cards with fruit-like drawings called 'guo'. I am writing
from memory. My reference is Lo's translation in TPC article.
(2) Mahjong has 筒 for the circles which are supposed to be the
correspondents of Cash in Ma Diao.
It's true. The ma diao article I read in TPC does not show any drawing
except a few trigrams. I recall someone asked if I have seen what a
wrist-drum for the 2-Cash looks like. Was that you?
++++++++++
"I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
bamboo radical, 筒." That I also said.
There of course I was referring only to mahjong.
+++++++++++++
" 筒 sounds like tong and it means ‘tube’ or pipe, 管.
筒 is a section of bamboo trunk. Yes. A section of bamboo trunk is
called tong."
That describes the meaning of the word 筒 as it is used outside the mJ
game.
"Tong is also called a round coin with a square hole. How did that
come
about if that was not a mistake?"
That refers to the use of 铜 by some people in some card games.
The confusion is exacerbated by the homophones 铜 and 筒. I mean Zero
Cash in Ma Diao is Tong (money) and bamboo tube or pipe is Tong in
mahjong. Bamboo tubes 筒 are represented by circles in mahjong. Tong
metalic) should be different than Tong bamboo.
That is the meaning of what I tried to say.
+++++++++++++++++
The following is added confusion in mahjong. I said:
"Think about it. A length of stick or rod that looks like a section of
bamboo and sometimes referred to as “bam” is historically the 索, Suo3,
which is known as “string of Cash”."
I mean Bam [boo] is what 索, Suo3, looks like. 索, Suo3 looks like a
section of bamboo with knots; but some historians insist that that is
the symbol of a string of 100 or 1000 coins.
For proof of that, it is compared to a picture in an old dollar bill
which shows 10 rolls of 10 coins each and the rolls strung together so
that when one roll is opened and used for business transaction, the
rest 9 rolls remain intact. That is if anybody carries strings of
coins.
Even though the notion of Cash and String of Cash is based on money
coin with square hole, but the hole is filled with historical data
from recognized historians. That seems to be a non-issue now.
++++++++++++++
Again.
"Where is the logic? A length of Bam is called a ‘string of Cash’,
while a symbol with a bamboo radical like this, 筒, is called by a name
that has a metal radical signifying it as being made of copper, 铜钱. I
cannot recognize it if that is supposed to be Oriental logic."
[..]
+++++++++++
Hope this can clarify my point.
ithinc
> "I mean what if the circular symbol was not money but something else
> different entirely? After all, it is written in a pictograph with a
> bamboo radical, 筒." That I also said.
>
> There of course I was referring only to mahjong.
不要企图狡辩。如此不虚心怎么指望别人教给你更多东西呢？
> " 筒 sounds like tong and it means ‘tube’ or pipe, 管.
> 筒 is a section of bamboo trunk. Yes. A section of bamboo trunk is
> called tong."
>
> That describes the meaning of the word 筒 as it is used outside the mJ
> game.
>
> "Tong is also called a round coin with a square hole. How did that
> come
> about if that was not a mistake?"
>
> That refers to the use of 铜 by some people in some card games.
>
> The confusion is exacerbated by the homophones 铜 and 筒. I mean Zero
> Cash in Ma Diao is Tong (money) and bamboo tube or pipe is Tong in
> mahjong. Bamboo tubes 筒 are represented by circles in mahjong. Tong
> metalic) should be different than Tong bamboo.
Suppose, you have a nickname "Monkey". People call you "Monkey"
doesn't mean you're a monkey. It's the same in the mahjong game. The
round suit is called 筒 doesn't mean it is 筒.
al
You may be right.
For one thing, the round shape looks somewhat like copper-money-coin
of China. Regardless what the symbol was intended to be initially,
some people probably call it 'tong-chien' while others might see it as
cookies or cake. Another thing is bamboo tube does not look like a
circle unless it's viewed from from the end.
++++++++++
That is good to know. I have been thinking that the Bamboo-tong fits
more as symbol for the Suo3, "String".
What is the reference in 1892?
al
> On Jul 3, 1:39 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> I gave my reasons more than once. Here they are again.
> > Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
> > cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
> > about that. Is there? Dice is a perfect example of an early game.
> > Liu Bo used bamboo sticks with engraving. Mahjong has bamboo material
> > and engraving. It is an early game of typical solid material. Next is
> > Tien-Gow dominoes. Games of solid materials of wood, bone and bamboo
> > came earlier than paper cards.
>
> > [...]
>
> > We do not know how old mahjong is. Based on civilization in history, I
> > believe bone tiles came before paper cards. Only time will tell
> > eventually.
>
> It's made of bone back and bamboo face. How old would you think of it?
> Would you think Playing Cards was firstly in domino form then in paper
> form?
Let me guess. You know the answer. Right?
I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older than all paper
cards.
My point was, based on history of civilization, bone-things probably
came before paper-things.
On that basis, I believe mahjong tiles could and likely came before
paper cards like ma diao.
And from that, I do not believe mahjong evolves or inherits only the
money-suits from ma diao.
Which comes first (bone cards or paper cards) is not absolutely
certain, I suppose. However, I do not believe MahJong copies from Ma
Diao.
ithinc
shown you could and likely came before paper-form Playing Cards?
> And from that, I do not believe mahjong evolves or inherits only the
> money-suits from ma diao.
I recall I have ever introduced the important 1783 book "Mu zhu xian
hua" to you two years ago, haven't I? Have you read it? All kinds of
gambling games were recorded in the book but no mahjong. The author
says he has "厯經燕齊閩粵之地", which means almost all over the country.
On this basis, I believe mahjong didn't exist before 1783, so it
couldn't be earlier than Madiao.
al
> On Jul 7, 11:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 3:13 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 1:39 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> I gave my reasons more than once. Here they are again.
> > > > Mahjong has bone tiles whereas ma diao consists of printed paper
> > > > cards. Paper and printing come after bone carving. There is no doubt
> > > > about that. Is there? Dice is a perfect example of an early game.
> > > > Liu Bo used bamboo sticks with engraving. Mahjong has bamboo material
> > > > and engraving. It is an early game of typical solid material. Next is
> > > > Tien-Gow dominoes. Games of solid materials of wood, bone and bamboo
> > > > came earlier than paper cards.
Bone-things come before paper-things. I thought that is reasonable.
No?
> [..]
> > > > We do not know how old mahjong is. Based on civilization in history, I
> > > > believe bone tiles came before paper cards. Only time will tell
> > > > eventually.
It's possible an archeological dig will unveil solid evidence as
proof.
>
> > > Let me show you a domino deck of the Internation Playing Cards.http://auction.kongfz.com/show_pics.php?itemId=2888447
> > > It's made of bone back and bamboo face. How old would you think of it?
> > > Would you think Playing Cards was firstly in domino form then in paper
> > > form?
I can not tell you how old the tile set is, but the symbols in the
deck are not like Ma Diao.
And this is what I wrote.
" I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older than all paper
cards."
The key words to note is "not all".
> > +++++++++++++
> > Let me guess. You know the answer. Right?
>
> > I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older than all paper
> > cards.
>
> > My point was, based on history of civilization, bone-things probably
> > came before paper-things.
>
> > On that basis, I believe mahjong tiles could and likely came before
> > paper cards like ma diao.
>
> So you would also believe domino-form Playing Cards like what I have
> shown you could and likely came before paper-form Playing Cards?
>
Let me repeat: I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older
than all paper
cards.
Not all. That is the answer. You can figure it.
> > And from that, I do not believe mahjong evolves or inherits only the
> > money-suits from ma diao.
Most of all I think 'string of cash' is an oxymoron. Zero Cash and
Half-Cash are mistakes like names given as ping or peng.
>
> I recall I have ever introduced the important 1783 book "Mu zhu xian
> hua" to you two years ago, haven't I? Have you read it? All kinds of
> gambling games were recorded in the book but no mahjong. The author
I never did read it. I seem to recall it was all in Chinese which is
slow reading for me.
> says he has "厯經燕齊閩粵之地", which means almost all over the country.
I write simpler. I can not understand the few Chinese words. Whatever
you say.
> On this basis, I believe mahjong didn't exist before 1783, so it
> couldn't be earlier than Madiao.
I can not prove you are wrong yet.
Assume you are right that mahjong is not older than ma diao. What make
you think mahjong took part of ma diao's in its design?
The two games made different, look different; and played different.
They are different!
ithinc
> > So you would also believe domino-form Playing Cards like what I have
> > shown you could and likely came before paper-form Playing Cards?
>
> Let me repeat: I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older
> than all paper
> cards.
>
> Not all. That is the answer. You can figure it.
are older than all paper cards. I was just asking you which came
first, domino-form Playing Cards or paper-form Playing Cards? I was
not asking any specific deck.
> > I recall I have ever introduced the important 1783 book "Mu zhu xian
> > hua" to you two years ago, haven't I? Have you read it? All kinds of
> > gambling games were recorded in the book but no mahjong. The author
>
> I never did read it. I seem to recall it was all in Chinese which is
> slow reading for me.
>
> > says he has "厯經燕齊閩粵之地", which means almost all over the country.
>
> I write simpler. I can not understand the few Chinese words. Whatever
> you say.
Why not understand? I have seen you kept flaunting your Chinese
background.
It could be translated as: I have visited many places including Yan
(Hebei), Qi(Shandong), Min(Fujian), and Yue(Guangdong), etc.
> > On this basis, I believe mahjong didn't exist before 1783, so it
> > couldn't be earlier than Madiao.
>
> I can not prove you are wrong yet.
> Assume you are right that mahjong is not older than ma diao. What make
> you think mahjong took part of ma diao's in its design?
Where did I say "mahjong took part of ma diao's in its design"?
> The two games made different, look different; and played different.
> They are different!
No one says ther are same.
Julian Bradfield
However, my friendly librarian (Shenxiao Tong) tells me:
"According to 汉语大词典, "同" could mean "铜" and the word in mah
jong could mean cash."
I'm not sure whether he means that the Hanyu Da Cidian says both of
these, or that it says the first and he says the second.
I'll try to get a copy of the Hanyu Da Cidian entry.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> On 2009-07-07, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
That would be very interesting!
Will you post the entry here with a complete translation?
al
> On Jul 8, 11:53 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> > So you would also believe domino-form Playing Cards like what I have
> > > shown you could and likely came before paper-form Playing Cards?
>
> > Let me repeat: I did not say all bone tiles sets ever made are older
> > than all paper
> > cards.
Interpret the meaning from this statement above. You will get the
answer.
>
> > Not all. That is the answer. You can figure it.
>
> Let me repeat: I did not say you did say all bone tiles sets ever made
> are older than all paper cards. I was just asking you which came
> first, domino-form Playing Cards or paper-form Playing Cards? I was
> not asking any specific deck.
>
The very first set of bone cards was more likely made and used before
the very first deck of paper cards, wherever they may be. That is my
point.
++++++++++
> > > I recall I have ever introduced the important 1783 book "Mu zhu xian
> > > hua" to you two years ago, haven't I? Have you read it? All kinds of
> > > gambling games were recorded in the book but no mahjong. The author
>
> > I never did read it. I seem to recall it was all in Chinese which is
> > slow reading for me.
