 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] Related topics: Topic 205 | Topic 205a | Topic 205b | Topic 205c History of MAHJONG - The January 2004 Follow-up
Definition Of MahjongView other resources...
• The CC Theory by Mr Tom Sloper. Visit "http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html", then click on the link "FAQ 11b". • Messages at mahjong newsgroup rec.games.mahjong via Google. The debate on the History Of Mahjong (Topic 205) was put on hold for a while. I see the primary reason is that the parties to the debate was unable to reach a commonly accepted definition of the core object of the debate, the ORIGIN OF MAHJONG. The matter was brought to the newsgroup again recently. The result remains unresolved, although some new details are worth the record. As I have pointed out in a recent message posted to the mahjong newsgroup, the use of the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG is necessary, it is to distinguish the core object of the discussion, especially when the parties of the debate all understand the existence of numerous variants by the name of mahjong. "Origin of mahjong" is a neutral term; it's not attached to any definition of anyone yet. Once a definition is agreed upon for the purposes of the debate, it is then a term well defined. I also believe the definition of the ORIGIN OF MAHJONG shall include only the fundamental characteristics of the game play, not necessarily the detailed decorations of the playing pieces. The definition of mahjong as suggested by Tom ("The CC Theory") has too many details that one can easily find in a modern mahjong game, hence it may, in my opinion, not be suitable for describing the ORIGIN OF MAHJONG. However, situation may change if he could eventually prove that nothing mahjong-like has existed prior to the mahjong as defined by him. I also suggested in the recent discussion, for the purposes of the debate, a definition something in between Mo He Pai (see next paragraph) and Tom's definition may be appropriate, although I personally think that Mo He Pai itself is already qualified as the ORIGIN OF MAHJONG. Mahjong-like Games Properly Recorded In Chinese LiteraturesA website has an informal (in the historians' view point) but detailed message about the history of mahjong (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History - published in Chinese). It contains descriptions of two very mahjong-like games called Mo He Pai and Peng He Pai (Chinese Pinyin, pronounced as "mo hu pai" and "peng hu pai").  The above image represents the portion extracted from "History Of Mahjong" that describes Mo He Pai and Peng He Pai. (Date of image Jan 21, 2004. Source: http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History)
Mo He Pai is a card game using the paper cards to play with. It has the following characteristics: From the above message, I see that a very mahjong-like game did exist before the mahjong as defined by Tom. In the above message Mo He Pai was said to exist in or around late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) or early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). However, the message is lack of sources to support the dates of the games being described. Also in the same discussion the learned Thierry Depaulis has posted:
About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), it seems the webpage referred to by Cofa Tsui From this message, I have established that Peng He Pai ("peng hu pai") was mentioned in an article "Muzhu Xianhua" written by Jin Xueshi before 1783 (assuming Thierry's message to be correct). Accordingly, Peng He Pai should have existed before 1783. By searching Google for previous discussions on the subject, I also found that Mo He Pai is believed to have existed around mid-17th century [link], some 200 years before the earliest recorded mahjong game/set that matches Tom's definition of mahjong! Modern Mahjong And Its EvolutionBy "the earliest recorded mahjong game/set" one might connect it to the mahjong game said to be invented by CHEN Yumen in or around 1850, a saying mostly promoted by those officials involved in the development of the Chinese Mahjong Contest Rules ("CMCR"). However, this is a saying that is, as of today, still a possibility only. It itself and many related questions are yet to be verified. When was the one and only Chinese name of the game, Ma Que, created? (Here one should distinguish the Chinese name Ma Que and its corresponding, numerous terms used or translated into foreign languages. It should also be distinguished from the modern corresponding Chinese name, Ma Jiang.) One might reasonably think that things in the 1850s should have been properly recorded - But why the invention of the new game Ma Que by Chen was missing? Where was the original rule set of the "invented" game? If mahjong-like games did exist as early as in the 1650s, and if the games continued to evolve and develop in the uncontrolled and undocumented manner, it would be a real surprise if one and only one form of mahjong existed while foreigners went into China and first learned of the game in the 1920s! Copyright 2004 Cofa Tsui.