>
> > > says he has "厯經燕齊閩粵之地", which means almost all over the country.
>
> > I write simpler. I can not understand the few Chinese words. Whatever
> > you say.
>
> Why not understand? I have seen you kept flaunting your Chinese
> background.
Why not understand? Because I do not use the language every day. I
have not been a bookworm like you living between pages of history
books.
> It could be translated as: I have visited many places including Yan
> (Hebei), Qi(Shandong), Min(Fujian), and Yue(Guangdong), etc.
>
It could be translated differently too. Chinese writing is notorious
for ambiguity.
If I had bothered to look up the Kangxi, I might have come to some
meaning of interpretation. But why should I waste time. I expected you
had the answer in a tricky way.
There are 4 words abbreviated for 4 separate regions. I only one I
recognize is Guangdong my hometown province. But look at who is
"flaunting".
> > > On this basis, I believe mahjong didn't exist before 1783, so it
> > > couldn't be earlier than Madiao.
>
The author of a book says he traveled over 4 regions. You took it as
almost the whole country.
By the way, did he say how he traveled? Did he go by foot, by horse,
by water or by wheel? Did he spend his lifetime on that trip? I wonder
how he made his living.
+++++++++
> > I can not prove you are wrong yet.
> > Assume you are right that mahjong is not older than ma diao. What make
> > you think mahjong took part of ma diao's in its design?
>
> Where did I say "mahjong took part of ma diao's in its design"?
>
That is what MDH is about. The 'money suit" is claimed to come from ma
diao.
> > The two games made different, look different; and played different.
> > They are different!
>
> No one says ther are same.
Check with MS and others. Ask them what MDH is.
Where have you been!
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> That is what MDH is about. The 'money suit" is claimed to come from ma
> diao.
>
> > > The two games made different, look different; and played different.
> > > They are different!
>
> > No one says they are same.
>
> Check with MS and others. Ask them what MDH is.
> Where have you been!
Where have YOU been! Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Seriously, are you being deliberately antagonistic!?
The MDH DOES NOT claim that ma diao and ma que are the same.
So please STOP peddling this twisted nonsense of yours.
The MDH DOES NOT claim that the suits come DIRECTLY from ma diao -
which seems to be your implication.
STOP directly linking the two.
The MDH claims that ma diao is an early precursor game to ma que in
respect of the three Himly ma que suits and their terms.
But there are other developments between ma diao and ma que of 1870 -
the collapsing of 4 suits to 3, the games of peng hu and mo hu. The
last two are more to do with the game-play but they also use the three
suits derived from the ma diao card deck.
ithinc
> On 2009-07-07, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
Thank you Julian for this clue. I have managed to get a copy of 汉语大词典
and found the item of 同. It says:
同“銅”。宋俞文豹《吹剑录》卷四：“先是牙税外每千收勘同錢十文，後又增三錢，並入總制。” 《明成化说唱词话丛刊·包龙图断曹国舅公案》：“西廊下
面同鑼響。”
Here in the two examples 同 is used in 同錢(copper cash) and 同鑼(copper
gong).
al
Instead of denying what it is, declare what it is.
I said:
> > That is what MDH is about. The 'money suit" is claimed to come from ma
> > diao.
>
> > > >[..] Someone says:
> > > No one says they are same.
>
Note this.I did not say you said "they are the same".
> > Check with MS and others. Ask them what MDH is.
> > Where have you been!
> [..]
> The MDH DOES NOT claim that ma diao and ma que are the same.
>
I answered that already. But what does MDH say? State it.
> So please STOP peddling this twisted nonsense of yours.
>
I thought MDH is more or less nonsense when it can not be pinned down
to say what it means.
> The MDH DOES NOT claim that the suits come DIRECTLY from ma diao -
> which seems to be your implication.
So, are you sying this? MDH means mahjong suits come from ma diao
suits INDIRECTLY?
Ma Diao suits exist in Ming and mahjong suits are products of Qing;
the path of the money suits is indirect. Correct?
>
> STOP directly linking the two.
>
They cannot be linked directly?
Why so? No evidence of a direct link yet?
> The MDH claims that ma diao is an early precursor game to ma que in
> respect of the three Himly ma que suits and their terms.
>
What does that really mean? Can your wording be more direct?
Could this mean that the inferred link is based on what Himly thinks
he had in his ma que sets?
> But there are other developments between ma diao and ma que of 1870 -
> the collapsing of 4 suits to 3, the games of peng hu and mo hu. The
> last two are more to do with the game-play but they also use the three
> suits derived from the ma diao card deck.
So the collapsing of 4 suits to 3 in ma diao was an indirect link
then?
I asked if anybody knows of any reason for the disappearance of the
high-ranking suit in ma diao. That could be a reason then? Any idea as
to the time delay between the 4-3 collapse and the Hu and Hu?
Now you are saying Peng Hu and Mo hu use the 3 money suits from Ma
Diao as well?
I get the impression "money" is the only thing the Chinese can think
of. Come to think of it. They were pretty good at counting Cash. The
knew how to count Zero Cash, Half Cash, Taiji Cash, String Cash and
Myriad Cash. Those old gamblers had a six-cents for money. ^z^
Hope this can be of help for you to put MDH together. It does need a
coherent statement.
+++++++++++++++
al
> On Jul 8, 5:39 pm, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-07-07, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 2009-07-07, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 3, 5:55 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>> [...] if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
> > >>> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
> > >>> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
> > >>> just in sound.
>
It refers to food stuff.
> > >> I have read the item of "同" in the Kangxi dictionary. I didn't find "同
> > >> is used as an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇" or something similar.
>
> > > Indeed, no. Sorry about that - I was relying too hastily on the crude
> > > automatic translation. My friendly local East Asian Studies librarian
> > > has corrected me!
>
> > However, my friendly librarian (Shenxiao Tong) tells me:
> > "According to 汉语大词典, "同" could mean "铜" and the word in mah
> > jong could mean cash."
>
> > I'm not sure whether he means that the Hanyu Da Cidian says both of
> > these, or that it says the first and he says the second.
> > I'll try to get a copy of the Hanyu Da Cidian entry.
>
> Thank you Julian for this clue. I have managed to get a copy of 汉语大词典
> and found the item of 同. It says:
> 同“銅”。宋俞文豹《吹剑录》卷四：“先是牙税外每千收勘同錢十文，後又增三錢，並入總制。” 《明成化说唱词话丛刊·包龙图断曹国舅公案》：“西廊下
> 面同鑼響。”
>
> Here in the two examples 同 is used in 同錢(copper cash) and 同鑼(copper
> gong).
Before you guys jumping for joy. Check this.
The text quoted above looked ancient with classic references. Is the
printing revised with simplified Chinese? Or is that printing of
ancient time?
More importantly, the most common term for the copper / bronze coin is
'chien', (Tein in my dialect), represented simply by one word, 錢.
The word 錢 has metal (alloy) radical. 'Tong' in 'Tong Chien' is not in
common usage and it is redundant in normal expeession.
Take for examples, "Here is a dime for you". I don't say "here is a
silver dime for you". If you owe 3 cents. the store clerk would not
say "you owe 3 copper cents".
Realistically speaking, 'Tong' was misconstrued as a term for money.
That can happen to people who are unfamiliar with foreign culture.
In the case of ma que circle symbol. Ma que players told Himly 'Tong'
was the pronunciation for the Circle. Himly misconstrued it to mean
Tong-錢.
Tong is what the players called the round symbol. 錢 made more 'cents'
to Himly by coining it '銅 錢'. But that was a mistake.
+++++++++++++
P.S. Tong is not copper-coin. MDH is baseless.
ithinc
Addition: I have found 銅 in 汉语大词典. It has one item as:
铜质器物的省称。... ⑶铜钱，钱。《後汉书·崔寔传》：“［崔烈］從容問其子鈞曰：‘吾居三公，於議者何如？’……鈞曰：‘論者嫌其銅臭。’”《初
刻拍案惊奇》卷三三：“不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。”闻一多《死水·洗衣歌》：“铜是那样臭，血是那样腥。”
Abbreviation for copper-made things. (3) copper cash, cash.
ithinc
> So the collapsing of 4 suits to 3 in ma diao was an indirect link
> then?
> I asked if anybody knows of any reason for the disappearance of the
> high-ranking suit in ma diao. That could be a reason then? Any idea as
> to the time delay between the 4-3 collapse and the Hu and Hu?
why is it necessary for us to show it to you? Be more modest, you'll
have the chance to learn more.
Julian Bradfield
> On Jul 8, 1:42 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 5:39 pm, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > On 2009-07-07, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > > On 2009-07-07, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jul 3, 5:55 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > >>> [...] if I read the Kangxi correctly, it says that 同 is used as
>> > >>> an abbreviation for both 茼 and 餇, which makes it even easier to
>> > >>> re-interpret "copper" as "bamboo" - it can be done in writing, not
>> > >>> just in sound.
> Note. 餇 is totally different.
Yes, sorry, that was just a typo. My usual font is too small, and it's easy
to make mistakes when my contact lenses are misbehaving!
>> Thank you Julian for this clue. I have managed to get a copy of 汉语大词典
>> and found the item of 同. It says:
>> 同“銅”。宋俞文豹《吹剑录》卷四：“先是牙税外每千收勘同錢十文，後又增三錢，並入總制。” 《明成化说唱词话丛刊·包龙图断曹国舅公案》：“西廊下
>> 面同鑼響。”
>>
>> Here in the two examples 同 is used in 同錢(copper cash) and 同鑼(copper
>> gong).
> ++++++++++++++++++
> Before you guys jumping for joy. Check this.
>
> The text quoted above looked ancient with classic references. Is the
> printing revised with simplified Chinese? Or is that printing of
> ancient time?
The Hanyu Da Cidian is a historical dictionary, and it uses both
simplified and traditional characters, whatever was in the sources it
quotes.
> Realistically speaking, 'Tong' was misconstrued as a term for money.
I feel like repeating Ithinc's comment in another post.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> On Jul 8, 1:17 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 5:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > The MDH DOES NOT claim that ma diao and ma que are the same.
>
> I answered that already. But what does MDH say? State it.
I will not state it again until you receive some medical help for your
apalling memory loss.
I suspect, judging from your repeated inability to remember recent
topics and the points made in those discussions, that it is your short
term memory that is at fault.
If you do not believe me then go and read recent past subjects to see
what I wrote.
I ask you in all sincerity to go and get checked out by your doctor.
> > So please STOP peddling this twisted nonsense of yours.
>
> I thought MDH is more or less nonsense when it can not be pinned down
> to say what it means.
Please get your memory loss checked out.
It might help with why you reply with rude and sarcastic manners as
well.
> > The MDH DOES NOT claim that the suits come DIRECTLY from ma diao -
> > which seems to be your implication.
>
> So, are you sying this? MDH means mahjong suits come from ma diao
> suits INDIRECTLY?
Please go and check past subjects.
Why don't you right some brief notes about what others have said, and
list them according to the subject threads.
You can then have a ready reference in case you do not remember what
has been discussed.
> Ma Diao suits exist in Ming and mahjong suits are products of Qing;
> the path of the money suits is indirect. Correct?
Wrong. Ma Diao continued into the Qing as a very complicated game.
I have deleted your questions that are dripping in sarcasm.
I am aware that you find evidence put to you unpalatable and that you
use different strategies (sarcasm, ridicule, twisting peoples
statements and claims) to avoid coming to terms with the implications
of that evidence and do not remember the arguments/explanations for
why that evidence is used that way.
> Now you are saying Peng Hu and Mo hu use the 3 money suits from Ma
> Diao as well?
They use the money-based suits that are found in ma diao, the earliest
game I know of that has them.
But please get your memory loss sorted out.
I am also concerned that it may be linked to your confusion about what
others have said.
You seem to habitually take what others have said and reinterpet it,
and then restate it but in your reinterpreted form.
This too may be linked to your memory problems.
Seriously, I am concerned about your memory health.
It seems to me to be a glaring problem.
al
<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 1:17 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 8, 5:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > The MDH DOES NOT claim that ma diao and ma que are the same.
>
> >[..]
What does Money-Derived-Hypothesis (MDH) claim?
I have been telling you Ma Diao and Ma Que are 2 different animals
long ago and repeatedly. Do you not remember? I told JB to compare the
elaborate pictorial details in Ma Diao with the simplistic symbols in
Ma Que too. Anybody can tell the astounding dissimilarities between Ma
Diao and Ma Que.
>
> I will not state it again until you receive some medical help for your
> apalling memory loss.
>
You would have stated and re-stated if you could do it. What a lame
excuse to "claim" and blame on somebody's mental health for your
incapability. Is that a formal debating tactic?
You seem to be more concerned with winning your argument than getting
at the truth of Ma Que story.
Like I told the story of someone's remark. The evolutionists have to
believe it like religion. They simply cannot live without it. It is
understandable. MDH is your guiding principle and Himly has been your
guiding light.
> I suspect, judging from your repeated inability to remember recent
> topics and the points made in those discussions, that it is your short
> term memory that is at fault.
>
You have a gift for big words, talking around a subject and tells
nothing. Long words with double meaning are at your ready disposal.
A hypothesis if it is of any substance can be stated in a paragraph or
even a sentence. And if you cannot hypothesize a concept in a
sentence, it would lacking be any central idea. Remember that.
> If you do not believe me then go and read recent past subjects to see
> what I wrote.
>
What you wrote is worthless. I am looking for something worthwhile
from your MDH.
>[..]
> > > So please STOP peddling this twisted nonsense of yours.
>
What "peddling...twisted nonsense"? I forgot any of that stuff.
> > I thought MDH is more or less nonsense when it can not be pinned down
> > to say what it means.
Don't you think so?
>
> Please get your memory loss checked out.
> [..]
You might want to check your own first.
>
> > > The MDH DOES NOT claim that the suits come DIRECTLY from ma diao -
> > > which seems to be your implication.
What does it claim? I asked you before. Remember. Give a clear-cut
answer of MDH claim.
>
> > So, are you sying this? MDH means mahjong suits come from ma diao
> > suits INDIRECTLY?
>
> Please go and check past subjects.
>
A simple direct question can be answered directly. Why resort to such
twisting excuse to avoid it?
The impression I get is that you have no direct answer.
[..]
>
> > Ma Diao suits exist in Ming and mahjong suits are products of Qing;
> > the path of the money suits is indirect. Correct?
>
> Wrong. Ma Diao continued into the Qing as a very complicated game.
That is not my question. Read it again. How did the "mpey suits" get
from Ma Diao to Ma Que? That is what I want to trace and that is where
MDH can not show. The answer to this question you never gave in plain
language.
Now I hear one cute rebuttal. It's something like this. "why should I
have to explain that for you"?
You can use that now to avoid answering.
I remember the first time over 2 years ago when you first told me how
you "forecast" and found the confirming 'Wan' after the discovery of
Tong and the String.
I told you too, that logic is fine, but the proof is in the
assumption. Remember that? I warned you. If tong is not Chien, the MDH
falls apart. I said that more than once.
> [..]
> I am aware that you find evidence put to you unpalatable and that you
> use different strategies (sarcasm, ridicule, twisting peoples
> statements and claims) to avoid coming to terms with the implications
> of that evidence and do not remember the arguments/explanations for
> why that evidence is used that way.
>
It's ironic. Look at who is talking. Stick to the questions under
discussion. You are pulling out your defense strategy now.
> > Now you are saying Peng Hu and Mo hu use the 3 money suits from Ma
> > Diao as well?
>
> They use the money-based suits that are found in ma diao, the earliest
> game I know of that has them.
>
A full set of tiles was shown that is made like ma que but no trace of
money-base in it.
Why does money-base have to be present in any card games that come
after ma diao?
There is the basic flaw in your MDH reasoning:a game that comes after
Ma Diao copies its money-base.
Most of all why should all Chinese card games be money-based? Look at
Tien-Jiu, Lu Zhi. There was even a game called poetry pai. Money-base
is not needed. It is not in Ma Que, as I can see.
I can tell you why and how possibly it resulted in such a state of
confusion. The illiterate people of China centuries ago did not learn
the game correctly and called the suit symbols by the wrong names.
Oral tradition allowed the errors to carry down through generations
and over different regions.Then additional influence injected from
western culture. We now have a mixture of slang, homophones and
abbreviation / mutilation of terms.
> But please get your memory loss sorted out.
>
You need your head examined, if you truly believe I have memory
problem.
> I am also concerned that it may be linked to your confusion about what
> others have said.
You need attention for your own mental faculty more than I do for
mine. I have no confusion about what other people say. I have
disagreement with what you and some other people say. I hope you can
distinguish the difference.
>
> You seem to habitually take what others have said and reinterpet it,
> and then restate it but in your reinterpreted form.
>
How else if you and some others don't state your thought in plain
simple terms? That goes to show that I clarify the wording first
before I make my remarks. That is better than to assume what others
said.
> This too may be linked to your memory problems.
>
> Seriously, I am concerned about your memory health.
>
I see you seem to have a problem of fixation. Forget it.
> It seems to me to be a glaring problem.
What seems?
What is glaring? I forgot.
+++++++++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
> What does Money-Derived-Hypothesis (MDH) claim?
I told you the MDH in one sentence a couple of days ago - don't you
remember it? It says:
(a) The three suits in mah-jong are derived from three of the suits in
ma-diao; and
(b) the suits in ma-diao were nominally representations of amounts of
money.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> I have been telling you Ma Diao and Ma Que are 2 different animals
> long ago and repeatedly. Do you not remember? I told JB to compare the
> elaborate pictorial details in Ma Diao with the simplistic symbols in
> Ma Que too. Anybody can tell the astounding dissimilarities between Ma
> Diao and Ma Que.
This was answered and explained before, do you not again remember?
> > If you do not believe me then go and read recent past subjects to see
> > what I wrote.
>
> What you wrote is worthless. I am looking for something worthwhile
> from your MDH.>[..]
Oh? So you HAVE found the past posts?
In that case I am not going to repeat myself over and over again.
> > > > The MDH DOES NOT claim that the suits come DIRECTLY from ma diao -
> > > > which seems to be your implication.
>
> What does it claim? I asked you before. Remember. Give a clear-cut
> answer of MDH claim.
Already done. Now go and check past posts for the answer if you cannot
remember.
> A simple direct question can be answered directly. Why resort to such
> twisting excuse to avoid it?
> The impression I get is that you have no direct answer.
Very good. I like your childish game of using other peoples words in
your replies. It is a kind of sarcasm game isn't it?
Let's see... what words are you copying now? Oh yes, "direct" and
"twisting" and "avoid".
> > > Ma Diao suits exist in Ming and mahjong suits are products of Qing;
> > > the path of the money suits is indirect. Correct?
>
> > Wrong. Ma Diao continued into the Qing as a very complicated game.
>
> That is not my question. Read it again.
I did. I corrected your claim that ma diao suits existed in ming. You
didn't mention that they were in the Qing as well.
> Why does money-base have to be present in any card games that come
> after ma diao?
It doesn't.
> There is the basic flaw in your MDH reasoning:a game that comes after
> Ma Diao copies its money-base.
That is not my reasoning so it seems you have clearly forgotten it and
have decided to use some bogus accusation instead.
The reasoning was explained to you before. Becuause you cannot
remember, please go and find it and make a note of it.
Please make a note of what I am asking you to do so i don't have to
keep repeating myself over and over again.
I am not going to answer your questions that have already been
answered before.
> You need attention for your own mental faculty more than I do for
> mine. I have no confusion about what other people say. I have
> disagreement with what you and some other people say. I hope you can
> distinguish the difference.
Oh I can. But you are asking the same questions over and over and you
are also accusing others of what they HAVEN'T said. Other posters have
accused you of twisting their words. it is not just me you know.
Now, I think you do not remember what you have read and that has lead
you to restate incorrectly what you think others have said.
That is why I am concerned for your memory health.
> > You seem to habitually take what others have said and reinterpet it,
> > and then restate it but in your reinterpreted form.
>
> How else if you and some others don't state your thought in plain
> simple terms? That goes to show that I clarify the wording first
> before I make my remarks.
You do the exact opposite!! You don't clarify the wording 1st. You
just restate it in a twisted form!
> That is better than to assume what others said.
I genuinely believe you are telling the truth here. But what you are
writing is NOT what you say here that you are doing.That is why you
need to see your doctore to get checked out.
> I see you seem to have a problem of fixation. Forget it.
Please don't. You need to get some help - or at least get checked out.
if you are ok then we can see what else is going on with you.
> > It seems to me to be a glaring problem.
>
> What seems?
> What is glaring? I forgot.
See what i mean.
> +++++++++++++++++++
al
> On Jul 9, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> So the collapsing of 4 suits to 3 in ma diao was an indirect link
> > then?
> > I asked if anybody knows of any reason for the disappearance of the
> > high-ranking suit in ma diao. That could be a reason then? Any idea as
> > to the time delay between the 4-3 collapse and the Hu and Hu?
>
> Of course we have some reasons for why 4 suits got into 3 suits. But
> why is it necessary for us to show it to you?
Why? Because it good for your health to share your knowledge.
MDH people have not been able to support their claim with evidence
other than saying there were other Asian games of 30 cards.
It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30 claim because MDH
claim2 that ma que <--- Ma Diao depends on it.
A change from 40 to 30 cards should represent a significant step in
the life history of Ma Diao. A true historian would have given some
thought or effort of inquiry to it. And I had thought of you as a Ma
Diao historian.
++++++++++
Be more modest, you'll
> have the chance to learn more.
You can do likewise, be modest, you will have a chance to earn more
respect.
++++++++++++
Again:
More importantly, the most common term for the copper / bronze coin is
'chien', (Tein in my dialect), represented simply by one word, 錢.
The word 錢 has metal (alloy) radical. 'Tong' in 'Tong Chien' is not in
common usage and it is redundant in normal expession.