[A reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup rec.games.mahjong]
From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com)
Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-06 11:33:33 PST Curtis Cathy Chuen wrote: >> Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago vegard wrote: >Tom, where are you? :-) OK, well, so "very popular" is a relative term - it's more popular than hanafuda and less popular than bridge (not that I know anybody who plays bridge). And he forgot the ambiguizing phrase "a little over a" between "China" and "hundred." Satisfied? Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Vegard Krog Petersen (vegard_krog_petersen@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-06 14:06:49 PST Tom Sloper wrote: > Curtis Cathy Chuen wrote: > >>Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago > > vegard wrote: >>>Tom, where are you? :-) > > OK, well, so "very popular" is a relative term - it's more popular than > hanafuda and less popular than bridge (not that I know anybody who plays > bridge). > And he forgot the ambiguizing phrase "a little over a" between "China" and > "hundred." > > Satisfied? > Tom :-) -- Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway My sites: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire: http://home.halden.net/vkp/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Solitaire MahJongg: http://home.halden.net/vkp/vkp/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My fishy site (fishing games): http://home.no/vkp32/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb: http://home.halden.net/frhald.havfiskeklubb/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-08 08:02:00 PST "Vegard Krog Petersen" news:btfbhm$ku3$1@news.tdcnorge.no... > Tom Sloper wrote: > > > Curtis Cathy Chuen wrote: > > >>Mahjong is a very popular game originated in China hundred years ago > > > > vegard wrote: > >>>Tom, where are you? :-) > > > > OK, well, so "very popular" is a relative term - it's more popular than > > hanafuda and less popular than bridge (not that I know anybody who plays > > bridge). > > And he forgot the ambiguizing phrase "a little over a" between "China" and > > "hundred." > > > > Satisfied? > > Tom > :-) But one should perhaps also be aware of the fact that there is no definite answer as to how long mahjong has existed. It depends on how you define mahjong - see http://www.imahjong.com/ (select topics The Rules >> Rules Overview). It is interesting to know, those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about mahjong). Cheers! Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-08 15:59:31 PST Cofa wrote: >those who read Chinese >tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little >over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in >ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about I am obliged to ask: Please give us titles and dates of specific manuscripts describing mah-jongg prior to 1850. Tom Post a follow-up to this message =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-08 18:55:16 PST "Tom Sloper" news:C9mLb.1892$I06.12157@attbi_s01... > Cofa wrote: > > >those who read Chinese > >tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little > >over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in > >ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about > > > I am obliged to ask: Please give us titles and dates of specific manuscripts > describing mah-jongg prior to 1850. > Of course. But then, I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same as what you refer to as mah-jongg. Other than the spelling, of course. When talking about the age of mahjong, I do mean its origin. In addition, considering mahjong to be a game being evolved over time, rather than being invented lately, would also make the answer different. I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this is different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred. http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ (Chinese) mentioned different literatures as old as back to Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD). Those literatures had descriptions of games the author believed mahjong could be evolved from. The most recent game that has the same game features as modern mahjong that was mentioned was "Mo He Pai" (silent win card) - It was played in/around late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) or early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). Mo He Pai was said to be evolved from Ma Diao (see next paragraph). The above website also mentioned that at what time the game was called MAHJONG (in Chinese, ma que (jute bird)) was not known, but that the name could be evolved from the name MA DIAO (horse hang/lift), said to be popular in early to mid Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). Perhaps many others could tell many more Chinese literatures that have descriptions about mahjong. However, I just think that the more Chinese literatures you read, the older the origin of mahjong you would think could be. Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-09 00:07:54 PST From: "Cofa Tsui" > >I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same >as what you refer to as mah-jongg. >I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this is >different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred. It would be enlightening to see what your definition of mahjong would be, and to see how many would agree with your definition. >http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ (Chinese) mentioned different >literatures as old as back to Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD). Those >literatures had descriptions of games the author believed mahjong could be >evolved from. > >The most recent game that has the same game features as modern mahjong that >was mentioned was "Mo He Pai" (silent win card) - It was played in/around >late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) or early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). Mo He Pai >was said to be evolved from Ma Diao (see next paragraph). Yes, the existence of those old games is not under doubt. In your