Take for examples, "Here is a dime for you". I don't say "here is a
silver dime for you". If you owe 3 cents. the store clerk would not
say "you owe 3 copper cents".
Realistically speaking, 'Tong' was misconstrued as a term for money.
That can happen to people who are unfamiliar with foreign culture.
In the case of ma que circle symbol. Ma que players told Himly 'Tong'
was the pronunciation for the Circle. Himly misconstrued it to mean
Tong-錢.
Tong is what the players called the round symbol. 錢 made more 'cents'
to Himly by coining it '銅 錢'. But that was a mistake
++++++++++++
Tong was the word with bamboo radical then, likely.
Here is one more good example.
I don't say I lost ten paper-dollars at poker.
Himly's Tong was as redundant as my 'paper' now.
Tong was not copper and therefore it was not Cash.
+++++++
Q.E.D.
al
Why? Can't you check with your associates who have Oriental cultural
background to get an appreciation of the real situation where and when
ma que history was fabricated?
Show your intellectual curiosity and scholarly character. Find the
truth.
I bet you fifty American paper-dollars that you will check if what I
said is true anyway.
But I will not pay you in copper -pennies.
++++++++++
Cheers
ithinc
> On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> So the collapsing of 4 suits to 3 in ma diao was an indirect link
> > > then?
> > > I asked if anybody knows of any reason for the disappearance of the
> > > high-ranking suit in ma diao. That could be a reason then? Any idea as
> > > to the time delay between the 4-3 collapse and the Hu and Hu?
>
> > Of course we have some reasons for why 4 suits got into 3 suits. But
> > why is it necessary for us to show it to you?
>
> Why? Because it good for your health to share your knowledge.
it's necessary. That's all.
> Be more modest, you'll
>
> > have the chance to learn more.
>
> You can do likewise, be modest, you will have a chance to earn more
> respect.
Show your more respect to others, you'll get respect.
al
> On Jul 10, 2:37 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 7:42 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> So the collapsing of 4 suits to 3 in ma diao was an indirect link
> > > > then?
> > > > I asked if anybody knows of any reason for the disappearance of the
> > > > high-ranking suit in ma diao. That could be a reason then? Any idea as
> > > > to the time delay between the 4-3 collapse and the Hu and Hu?
>
> > > Of course we have some reasons for why 4 suits got into 3 suits. But
> > > why is it necessary for us to show it to you?
>
> > Why? Because it good for your health to share your knowledge.
>
> I'm not willing to share my knowledge with a person like you, unless
> it's necessary. That's all.
>
mistake.
For that matter, if you spotted anybody's mistake you would have been
the first to come out with a correction. Your silence on the last
point I raised is a good sign. You can not knock it.
People do not refer to money coin as 'Tong'. They say 'Chien'.
> >[..]
>
> Show your more respect to others, you'll get respect.
The Master has spoken.
ithinc
> For that matter, if you spotted anybody's mistake you would have been
> the first to come out with a correction. Your silence on the last
> point I raised is a good sign. You can not knock it.
please state it in a short separate post and don't mix it in a lot of
long nonsense. And I will decide whether to answer you.
> People do not refer to money coin as 'Tong'. They say 'Chien'.
Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
al
> On Jul 10, 3:55 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> For that matter, if you spotted anybody's mistake you would have been
> > the first to come out with a correction. Your silence on the last
> > point I raised is a good sign. You can not knock it.
>
> Which last point? If you have some question which needs my answer,
> please state it in a short separate post and don't mix it in a lot of
> long nonsense. And I will decide whether to answer you.
>
> > People do not refer to money coin as 'Tong'. They say 'Chien'.
>
true.
It is true even in today's conversational language.
Not only in China, but it is same in North America. For example,
Question: "How much is that dog in the window?" Answer: "Two hundred
dollars and 99 cents".
The typical answer you would hear said is NOT "Two hundred paper
dollars and 99 copper cents".
That is simply not the way people speak normally. They leave out paper
and copper.
> Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
And why are you so ignorant? It is factual and historical that Chinese
is a language spoken not the way it is written. I relate to the spoken
version in which only 'chien' is money, tong is not.
Himly could not read or write Chinese. He got his 'tong' by sound as a
spoken word. The sound he heard was not copper. He did not read your
script.
Tong was spoken to him. and Chien was inferred by him. He linked Tong-
Chien together. MDH followed.
ithinc
> > Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
>
> And why are you so ignorant? It is factual and historical that Chinese
> version in which only 'chien' is money, tong is not.
you meaning spoken Chinese cannot be written down?
包爷道："若是关亲时节，你是大，他是小，纵然打伤身死，不过是误杀子孙，不致偿命，只罚些铜纳赎。" The words coming out
of one's mouth is not spoken Chinese? How blind!
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MDH people have not been able to support their claim with evidence
> other than saying there were other Asian games of 30 cards.
> It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30 claim because MDH
> claim2 that ma que <--- Ma Diao depends on it.
Let's correct, AGAIN, this distortion of yours.
I said that if you check out Andrew Lo's article "Pan Zhiheng's 'Xu
Yezi Pu' Part 2' TPC V31 #6, you would find there that a thirty card
deck was required for the game of 'Drawing Six Cards'. Pan says that
you take the fourty card deck but leave the ten myraid suit but retain
the thousand myriad. There are altogether 30 cards. The 40 card deck
was also used for Dou Hu by dropping the top suit but keeping the
thousand myriad.
The reason for why the top suit was dropped, rather than some other
suit, I do not know.
As far as the MDH is concerned, the reason, though it would be of
interest, is not required.
> A true historian would have given some thought or effort of inquiry to it. And I had thought of you as a Ma
> Diao historian.
Spare us your sarcastic jibes.
You are so hung up on ma diao and you have so forgotten the claims of
the MDH that you are now more confused than ever.
>> The word 錢 has metal (alloy) radical. 'Tong' in 'Tong Chien' is not in
> common usage and it is redundant in normal expession.
You don't say?
This 'common expression' and 'normal expression' is an utterly
irrelevant point.
The relevant point is whether there were usages in exitence prior or
at the time of the Himly set that support the MDH interpretation - and
Himly's - that the Tong2' word in his set was used to denote tong
'copper'.
Supporting evidence for that interpretation can be found from the
Hanyu da cidian.
> In the case of ma que circle symbol. Ma que players told Himly 'Tong'
> was the pronunciation for the Circle. Himly misconstrued it to mean
> Tong-錢.
Have you read Himly's article? No.
Were you there to know how Himly got his information? No.
Was Tong2 同 engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name for one of
the suits? Yes.
> Tong is what the players called the round symbol. 錢 made more 'cents'
> to Himly by coining it '銅 錢'. But that was a mistake.
Himly's interpretation of 同 as 銅 is supported by evidence from the
hanyu da cidian entries that show 同 was used in 同錢(copper cash) to
denote 銅錢.
Julian Bradfield
> true.
> It is true even in today's conversational language.
> Not only in China, but it is same in North America. For example,
>
> Question: "How much is that dog in the window?" Answer: "Two hundred
> dollars and 99 cents".
> The typical answer you would hear said is NOT "Two hundred paper
> dollars and 99 copper cents".
> That is simply not the way people speak normally. They leave out paper
> and copper.
Oh, really? Haven't you been in North America long enough to know what a
"nickel" is? Even I know that.
As for copper, "a copper" has been English slang for a penny or twopenny
piece for centuries, and still is, even now that copper coins are almost
useless.
>>> Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
>
> And why are you so ignorant? It is factual and historical that Chinese
> is a language spoken not the way it is written. I relate to the spoken
> version in which only 'chien' is money, tong is not.
If you're so keen on the spoken language, then you should be aware
that in Ningbo they speak a different language from you. By what
amazing arrogance do you think that your knowledge of 1940s Cantonese
has anything at all to do with 1870s Ningbo language?
> Himly could not read or write Chinese. He got his 'tong' by sound as a
> spoken word. The sound he heard was not copper. He did not read your
> script.
Why do you think that Himly could not read or write Chinese?
al
> On 2009-07-09, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> Yes. They say 'Chien'. This is what I said. And I maintain that is
> > true.
> > It is true even in today's conversational language.
>
> [...]
>
> > Not only in China, but it is same in North America. For example,
>
> > Question: "How much is that dog in the window?" Answer: "Two hundred
> > dollars and 99 cents".
> > The typical answer you would hear said is NOT "Two hundred paper
> > dollars and 99 copper cents".
> > That is simply not the way people speak normally. They leave out paper
> > and copper.
>
> Oh, really? Haven't you been in North America long enough to know what a
> "nickel" is? Even I know that.
>
A 5-cent piece is made of nickel of course.
> As for copper, "a copper" has been English slang for a penny or twopenny
> piece for centuries, and still is, even now that copper coins are almost
> useless.
>
Ah, that is England, Europe.
Different expression used is possible in different culture..
If that slang is same in Germany, I can see why Himly took Tong as
Chien.
> >>> Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
>
> > And why are you so ignorant? It is factual and historical that Chinese
> > is a language spoken not the way it is written. I relate to the spoken
> > version in which only 'chien' is money, tong is not.
>
> If you're so keen on the spoken language, then you should be aware
> that in Ningbo they speak a different language from you.
A different dialect; not a different language. Chinese speaking
expressions are different from written. For a ready proof, read the
Kangzi dictionary.
[..]
> > Himly could not read or write Chinese. He got his 'tong' by sound as a
> > spoken word. The sound he heard was not copper. He did not read your
> > script.
>
> Why do you think that Himly could not read or write Chinese?
He relied on an interpreter.
al
> On Jul 10, 5:14 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> > Are you blind to this? 《初刻拍案惊奇》卷三三："不過是誤殺子孫，不致償命，只罰些銅納贖。"
>
> > And why are you so ignorant? It is factual and historical that Chinese
> > is a language spoken not the way it is written. Irelateto the spoken
> > version in which only 'chien' is money, tong is not.
>
> Then what's your definition of spoken Chinese and written Chinese? Are
> you meaning spoken Chinese cannot be written down?
Spoken Chinese and written Chinese are different. The simplest way to
illustrate my point is by way of an example. My mother could not read
or write, she was able only to speak. Her spoken words were not
structured in sentence or lengthy phrases but mostly in single words.
She used mostly slang and many unwritten and undocumented words. My
father was able to read and write. What he wrote was not the way she
spoke.
Obviously, without definition, you can appreciate an illiterate person
can not speak Chinese the way it is expressed in written format. And
you well know, what was the approx. rate of illiteracy in olden day
China. Do you see a communication gap among the population?
I remind you your test in a sentence which the author of the novel
said that he almost traveled all over the country. That was written in
8 words or so. Do you think people speak like that then? Of course
not.
> 包爷道："若是关亲时节，你是大，他是小，纵然打伤身死，不过是误杀子孙，不致偿命，只罚些铜纳赎。" The words coming out
> of one's mouth is not spoken Chinese? How blind!
Think again. You will understand.
++++++++++++++
al
<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > MDH people have not been able to support their claim with evidence
> > other than saying there were other Asian games of 30 cards.
> > It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30 claim because MDH
> > claim2 that ma que <--- Ma Diao depends on it.
>
> Let's correct, AGAIN, this distortion of yours.
>
> I said that if you check out Andrew Lo's article "Pan Zhiheng's 'Xu
> Yezi Pu' Part 2' TPC V31 #6, you would find there that a thirty card
> deck was required for the game of 'Drawing Six Cards'. Pan says that
> you take the fourty card deck but leave the ten myraid suit but retain
> the thousand myriad. There are altogether 30 cards. The 40 card deck
> was also used for Dou Hu by dropping the top suit but keeping the
> thousand myriad.
>
If that was all you said, how can you claim a link between ma que and
ma diao?
> The reason for why the top suit was dropped, rather than some other
> suit, I do not know.
>
> As far as the MDH is concerned, the reason, though it would be of
> interest, is not required.
>
I heard of an explanation in discussion that 40 ---> 30 is associated
with quadrupling to become ma que.
Again, how does MDH extrapolate Ma Diao with ma que then?
> > [..]
> You are so hung up on ma diao and you have so forgotten the claims of
> the MDH that you are now more confused than ever.
>
MDH is based on ma diao. You demanded any hypothetical explanation has
to reference to ma diao. Cash (money) is a thing from ma diao. What am
I so confused about? Suit names in ma que are from ma diao is the
claim of MDH. Should I not be concentrating on it?
Can you state your MDH hypothesis simply, money-wise, how ma que
relates to ma diao?
> >> The word 錢 has metal (alloy) radical. 'Tong' in 'Tong Chien' is not in
> > common usage and it is redundant in normal expession.
>
> You don't say?
>
> This 'common expression' and 'normal expression' is an utterly
> irrelevant point.
>
You don't understand. I see it is important and relevant.
How Himly got the word Tong can tell why he interpreted it as copper.
> The relevant point is whether there were usages in exitence prior or
> at the time of the Himly set that support the MDH interpretation - and
> Himly's - that the Tong2' word in his set was used to denote tong
> 'copper'.
>
Your assumption is that the engraver was an authority on the game and
language.
You should be more watchful and cautious after seeing the variety of
cards and tiles in the Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
Artistic license seems free through the ages. However, one use of an
abbreviated tong(x) on a tile should not out-weigh and offset all
written appearances of Tong(y) in many books?
A reminder: Tong was an abbreviation unspecified.
> Supporting evidence for that interpretation can be found from the
> Hanyu da cidian.
>
Remember, if you are using a scientific approach as claimed, that tong
only 'was said could be used as abbreviation for copper. Nowhere
anything said that it was actually used in place of copper money. What
test if any have you done to confirm your wish?
> > In the case of ma que circle symbol. Ma que players told Himly 'Tong'
> > was the pronunciation for the Circle. Himly misconstrued it to mean
> > Tong-錢.
>
> Have you read Himly's article? No.
> Were you there to know how Himly got his information? No.
> Was Tong2 同 engraved on a tile in Himly's set as the name for one of
> the suits? Yes.
>
As I said, Tong2 同 was unspecified. Nobody knew what radical the
engraver eliminated. Was it bamboo or was it metal? You do not know
either. You assume it was metal.
Tong2 同 was used and found in only one set. Only one engraver ever did
that. That lone engraver is held by you as the undisputed reference
for copper money ma que suit?
> > Tong is what the players called the round symbol. 錢 made more 'cents'
> > to Himly by coining it '銅 錢'. But that was a mistake.
>
> Himly's interpretation of 同 as 銅 is supported by evidence from the
> hanyu da cidian entries that show 同 was used in 同錢(copper cash) to
> denote 銅錢.
No. You left out a link in your logical thinking.
What 'could be' (as the dictionary says) is not evidence of 'what was'
in ma que.
What happened in the case of Tong2 同 in Hinly's set was an anomaly and
not systematic.
Statistically you do not generalize on one odd case of an outlier. You
could, but your chance of committing an error is extremely high. That
is what you are doing. Tong2 同 for money is high risk.
ithinc
> On Jul 9, 5:37 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then what's your definition of spoken Chinese and written Chinese? Are
> > you meaning spoken Chinese cannot be written down?
>
> Spoken Chinese and written Chinese are different.
No one says spoken Chinese and written Chinese are same. You're again
saying a lot of nonsense.
> I remind you your test in a sentence which the author of the novel
> said that he almost traveled all over the country. That was written in
> 8 words or so. Do you think people speak like that then? Of course
> not.
Where did you see I said "厯經燕齊閩粵之地" is Spoken Chinese? Another lot of
nonsense.
Julian Bradfield
> Long enough. Either "nickel" or '5-cents', but not "nickel-5-cent".
> A 5-cent piece is made of nickel of course.
Which is exactly analogous to using 铜 to mean 钱.
>> If you're so keen on the spoken language, then you should be aware
>> that in Ningbo they speak a different language from you.
>
> A different dialect; not a different language. Chinese speaking
Different language. The only reason it's called a dialect is Chinese
cultural prejudice (and because Mandarin is the "dialect" with an
army). Mandarin speakers can no more understand Ningbo dialect (or
indeed Cantonese) than I as an English speaker can understand Swiss
mountain German. Different phonology, different vocabulary, different
grammar.
>> Why do you think that Himly could not read or write Chinese?
> He relied on an interpreter.
Can you give me the reference to where he talks about his
interpreter. I don't remember where it is.
However, that says he didn't speak the language, not that he didn't
read or write it. You would need an interpreter too if you were
researching in the Ningbo countryside.
Julian Bradfield
> On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"
><stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> As I said, Tong2 同 was unspecified. Nobody knew what radical the
> engraver eliminated. Was it bamboo or was it metal? You do not know
> either. You assume it was metal.
Quite right. However, there is a whole bunch of circumstantial
evidence, rehearsed at length, which makes that plausible; whereas
there is no evidence at all to support the idea that it was bamboo.
> Tong2 同 was used and found in only one set. Only one engraver ever did
> that. That lone engraver is held by you as the undisputed reference
> for copper money ma que suit?
No. The whole rather obvious similarity between madiao cards and ma
que tiles is also part of the reference.
> What happened in the case of Tong2 同 in Hinly's set was an anomaly and
> not systematic.
How do you know? Where is the whole bunch of "normal data" that shows
it's an outlier? Where are all those sets where 筒 is engraved for the
circle suit?
> Statistically you do not generalize on one odd case of an outlier. You
> could, but your chance of committing an error is extremely high. That
> is what you are doing. Tong2 同 for money is high risk.
Having a single set is of course not satisfactory. However, it's
infinitely better than hypothesizing on the basis of zero sets, as you
do.
al
> On 2009-07-09, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Long enough. Either "nickel" or '5-cents', but not "nickel-5-cent".
> > A 5-cent piece is made of nickel of course.
>
> Which is exactly analogous to using 铜 to mean 钱.
>
unmistakably the nickel 5-cent piece. There is no homophone to nickel.
Nickel is only used for the 5-cent piece. Similarly, there is no
homophone to copper in your country. But in the case of Tong, count
the number of homophones.
For that simple reason, Tong is not used as nickel in America or
copper in Europe.
Do you see what I mean? For practical reason, the traditional habit is
to speak with words that have fewer homophones to minimize ambiguity.
Check with your source or resource and tell me what is the common
expression they know and use.
Tong is not used for money; chien is. Readers of Chinese origin are
aware of that. They are all too busy to bother with our discussion, I
guess.
Let me put it this way. If you were walking at night and a robber
confronts you, he would not demand Tong from you. He wants chien.
> >>[..]
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > MDH people have not been able to support their claim with evidence
> > > other than saying there were other Asian games of 30 cards.
> > > It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30 claim because MDH
> > > claim2 that ma que <--- Ma Diao depends on it.
>
> > Let's correct, AGAIN, this distortion of yours.
>
> The distortion to correct is in MDH claim.
Wrong. You said "MDH people have not been able to support their claim
with evidence...It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30
claim..."
Below is my description of just such an occurance of the 40 card deck
being reduced to 30 cards to play trick taking games called 'Drawing
six cards' and Kan Hu/Dou Hu.
This line of evidence was described to you before but you have
forgotten, so you end up endlessly repeating yourself over and over
again.
> > I said that if you check out Andrew Lo's article "Pan Zhiheng's 'Xu
> > Yezi Pu' Part 2' TPC V31 #6, you would find there that a thirty card
> > deck was required for the game of 'Drawing Six Cards'. Pan says that
> > you take the fourty card deck but leave the ten myraid suit but retain
> > the thousand myriad. There are altogether 30 cards. The 40 card deck
> > was also used for Dou Hu by dropping the top suit but keeping the
> > thousand myriad.
>
> If that was all you said, how can you claim a link between ma que and
> ma diao?
You only asked about the 40---> claim didn't you? Don't you remember?
Just read what you asked above to refresh your memory.
For the last time.....
The 30 card deck was doubled to 60 cards to play the trick taking game
hun jiang (rolling the river) and this games assential principles
appear, according to Lo, in the 1676 preface to Taoqing Zhuran's Ma
Diao xin pu.
When the 30 card deck was doubled it was also used to play draw and
discard games such as mo hu. When the 30 card deck was quadrupled and
quintupled it was used to play draw and discard games such as peng hu
and shi hu.
It is the quadrupled three suits that are claimed, with reasoned
arguments, to be linked to ma que via the number of cards, their suit
names and their illustrations.
But you must surely remember all this since it has already been told
to you before.
> Again, how does MDH extrapolate Ma Diao with ma que then?
See above.
> MDH is based on ma diao. You demanded any hypothetical explanation has
> to reference to ma diao.
Only in the sense that a description of the ma diao deck is the
earliest evidence we have and that it was that deck that was
progressively modified for use in trick-taking games and then draw and
discard games with formation of sets - of which ma que is one.
> Cash (money) is a thing from ma diao. What am
> I so confused about? Suit names in ma que are from ma diao is the
> claim of MDH. Should I not be concentrating on it?
No. You are confused because you have forgotten what was explained to
you.
The suits of ma diao had various names - usually one suit name was
different at different times(from the evidence we have it was usually
the cash suit name but the strings of cash name also different on a
couple of occasions). This slight alteration in one suit name
continued in the three suited decks as well up until the Ningbo zhu
pai tile set of 1870.
> > This 'common expression' and 'normal expression' is an utterly
> > irrelevant point.
>
> You don't understand. I see it is important and relevant.
> How Himly got the word Tong can tell why he interpreted it as copper.
He got the word tong off the tile it was engraved on. He interpreted
or speculated its meaning from the contemporary card games three
suits. He lists in his article their names and comments on their
relationship to money.
His specualtion/hypothesis for the tong2 word is supported by the
entries from the hanyu da cidian.
> > The relevant point is whether there were usages in exitence prior or
> > at the time of the Himly set that support the MDH interpretation - and
> > Himly's - that the Tong2' word in his set was used to denote tong
> > 'copper'.
>
> Your assumption is that the engraver was an authority on the game and
> language.
> You should be more watchful and cautious after seeing the variety of
> cards and tiles in the Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
We can only go on the evidence we have. That is why the MDH is classed
as a hypothesis.
Also, we do not know who asked or intended the word to be put on the
tile. So don't you go and start making rash assumptions.
The tile sets and card sets in the MJ Museum book do show us that
there is a tradition of the illustrations being modified. This is not
in dispute. The relevant issue is what was going on in the time in
question.
The MJM book cannot tell us that. But it does provide the 'principle
of illustration modification' as I call it.
> Artistic license seems free through the ages. However, one use of an
> abbreviated tong(x) on a tile should not out-weigh and offset all
> written appearances of Tong(y) in many books?
I do not understand this. Tong2 appeared on a tile. That tile was one
of a group of three tiles. The other two had two of the suit names
written on them, each the name of one of the suits. The tong2 was the
third tile of this group of hua tiles, therefore it is justified to
infer that that word was also the name of one of the suits.
The other two suits names are found in preceding money-suited card
decks of three suits with cards of 1- 9 each.
Therefore the fact of the three suits plus two of the suits names
links them to money-suited card games of the three suited variety. The
remaining suit is cash and therefore tong2 is the term used for this
suit and is used to represent tong2 'copper' as in tong qian, copper
cash.
The prediction is that since it represents one of the suits (cash)
then we should expect to find some mention of it in the names of
preceding card games in documentation prior to or at the time in
question.
Evidence of its usage is in the hanyu da cidian where it form a
compound term for copper cash and it is used in that term for menaing
'copper'.
Since 同 is used in a bound-form word(同錢 'copper cash') as reported in
the hanyu da cidian, to denote 銅 and since 銅 is used in a stand-alone
word form to denote 銅錢 (copper cash), then is is reasonable to infer
that 同 was used in the Ningbo zhu pai set as a stand-alone word to
denote 同On Jul 10, 2:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 11:58 pm, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > MDH people have not been able to support their claim with evidence
> > > other than saying there were other Asian games of 30 cards.
> > > It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30 claim because MDH
> > > claim2 that ma que <--- Ma Diao depends on it.
>
> > Let's correct, AGAIN, this distortion of yours.
>
> The distortion to correct is in MDH claim.
Wrong. You said "MDH people have not been able to support their claim
with evidence...It is necessary for you to show the 40 ---> 30
claim..."
Below is my description of just such an occurance of the 40 card deck
being reduced to 30 cards to play trick taking games called 'Drawing
six cards' and Kan Hu/Dou Hu.
This line of evidence was described to you before but you have
forgotten, so you end up endlessly repeating yourself over and over
again.
> > I said that if you check out Andrew Lo's article "Pan Zhiheng's 'Xu
> > Yezi Pu' Part 2' TPC V31 #6, you would find there that a thirty card
> > deck was required for the game of 'Drawing Six Cards'. Pan says that
> > you take the fourty card deck but leave the ten myraid suit but retain
> > the thousand myriad. There are altogether 30 cards. The 40 card deck
> > was also used for Dou Hu by dropping the top suit but keeping the
> > thousand myriad.
>
> If that was all you said, how can you claim a link between ma que and
> ma diao?
You only asked about the 40---> claim didn't you? Don't you remember?
Just read what you asked above to refresh your memory.
For the last time.....
The 30 card deck was doubled to 60 cards to play the trick taking game
hun jiang (rolling the river) and this games assential principles
appear, according to Lo, in the 1676 preface to Taoqing Zhuran's Ma
Diao xin pu.
When the 30 card deck was doubled it was also used to play draw and
discard games such as mo hu. When the 30 card deck was quadrupled and
quintupled it was used to play draw and discard games such as peng hu
and shi hu.
It is the quadrupled three suits that are claimed, with reasoned
arguments, to be linked to ma que via the number of cards, their suit
names and their illustrations.
But you must surely remember all this since it has already been told
to you before.
> Again, how does MDH extrapolate Ma Diao with ma que then?
See above.
> MDH is based on ma diao. You demanded any hypothetical explanation has
> to reference to ma diao.
Only in the sense that a description of the ma diao deck is the
earliest evidence we have and that it was that deck that was
progressively modified for use in trick-taking games and then draw and
discard games with formation of sets - of which ma que is one.
> Cash (money) is a thing from ma diao. What am
> I so confused about? Suit names in ma que are from ma diao is the
> claim of MDH. Should I not be concentrating on it?
No. You are confused because you have forgotten what was explained to
you.
The suits of ma diao had various names - usually one suit name was
different at different times(from the evidence we have it was usually
the cash suit name but the strings of cash name also different on a
couple of occasions). This slight alteration in one suit name
continued in the three suited decks as well up until the Ningbo zhu
pai tile set of 1870.
> > This 'common expression' and 'normal expression' is an utterly
> > irrelevant point.
>
> You don't understand. I see it is important and relevant.
> How Himly got the word Tong can tell why he interpreted it as copper.
He got the word tong off the tile it was engraved on. He interpreted
or speculated its meaning from the contemporary card games three
suits. He lists in his article their names and comments on their
relationship to money.
His specualtion/hypothesis for the tong2 word is supported by the
entries from the hanyu da cidian.
> > The relevant point is whether there were usages in exitence prior or
> > at the time of the Himly set that support the MDH interpretation - and
> > Himly's - that the Tong2' word in his set was used to denote tong
> > 'copper'.
>
> Your assumption is that the engraver was an authority on the game and
> language.
> You should be more watchful and cautious after seeing the variety of
> cards and tiles in the Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
We can only go on the evidence we have. That is why the MDH is classed
as a hypothesis.
Also, we do not know who asked or intended the word to be put on the
tile. So don't you go and start making rash assumptions.
The tile sets and card sets in the MJ Museum book do show us that
there is a tradition of the illustrations being modified. This is not
in dispute. The relevant issue is what was going on in the time in
question.
The MJM book cannot tell us that. But it does provide the 'principle
of illustration modification' as I call it.
> Artistic license seems free through the ages. However, one use of an
> abbreviated tong(x) on a tile should not out-weigh and offset all
> written appearances of Tong(y) in many books?
I do not understand this. Tong2 appeared on a tile. That tile was one
of a group of three tiles. The other two had two of the suit names
written on them, each the name of one of the suits. The tong2 was the
third tile of this group of hua tiles, therefore it is justified to
infer that that word was also the name of one of the suits.
The other two suits names are found in preceding money-suited card
decks of three suits with cards of 1- 9 each.
Therefore the fact of the three suits plus two of the suits names
links them to money-suited card games of the three suited variety. The
remaining suit is cash and therefore tong2 is the term used for this
suit and is used to represent tong2 'copper' as in tong qian, copper
cash.
The prediction is that since it represents one of the suits (cash)
then we should expect to find some mention of it in the names of
preceding card games in documentation prior to or at the time in
question.
Evidence of its usage is in the hanyu da cidian where it form a
compound term for copper cash and it is used in that term for meaning
'copper'.
Since 同 is used in a bound-form word(同錢 'copper cash') as reported in
the hanyu da cidian, to denote 銅 and since 銅 is used in a stand-alone
word form to denote 銅錢 (copper cash)(as reported in the hanyu da
cidian and also found in card game literature of 1814), then is is
reasonable to infer that 同 was used in the Ningbo zhu pai set as a
stand-alone word to denote 銅 and hence 銅錢(copper cash/cash).
> Remember, if you are using a scientific approach as claimed,
I am not claiming anything of the sort here.
The approach is to gather evidence and analyse it and infer
conclusions from it using the rules of logic.
> that tong
> only 'was said could be used as abbreviation for copper. Nowhere
> anything said that it was actually used in place of copper money. What
> test if any have you done to confirm your wish?
Clearly its presence as the name of one of the suits plus the evidence
from the cidian and 1814 literature and the chain of reasoning above..
But it may be a unique one-off instance of that use or it may not. We
should expect to find its use turning up in other literature to
confirm its use as a stand-alone term for copper as in copper cash.
> > Himly's interpretation of 同 as 銅 is supported by evidence from the
> > hanyu da cidian entries that show 同 was used in 同錢(copper cash) to
> > denote 銅錢.
>
> No. You left out a link in your logical thinking.
> What 'could be' (as the dictionary says) is not evidence of 'what was'
> in ma que.
The link as you call it is the other evidence from the number of suits
- the other suit names, the number of cards in each suit, the
unchanged depiction of one of them, all bear similarity to the suits
of preceding money-suited card decks. Plus ma ques draw and discard
method.
There is no disconfirming evidence to contradict the MDH as yet.
But your flying-spaghetti-monster explanation is completely without
any supporting evidence whatsoever.
Or have you got some but are not telling us?
al
> On 2009-07-10, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, "mstanw...@talktalk.net"
> ><stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > As I said, Tong2 同 was unspecified. Nobody knew what radical the
> > engraver eliminated. Was it bamboo or was it metal? You do not know
> > either. You assume it was metal.
>
> Quite right. However, there is a whole bunch of circumstantial
> evidence, rehearsed at length, which makes that plausible; whereas
> there is no evidence at all to support the idea that it was bamboo.
>
Where is that whole bunch of "circumstantial evidence"?
You are not thinking. The evidence contrary to your claim is in all
subsequent sets of ma que whose suit-name has been described not as
Tong with a bamboo radical.
Consider TIME is a tester. Tong (metal) did not last. Tong (bamboo) is
still there. That is lasting evidence for the bamboo tong.
> > Tong2 同 was used and found in only one set. Only one engraver ever did
> > that. That lone engraver is held by you as the undisputed reference
> > for copper money ma que suit?
>
You and MS made a projection based on one occurrence of a phenomenon.
> No. The whole rather obvious similarity between madiao cards and ma
> que tiles is also part of the reference.
>
That is debatable. The money-suits in ma diao are screwed up. That can
be a whole different discussion. (Again)
> > What happened in the case of Tong2 同 in Hinly's set was an anomaly and
> > not systematic.
>
> How do you know? Where is the whole bunch of "normal data" that shows
> it's an outlier? Where are all those sets where 筒 is engraved for the
> circle suit?
>
The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
in print in subsequent ma que history. 筒 is what occupies the place
of Tong predominantly.
The circle symbol and not the pictograph has been there for mahjong
sets.
> > Statistically you do not generalize on one odd case of an outlier. You
> > could, but your chance of committing an error is extremely high. That
> > is what you are doing. Tong2 同 for money is high risk.
>
> Having a single set is of course not satisfactory. However, it's
> infinitely better than hypothesizing on the basis of zero sets, as you
> do.
Not zero set; countless sets. All the sets with circles are identified
and referred to in books as Tong with bamboo radical. That is proof of
metal-Tong was a one-time wonder.
ithinc
> The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
> in print in subsequent ma que history.
in one 1920 mahjong manual, 麻雀撲克秘訣 by 海上老游客.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> You are not thinking. The evidence contrary to your claim is in all
> subsequent sets of ma que whose suit-name has been described not as
> Tong with a bamboo radical.
You make claims on the evidence you have. The 1st appearance we have
for tong with bamboo radical is 1892. That is after the appearance of
tong copper in 1814. This has been explained to you before very
recently.
Subsequent sets are a complete irrelevance. Further, your claim is
wrong. Wilkinson recorded, in his memorandum of Mahjong, 2 other names
for the ma que suits - qian and bing3.
> Consider TIME is a tester. Tong (metal) did not last. Tong (bamboo) is
> still there. That is lasting evidence for the bamboo tong.
This is complete hogwash thinking. How long a thing lasts is
completely irrelevant as to Tong2's use at that time.
> > No. The whole rather obvious similarity between madiao cards and ma
> > que tiles is also part of the reference.
>
> That is debatable. The money-suits in ma diao are screwed up. That can
> be a whole different discussion. (Again)
They are only screwed up in your mind becuase you confuse your
ignorance about them with their properties. In your screwed up
thinking you thought I don't understand these cards so they must be
screwed up.
I don't understand all about them either but that is becuase of my
lack of information about them.
> > > What happened in the case of Tong2 同 in Hinly's set was an anomaly and
> > > not systematic.
>
> > How do you know? Where is the whole bunch of "normal data" that shows
> > it's an outlier? Where are all those sets where 筒 is engraved for the
> > circle suit?
>
> The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
> in print in subsequent ma que history. 筒 is what occupies the place
> of Tong predominantly.
Irrelevant. We are only talking about the Himly set and prior to that
set. We are not talking about any subsequent terms or sets.
> > Having a single set is of course not satisfactory. However, it's
> > infinitely better than hypothesizing on the basis of zero sets, as you
> > do.
>
> Not zero set; countless sets. All the sets with circles are identified
> and referred to in books as Tong with bamboo radical. That is proof of
> metal-Tong was a one-time wonder.
Wrong! That may have been the case or it may not be the case.
You do not know.
And again you are peddling your silly confusions about what the MDH
proposes and the time frame it applies to.
It has nothing to do with what came after Himly's set and it therefore
does not apply to any of the changes that took place after the Himly
set.
Get you facts straight about it. Oh, hang on, you keep forgetting what
it claims and what time frame it applies to.
You keep making false or twisted statements about as a result of your
forgetfulness.
Please go and see your doctor for a memory health check!
Julian Bradfield
> the number of homophones.
13 homophones for tong2 in CEDICT.
11 homophones for qian2.
What's your point?
al
So, because it 同 appears in at least one NJ manual as name of the
round symbol, therefore it is the standard for the circle suit.
Since Himly has a 同 as joker circle as well, that proves Himly was
right. Correct? Good for you to have come up with such historical
deta.
Now we know for sure 同 appeared in at least two places. One is the
tile in a set. Another is a word ia book.
al
Check with your Chinese acquaintances. No use argue about it.
Have to cut this short. My son is coming to take me out for a few
holes of golf.
al
Is that your tactic? Try to discredit your debating opponents when you
fail to win with arguments?
I have to go. No time to repeat the same stuff for you.
ithinc
> On Jul 10, 8:41 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 8:15 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
> > > in print in subsequent ma que history.
>
> > Wrong! Remmember, 同 did appear as the name of the round suit at least
> > in one 1920 mahjong manual, 麻雀撲克秘訣 by 海上老游客.
>
> So, because it 同 appears in at least one NJ manual as name of the
> round symbol, therefore it is the standard for the circle suit.
>
> Since Himly has a 同 as joker circle as well, that proves Himly was
> right. Correct?
excrement?
al
Obviously, if you can think like that, your brain is"excrement".
ithinc
> > I'm curious about what your brain is composed of. Is it filled with
> > excrement?
>
I see. Thank you for your reply.
D. Pasek
> Like I told the story of someone's remark. The evolutionists have to
> believe it like religion. They simply cannot live without it...
What??? I could understand a Creationist perhaps making a remark like
this about evolution, but Al, the statement is wrong! If you actually
believe what you stated, then it indicates to me why we think so
differently, and may explain why you make posts about mahjong history
the way that you do. If you do not understand the different approaches
taken by Evolutionists vs. Creationists (even those Creationists who
attempt to be pseudo-scientific), then you will not understand the
differences between your approach to mahjong history and those of us
that disagree with you. You are wrong about Evolutionists, and you are
wrong about those researching the MDH!
I view your approach to mahjong history to be quite similar to the
approach that a Creationist would take. I do not consider that
approach to be valid. Claiming that Evolutionists act the same as
Creationists does not excuse your behavior! The approaches are not the
same! I do not consider your approach to mahjong history to be valid.
Dan
stanwic...@googlemail.com
No. If I was trying to discredit you then I would not have replied to
any of your statements. Even the careless and irrelevant ones.
I have taken your statements seriously enough to be bothered to reply
tyo them.
I am however, genuinely concerned about the quality of your memory.
You have been continuously asking the same questions about things that
have already been explained to you.
You have been continuously misinterpreted answers given to your
previous questions and then used those misintepretations to twist what
others have said.
I think your memory is also the cause of this as you seem to forget
the corrections to your misinterpretations and so you keep making them
over and over again.
I do not assume you are stupid and I do not assume you are in denial,
so I have to conclude your memory is very poor and seems to me to be
getting worse.
I am therefore concerned and request you go and get checked out by
your doctor.
If you care to reply to my answers with new arguments, I would of
course be interested.
al
>
> > You are not thinking. The evidence contrary to your claim is in all
> > Tong with a bamboo radical.
>
> You make claims on the evidence you have.
Your claim is as good as it lasts.
Your early claim is no good if it does not last; as in the case of
abbreviated Tong.
The 1st appearance we have
> for tong with bamboo radical is 1892. That is after the appearance of
> tong copper in 1814. This has been explained to you before very
> recently.
>
> Subsequent sets are a complete irrelevance. Further, your claim is
> wrong. Wilkinson recorded, in his memorandum of Mahjong, 2 other names
> for the ma que suits - qian and bing3.
>
Subsequent sets are relevant and a proof of what is intended for Tong.
The abbreviated Tong was unspecified. The abbreviated Tong was
'speculated' by a man unfamiliar with the Chinese language.
The subsequent sets just simply proved Himly's speculated copper tong
turned out to be inappropriate qnd that bamboo Tong is what what more
to the intended meaning in the game.
Mind you I don't agree with that either. I mean Circles for bamboo
tong is not quite right. That is a different topic.
.
> > Consider TIME is a tester. Tong (metal) did not last. Tong (bamboo) is
> > still there. That is lasting evidence for the bamboo tong.
>
> This is complete hogwash thinking. How long a thing lasts is
> completely irrelevant as to Tong2's use at that time.
>
Tong2 was used as a substitute for something unnamed and unspecified
and only speculated. Unnamed band specified because it was a homonym.
Its meaning was a speculation.
> > > No. The whole rather obvious similarity between madiao cards and ma
> > > que tiles is also part of the reference.
Similarities in construction? in gameplay? in appearance? in material?
in design? In what, where and how?
>
> > That is debatable. The money-suits in ma diao are screwed up. That can
> > be a whole different discussion. (Again)
>
> They are only screwed up in your mind becuase you confuse your
> ignorance about them with their properties. In your screwed up
> thinking you thought I don't understand these cards so they must be
> screwed up.
>
Sure. You know all about Half-Cash and Zero-Cash and that 1-Cash like
the taiji diagram.
> I don't understand all about them either but that is becuase of my
> lack of information about them.
>
> > > > What happened in the case of Tong2 同 in Hinly's set was an anomaly and
> > > > not systematic.
>
> > > How do you know? Where is the whole bunch of "normal data" that shows
> > > it's an outlier? Where are all those sets where 筒 is engraved for the
> > > circle suit?
You didn't get that? Any odd lone data point is an outlier which
occurs only by accident and seldom recur. It is not data dependable
for generalization.
If you plot the data points for ma que sets with Tong2 and ma que sets
with Tong(bamboo) over a period of 100 years. Then you have trend for
forecasting.
You jumped at one data point and made projection for all sets for that
period and for all time.
You and others committed a gross error in data analysis.
I hope that helps you to see your mistake. What I just described is
what I learned and used years ago at work. I still remember.
> > The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
> > in print in subsequent ma que history. 筒 is what occupies the place
> > of Tong predominantly.
>
> Irrelevant. We are only talking about the Himly set and prior to that
> set. We are not talking about any subsequent terms or sets.
>
There again is another mistake. Basically you used one incidence like
a data point and hypothesized. Now you refuse to test your
hypothesis.
Check for repeating pattern in subsequent sets is a test for your
hypothesis. You don't seem to care how fit your hypothesis is to the
real situation.
> > > Having a single set is of course not satisfactory. However, it's
> > > infinitely better than hypothesizing on the basis of zero sets, as you
> > > do.
Another error and it is a serious error. Time is a truer measure for
proper observation. You based your observation in an instant and
generalize for all time.
>
Here is the observation resulted over time:
> > Not zero set; countless sets. All the sets with circles are identified
> > and referred to in books as Tong with bamboo radical. That is proof of
> > metal-Tong was a one-time wonder.
>
> Wrong! That may have been the case or it may not be the case.
> You do not know.
>
The point is you can count on finding bamboo-tong than finding copper-
tong is ma que literature. That is comparative reliability.
> And again you are peddling your silly confusions about what the MDH
> proposes and the time frame it applies to.
>
> It has nothing to do with what came after Himly's set and it therefore
> does not apply to any of the changes that took place after the Himly
> set.
>
It sure does. You need to read up on data analysis method and
forecasting technique. Your logic is not enough for this type of
problems.
>[..]
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> On Jul 10, 8:41 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 8:15 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >The engraving of an abbreviated Tong2 is an outlier. It did not appear
> > > in print in subsequent ma que history.
>
> > Wrong! Remmember, 同 did appear as the name of the round suit at least
> > in one 1920 mahjong manual, 麻雀撲克秘訣 by 海上老游客.
>
> So, because it 同 appears in at least one NJ manual as name of the
> round symbol, therefore it is the standard for the circle suit.
No. Let's clear up this result of your confusion.
Whatever came after Himly (1870) is irrelevant. Himly's Ningbo zhu pai
is the earliest set we know of. No other tile sets are known before
that one - although Glovers come very close. Therefore, the MDH is
concerned with that tile set and its ancestral relationship to money
suited playing cards from a period preceding and including its time
frame.
The words that appear on the tiles are the closest or earliest
examples we have.
No other tile sets come before it so therefore the words for the suits
are the earliest examples we have and therefore it is those we have to
work with and use to look in preceding games and games from that time
period.
Whatever came after that time is irrelevant since we are looking for
ancestral relationships.
The tong2 word is not postulated to be the standard for the circle
suit since we are only interested in what came before, not after.
> Since Himly has a 同 as joker circle as well, that proves Himly was
> right. Correct? Good for you to have come up with such historical
> deta.
Incorrect! Again.
It has nothing to do with establishing Himly's explanation of the
meaning of that word. You are confused again.
ithinc was just proving your claim to be false. You claimed "It [同]
did not appear in print in subsequent ma que history." His statement
proves you are wrong. So at least have the good grace to thank him for
going out of his way to correct at least one of your many errors.
> Now we know for sure 同 appeared in at least two places. One is the
> tile in a set. Another is a word ia book.
Further, it was not just a word in a book. It was shown engraved on a
tile in a tile set in a photograph that was in that 1924 book. So you
are wrong again.
al
> On Jul 9, 1:21 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Like I told the story of someone's remark. The evolutionists have to
> > believe it like religion. They simply cannot live without it...
>
> What??? I could understand a Creationist perhaps making a remark like
Dan, you are right. that was an Evolutionist, Darwin's descendant,
talking about Creationists.
Thank you.
stanwic...@googlemail.com
> > > You are not thinking. The evidence contrary to your claim is in all
> > > subsequent sets of ma que whose suit-name has been described not as [copper, but]
> > > Tong with a bamboo radical.
>
> > You make claims on the evidence you have.
>
> Your claim is as good as it lasts.
> Your early claim is no good if it does not last; as in the case of
> abbreviated Tong.
?? What does this mean?? Please explain.
> > The 1st appearance we have for tong with bamboo radical is 1892. That is after the appearance of
> > tong copper in 1814. This has been explained to you before very
> > recently.
>
> > Subsequent sets are a complete irrelevance. Further, your claim is
> > wrong. Wilkinson recorded, in his memorandum of Mahjong, 2 other names
> > for the ma que suits - qian and bing3.
> Subsequent sets are relevant and a proof of what is intended for Tong.
This does not prove anything of the sort.
We have evidence that the 3 suits and their terms are derived from
preceding three suited money decks of cards. Therefore it is to these
preceding decks of cards that we look to for confirmation of the
derivation of the meanings of any of those terms.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your
contention that a subsequent word with the same sound but with a
different meaning was the appropropriate usage for the suit term
preceding it. You have no evidence whatsoever that shows us that tong
'bamboo tube' was intended as the proper meaning.
> The abbreviated Tong was unspecified. The abbreviated Tong was
> 'speculated' by a man unfamiliar with the Chinese language.
Again, give us your evidence that Himly was unfamiliar with the
Chinese language.
> The subsequent sets just simply proved Himly's speculated copper tong
> turned out to be inappropriate and that bamboo Tong is what what more
> to the intended meaning in the game.
>
> Mind you I don't agree with that either. I mean Circles for bamboo
> tong is not quite right. That is a different topic.
No it isn't. You make a statement and then say it is not quite
right???
You have to explain the discrepency between the words meaning and the
symbols on the tiles as you have pointed out.
> Tong2 was used as a substitute for something unnamed and unspecified
> and only speculated. Unnamed band specified because it was a homonym.
> Its meaning was a speculation.
Hogwash. The word was used and obviously had meaning to those who were
using it, as the name of the suit.
The other two suits names can be found in preceding card decks as the
names for two money derived suits. Therefore it is appropriate to look
at the names fo the third suit to see if there is any relationship.
When looking through documents of the time we find evidence for its
use as a term for copper cash.
> > > That is debatable. The money-suits in ma diao are screwed up. That can
> > > be a whole different discussion. (Again)
>
> > They are only screwed up in your mind becuase you confuse your
> > ignorance about them with their properties. In your screwed up
> > thinking you thought I don't understand these cards so they must be
> > screwed up.
>
> Sure. You know all about Half-Cash and Zero-Cash and that 1-Cash like
> the taiji diagram.
I don't know all about them as I said - and neither do you! Your
ignorance of them doesn't give you any reason to then say they are
screwed up.
[I snipped a load of text that was from a different post. What are you
doing putting other peoples answers in a reply to my post????]
> Check for repeating pattern in subsequent sets is a test for your
> hypothesis. You don't seem to care how fit your hypothesis is to the
> real situation.
No. The issue is what was the term derived from, not what it was
turned into. If the 'bamboo tube' tong appears in preceding literature
then the hypothesised meaning of tong as a word for copper cash is
contradicted.
So far no instance of tong 'bamboo tube' has been found preceding
abbreviated tong.
[I HAVE CUT OUT A LOAD OF JB'S POST THAT YOU HAVE INSERTED HERE]
> It sure does. You need to read up on data analysis method and
> forecasting technique. Your logic is not enough for this type of
> problems.
You need logical thinking to use any analytical tool. But the evidence
must be relevant to the analysis. Yours is not.
And stop putting in other peoples posts into my posts will you.
al
<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 10:11 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > You are not thinking. The evidence contrary to your claim is in all
> > > > subsequent sets of ma que whose suit-name has been described not as [copper, but]
> > > > Tong with a bamboo radical.
>
> > > You make claims on the evidence you have.
But your claim is for all time. You did not say the evidence gave you
claim for that set only. You must limit your claim to that one set of
tile and not for all tiles all time subsequently.
>
> > [..]
> > > The 1st appearance we have for tong with bamboo radical is 1892. That is after the appearance of
> > > tong copper in 1814. This has been explained to you before very
> > > recently.
>
One appearance of anything can be a mistaken use.
Repeated appearance is what is credible and reliable.
> > > Subsequent sets are a complete irrelevance. Further, your claim is
> > > wrong. Wilkinson recorded, in his memorandum of Mahjong, 2 other names
> > > for the ma que suits - qian and bing3.
Qian is same as chien,money, but not bing. That just goes to show the
many names given by different dialects and different interpretation of
the shape.
> > Subsequent sets are relevant and a proof of what is intended for Tong.
>
> This does not prove anything of the sort.
>
> We have evidence that the 3 suits and their terms are derived from
> preceding three suited money decks of cards. Therefore it is to these
> preceding decks of cards that we look to for confirmation of the
> derivation of the meanings of any of those terms.
>
> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your
> contention that a subsequent word with the same sound but with a
> different meaning was the appropropriate usage for the suit term
> preceding it. You have no evidence whatsoever that shows us that tong
> 'bamboo tube' was intended as the proper meaning.
>
You have a good point. Our difference of interpretation of history
comes from the fact there is no meaning to the game as a whole.
We have no answer to the question "what the game is all about".
In the absence of a theme, we can be all correct in our interpretation
of the symbols. We are arguing for nothing, because we will never
convince each other, when there is no absolute certainty and we have
no fixed reference.
However this variability of symbol representation is a feature of the
game and its popularity. People can call the suits as they see fit and
they don't need to know what the symbols real meaning. They only need
to tell the symbols are different and apply the simplerules. That is
why it has been like this:
whether it was Ping or Tong,
nobody was right or wrong.
People who played the game
Knew no story;heard no song.
[..]
>[..].
+++++++++++++++
Cheers
ithinc
<stanwickmich...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Now we know for sure 同 appeared in at least two places. One is the
> > tile in a set. Another is a word ia book.
>
> Further, it was not just a word in a book. It was shown engraved on a
> tile in a tile set in a photograph that was in that 1924 book.
What I have mentioned is not the 1924 book with the Nakamura set, but
the Chinese mahjong manual "maque puke mijue" published around 1920.
In "maque puke mijue", the author uses "同“ as the suit name of Cash/
Circle. So plus the 1924 book, we have three instances now.
Julian Bradfield
>> > > it's an outlier? Where are all those sets where 筒 is engraved for the
>> > > circle suit?
> You didn't get that? Any odd lone data point is an outlier which
> occurs only by accident and seldom recur. It is not data dependable
> for generalization.
> If you plot the data points for ma que sets with Tong2 and ma que sets
> with Tong(bamboo) over a period of 100 years. Then you have trend for
> forecasting.
Yes. If we take the hundred years from 1814 to 1914, the data suggests
that tong2 was the word early in the period, and tong3 was the word
late in the period. Your point is?
> You jumped at one data point and made projection for all sets for that
> period and for all time.
No. You may choose to misinterpret that way, but quite how you manage
to misinterpret a statement about the first half of the 19th century
to be about "all time", I cannot imagine.
> You and others committed a gross error in data analysis.
> I hope that helps you to see your mistake. What I just described is
> what I learned and used years ago at work. I still remember.
So when you were at work, did you take data from 1900 and assume that
it correctly described the situation in 1800? That seems to be what
you want us to do.
Julian Bradfield
[ in reply to MS and partly me]
> You have a good point. Our difference of interpretation of history
> comes from the fact there is no meaning to the game as a whole.
No it doesn't. It comes from the fact that we base our interpretation
on the available evidence, whereas you base yours on your own mental
concepts of what ought to be.
> We have no answer to the question "what the game is all about".
We don't ask the question.
> In the absence of a theme, we can be all correct in our interpretation
> of the symbols. We are arguing for nothing, because we will never
> convince each other, when there is no absolute certainty and we have
> no fixed reference.
No. We can all be correct in the way *we personally* interpret the
symbols; but what we (meaning everybody on this newsgroup except you)
are looking for is the interpretation used by those who created and
developed the game, and by those who played the games that came
before.
> However this variability of symbol representation is a feature of the
> game and its popularity. People can call the suits as they see fit and
> they don't need to know what the symbols real meaning. They only need
> to tell the symbols are different and apply the simplerules. That is
> why it has been like this:
Indeed. There is no need at all for a "theme" to play the game.
So there's no reason to suppose that there is a "real meaning".
al
>
> > Like I told the story of someone's remark. The evolutionists have to
> > believe it like religion. They simply cannot live without it...
>
> What??? I could understand a Creationist perhaps making a remark like
> this about evolution, but Al, the statement is wrong! If you actually
> believe what you stated, then it indicates to me why we think so
> differently, and may explain why you make posts about mahjong history
> the way that you do. If you do not understand the different approaches
> taken by Evolutionists vs. Creationists (even those Creationists who
> attempt to be pseudo-scientific), then you will not understand the
> differences between your approach to mahjong history and those of us
> that disagree with you. You are wrong about Evolutionists, and you are
> wrong about those researching the MDH!
>
I just noticed we used the words differently.
You capitalized your Creationist and Evolutionist.
I used small letters. Applied to mahjong game which is man-made in
comparison to nature, the terms have opposite meanings when I used in
the story.
MDH claims MJ derived from MD that is equivalent to saying one evolved
to the other. MDH proponents are evolutionists in that sense.
On the other hand, I believe MJ was born-whole and it did not form by
piece-meal fashion. So I am not an evolutionist as far as MJ history
is concerned.
That is where the seeming error comes from. The terms have different
meaning when applied in different situations.
++++++++++++++++++
I know simply this: when a hypothesis can not explain a phenomenon,
that hypothesis needs revision.
And I know this. MDH proponents admit they can not explain the
existence of EWSN and ZFB with all the money in the world.
What good is a hypothesis that explains only a part of the picture?
What kind of scientific approach is that embraced by the MDH believers
who refuse to view the MJ game as a whole?
++++++++++++++++
I hold a holistic view of the game. Simple logic tells me the MJ game
is different enough from everything else, in shape, in rules of play
and other features that it was a unique creation.
Yes. In this sense, I am creationist in that mahjong was created by
some one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++[..]
Again, evolutionists for man-made objects are like MDH believers;
creationists are like inventors.
++++++++++++++
Cheers...al
P.S. MJ is man-made object.