previous post, you had stated: >>those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese >>tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little >>over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in >>ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about >>mahjong). I met with some mah-jongg authors in China last month. They must be exceptions to your statement above, since they believe that mah-jongg originated in the mid-1800s, created primarily by Chen Yumen. I enjoyed a meal and drinks with Sun Cang, the General Manager of the network of China Competition Mahjong, and Mr. Shengqi. Mr. Shengqi has been researching mah-jongg for over 40 years, was involved in compiling the current Chinese Official rules, and has written several monographs: Mahjong Bian, Mahjong Xue, Mahjong Movement, Fang Chang Bai He, Mahjong Study, Mahjong and ZheXue, Mahjong and BingFa, Mahjong and Meixue, Mahjong and XiLiXue, Mahjong and YiJing, Mahjong PaiPu Jiaocheng, Mahjong and RenCai Xue, and Mahjong and Guanli Xue. Perhaps a Chinese reader would be able to locate, obtain, and read some of these - but most of them, I suspect, don't go into history in great detail. These gentlemen do not agree with you that mahjong existed before Chen Yumen's work. I didn't have a chance to converse with Yu Guangyuan, who served as Honorary President at the tournament. So I don't know his views on the subject of the game's origins (or how "mahjong" should be defined). Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View: Complete Thread (27 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-09 22:15:32 PST "Tom Sloper" news:tjtLb.4574$8H.19257@attbi_s03... > From: "Cofa Tsui" > > > >I am not sure if what I refer to as mahjong is the same > >as what you refer to as mah-jongg. > >I understand you have set a definition for mahjong, but I am afraid this is > >different if the origin of mahjong is to be referred. > > It would be enlightening to see what your definition of mahjong would be, > and to see how many would agree with your definition. I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind. But before I continue, I'd introduce what Mo He Pai seems to look like (as introduced in http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History/ - look for the paragraph led by the 5th tiny orange square on the page): [MO HE PAI] Mo He Pai is a card game using the paper cards to play with. It has the following characteristics: It is played by 4 players; It has 60 cards carrying the following patterns: - Wen Qian [money note] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - Wan Guan [10-thousand-coin] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green and White), 2 cards each. To start a game, each player gets 10 cards, then and in turn, each player draws and discards a card. Cards are to be formed in 3 consecutive numbers as a "set". Whoever forms 3 sets and a pair in a hand may declare HE [pronunciation is in Chinese Pinyin, means win]. The game is then further evolved to PENG HE PAI, as follows: Similar to Mo He Pai, but with the following changes: - the number of cards is doubled (now 120 cards); - the "set" can now be in the forms of KAN (3 consecutive numbers), PENG (3 identical pieces) and GANG (4 identical pieces). And now let's have a look of Tom's definition of mahjong - refer to http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/cctheory.htm (on the page, click on "Definition"). Among Tom's four primary characteristics, "a" - It meets that of Mo He Pai. (Excepting the tile pieces.) "b" - Tom's definition is "too modern", it can't be the origin! (And those jokers in the definition are really jokers!) "c" - Too modern to be origin. "d" - It meets that of Mo He Pai. (Excepting the 4 or 5 groups requirement.) I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the job. I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be something in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications to items "b" and "c" of course. And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make the change necessary. Also, "how many would agree with [my] definition" is really not bothering me. I am just pointing out the facts. Although in my own opinion, Mo He Pai itself is qualified as the origin of mahjong. All mahjong variants started evolving and developing from it. [...] > In your previous post, you had stated: > > >>those of Chinese origin or those who read Chinese > >>tend to believe mahjong is much older than "[a] hundred years" or "a little > >>over a hundred years", as many descriptions about the game can be found in > >>ancient Chinese literature (in addition to those English books about > >>mahjong). > > I met with some mah-jongg authors in China last month. They must be > exceptions to your statement above, since they believe that mah-jongg > originated in the mid-1800s, created primarily by Chen Yumen. > > I enjoyed a meal and drinks with Sun Cang, the General Manager of the > network of China Competition Mahjong, and Mr. Shengqi. Mr. Shengqi has been > researching mah-jongg for over 40 years, was involved in compiling the > current Chinese Official rules, and has written several monographs: Mahjong > Bian, Mahjong Xue, Mahjong Movement, Fang Chang Bai He, Mahjong Study, > Mahjong and ZheXue, Mahjong and BingFa, Mahjong and Meixue, Mahjong and > XiLiXue, Mahjong and YiJing, Mahjong PaiPu Jiaocheng, Mahjong and RenCai > Xue, and Mahjong and Guanli Xue. Perhaps a Chinese reader would be able to > locate, obtain, and read some of these - but most of them, I suspect, don't > go into history in great detail. > > These gentlemen do not agree with you that mahjong existed before Chen > Yumen's work. I didn't have a chance to converse with Yu Guangyuan, who > served as Honorary President at the tournament. So I don't know his views on > the subject of the game's origins (or how "mahjong" should be defined). Are you then satified with the presentation that Chen Yumen had invented mahjong? Anyway, what you have said meets exactly with what I have stated on my website (http://www.imahjong.com/g1mru.html): 1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth should be easily determined; 2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in the history! However, one should also note, that as of today, "Chen Yumen had invented mahjong" is still only a possibility, it is yet to be verified. Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Filipe Silva (laSPAMfey@netMENOTcabo.pt) Subject: Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-12 12:01:55 PST On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:59:30 GMT, "Tom Sloper" >describing mah-jongg prior to 1850. I'm with you Tom. For curiosity sake you may want to know that the Portuguese word for Mah-Jong, "majongue", was introduced in 1920. If the game was several centuries older as some claim why was there no description (and thus no use and no introduction in the dictionary) of it in Portuguese texts regarding Macau colony (founded in 1557)? A word like "majongue" (Mah-Jong, Mahjong, Mah-Jongg, whatever) was certainly added to the dictionary after a period of heavy use (popularity?) that "forced" it to be included. The date of 1920 seems well placed, things seen on this light. My 2 cents, Filipe =============END OF MESSAGE From: Thierry Depaulis (thierry.depaulis@freesbee.fr) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong (was Looking for cheap MahJong Set) View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-11 11:18:29 PST May I, Gentlemen, enter the discussion now that it becomes more interesting -- I mean more interesting than insults and sarcasms on how much a "cheap MahJong Set" would cost. Cofa Tsui wrote: > I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind. and >I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More >qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the job. > I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be something > in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications >to items "b" and "c" of course. In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not dealing with the rules of the game.) In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be-- arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like were present at the start of mahjong). By so doing, the "inventor" of mahjong introduced some new features which have rarely been taken into consideration: - "tiles" had to be finely engraved by hand (while traditional dominoes --'gu pai'-- had only dots, and while "paper cards-- 'zhi pai'--were always very crudely printed in black with sparkles of red); - due to the small size of the tiles, they had to be very carefully engraved but the designs had to be simplified in order to make them more legible: sapecks became simple circles, strings were reshaped into long segments, 'wan' were reduced to Chinese characters, so losing the "Water-Margin" figures which were usually pictured on the Wan and Shi suits; in exchange, colours --red, green, blue-- were added making the tiles very attractive; - therefore, making sets was an expensive process, the more so as there were more than 140 pieces; I think that the new game was aimed at a rather wealthy market (not the Imperial Court necessarily!). As Cofa puts it: >1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth >should be easily determined; >2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in >the history! I think I have tried to answer the first question. But when did this happen? I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]). I cannot prove this for the moment but in a few weeks, when Michael Stanwick's impressive paper appears in 'The Playing-Card', I will be able to bring new arguments. All in all I agree with most experts that the "event" must have happened in around 1850. About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), it seems the webpage referred to by Cofa Tsui http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History is not entirely reliable being a summary of modern statements with no clearly identified sources. However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao' ("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783. Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind). So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is concerned, remains to be discovered. Cheers, Thierry Depaulis =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong (was Looking for cheap MahJong Set) View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-11 13:21:54 PST "Thierry Depaulis" news:5878e597.0401111118.22119299@posting.google.com... > May I, Gentlemen, enter the discussion now that it becomes more > interesting -- I mean more interesting than insults and sarcasms on > how much a "cheap MahJong Set" would cost. > > Cofa Tsui wrote: > > I don't have a definite definition of mahjong in mind. > > and > > >I don't intend to give a definition to (the origin of) mahjong - More > >qualified researchers or scholars are in a better position to do the job. > > I however would suggest a definition of origin of mahjong to be something > > in between Mo He Pai and Tom's definition, with proper modifications > >to items "b" and "c" of course. > > In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my > own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not > dealing with the rules of the game.) [...] (Glad to hear from you again, Thierry!) Thanks for your yet another but detailed definition of mahjong. But it won't add any trouble to me at all ^_^ This could be just a more detailed (than Tom's) definition of "modern mahjong" and, IMHO, hardly the origin of mahjong. To accept this as the definition of the origin of mahjong, it is equivalent to say that the origin of human is "having two hands and two legs and wearing shirt and pants". The definition of (modern) mahjong is so modern that it can actually applied to any mahjong set we could buy on the street *today*. (Rule details excluded.) On the other hand, if we compare all those four characteristics in these modern definitions (including basic rules or game play), those characteristics were clearly evolved and developed from that of Mo He Pai. The only difference is that these "modern definitions" contain much more "modern decorations" to the original form. > > As Cofa puts it: > >1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth > >should be easily determined; > >2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in > >the history! > > I think I have tried to answer the first question. But when did this > happen? > > I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in > pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the > game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is > stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and > culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]). > I cannot prove this for the moment but in a few weeks, when Michael > Stanwick's impressive paper appears in 'The Playing-Card', I will be > able to bring new arguments. All in all I agree with most experts that > the "event" must have happened in around 1850. That's great to know at least when this "modern mahjong" has perhaps come from! Sorry to have to call your definition (and Tom's) as "modern mahjong", as it clearly contains all of the same basic characteristics of an older game. > > About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be > pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), it seems the webpage referred to by > Cofa Tsui > http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History > is not entirely reliable being a summary of modern statements with no > clearly identified sources. [Mo He Pai is a term equivalent to the writing in Chinese words. The second word "He" is to be pronounced as "hu", as also mentioned in the webpage.] I believe that page does not have the high level of requirements in historical sources than the "The Playing-Card" does. However, it is glad to see Thierry has established that its existence could be linked to some concrete evidence written prior to 1783 (see below). > However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao' > ("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in > Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a > paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other > ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two > paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu > xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783. > > Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the > combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or > four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind). But wait! "Kan" and "peng" are different - If your meaning (or that of those writing) is the same as the plain Chinese: Kan = 3 consecutive pieces Peng = 3 identical pieces Are triplets (peng or 3 identical pieces) really not included in "Penghu" according to those writing? Could you please verify? > So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard > card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection > between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money > cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is > concerned, remains to be discovered. Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head" cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has? Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-12 22:29:00 PST From: thierry.depaulis@freesbee.fr (Thierry Depaulis) > >In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my >own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not >dealing with the rules of the game.) > >In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be-- >arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited >money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard >pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the >addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some >other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble >crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like >were present at the start of mahjong). I agree completely that, without considering the game played with these pieces, this does indeed define (in general terms) the point when "a set of not-yet-mahjongg game pieces" became "a set of mah-jongg pieces." And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its creation and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment. To accept that assertion means never knowing anything about the subject, since one can't determine the precise moment of creation of a thing, without knowing first what it is. That is precisely why I start with defining the thing. >I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in >pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the >game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is >stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and >culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]). >... All in all I agree with most experts that >the "event" must have happened in around 1850. I guess I need to re-read that booklet (I can only read the English portion, and I hope that it does not differ greatly from the Chinese portion). Anyone who can read both is urged to let us know if any significant differences exist in the translation. >About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be >pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." It is, rather pronounced "uh" or "eh" or "ih" (open mouth slightly without flexing the tongue in any way, and activate your vocal cords). That doesn't mean that one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves about pinyin. >However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao' >("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in >Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a >paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other >ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two >paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu >xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783. Which tells us that Cofa still has not yet named a source that refers to anything mah-jongg-like, prior to 1850. >Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game ... >'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard >card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection >between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money >cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is >concerned, remains to be discovered. Of course we need to know as much as can be known about the money-suited card games that preceded mah-jongg. And perhaps some research into Conquian might help as well. On a side note, Filipe Silva >For curiosity sake you may want to know that the >Portuguese word for Mah-Jong, "majongue", was introduced in 1920. If >the game was several centuries older as some claim why was there no >description (and thus no use and no introduction in the dictionary) of >it in Portuguese texts regarding Macau colony (founded in 1557)? > >A word like "majongue" (Mah-Jong, Mahjong, Mah-Jongg, whatever) was >certainly added to the dictionary after a period of heavy use >(popularity?) that "forced" it to be included. The date of 1920 seems >well placed, things seen on this light. Yes, well, no descriptions of the game prior to 1920 use the term "mah-jongg," so we have to rely on descriptions of the pieces and the game played with them, looking for something that resembles the pieces and gameplay of mah-jongg more than it does not. Cheers, Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-14 20:45:08 PST "Tom Sloper" news:JeMMb.39445$sv6.115916@attbi_s52... > From: thierry.depaulis@freesbee.fr (Thierry Depaulis) > > > >In order to add more trouble in this group, I would like to give my > >own definition of mahjong, in a historical perspective. (Here I am not > >dealing with the rules of the game.) > > > >In my view, mahjong -- whatever its actual Chinese name(s) would be-- > >arose as a new game when the symbols of a quadrupled three-suited > >money card-pack (that is a 120-card pack) were transferred on hard > >pieces made of wood, ivory, bone, bamboo or bone-and-bamboo, with the > >addition of four directions (the "Winds"), also quadrupled, plus some > >other single tiles bearing symbols of seasons, "noble flowers", "noble > >crafts", and so on. (I do believe those seasons, flowers and the like > >were present at the start of mahjong). > > I agree completely that, without considering the game played with these > pieces, this does indeed define (in general terms) the point when "a set of > not-yet-mahjongg game pieces" became "a set of mah-jongg pieces." (So are we back to the debate again, eh? ^_^) But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern mahjong" and that of the origin, whether the definitions are for the "set" only or for the overall game play. > And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot > define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its creation > and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment. I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom please point that out? To accept that assertion > means never knowing anything about the subject, since one can't determine > the precise moment of creation of a thing, without knowing first what it is. > That is precisely why I start with defining the thing. On the other hand, I do mean origin of mahjong at all times. We all have in mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes of debating its history, is fine for me. But I believe the parties of the debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin. > > >I am always reluctant to assigning a person the invention of a game in > >pre-industrial times. Chen Yumen may have brought something to the > >game but it certainly existed BEFORE Chen did something in 1864 (as is > >stated in 'Majiang qiyuan di chenlie guan bian / The history and > >culture of Mahjong', Ningbo, [2002]). > >... All in all I agree with most experts that > >the "event" must have happened in around 1850. > > I guess I need to re-read that booklet (I can only read the English portion, > and I hope that it does not differ greatly from the Chinese portion). Anyone > who can read both is urged to let us know if any significant differences > exist in the translation. I guess I can read both, but I don't have the booklet! > > >About 'mohu' and 'penghu' (I am told the second character must be > >pronounced 'hu' rather than 'he'), > > Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not > pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." It is, rather > pronounced "uh" or "eh" or "ih" (open mouth slightly without flexing the > tongue in any way, and activate your vocal cords). That doesn't mean that > one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply > means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves about > pinyin. I don't quite get your meaning here, Tom. (Off topic below) I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note that the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin). On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu, you would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace). Which way should we take? > > >However, most of what is said comes from Xu Ke's 'Qing bai leichao' > >("Classified Anecdotes of the Qing Dynasty"), which was published in > >Shanghai in 1917. Xu Ke offers a chapter on Gambling games with a > >paragraph on 'Cha maqiao' ("Gambling at mahjong") as well as other > >ones on card games like 'Penghu' and 'Youhu'. These last two > >paragraphs come from a much earlier source, namely Jin Xueshi's 'Muzhu > >xianhua' ("A talk while grazing pigs"), which was written before 1783. > > Which tells us that Cofa still has not yet named a source that refers to > anything mah-jongg-like, prior to 1850. On Jan 11 I replied to Thierry's post and said: QUOTE I believe that page [the mahjong history page from Mjclub.com] does not have the high level of requirements in historical sources than the "The Playing-Card" does. However, it is glad to see Thierry has established that its existence could be linked to some concrete evidence written prior to 1783 (see below). UNQUOTE Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics of those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those characteristics were introduced in that web page but without any sources. So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's "Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783? [Funny, I could not find Thierry's post dated on/around Jan 11 and my reply on Jan 11 on the Google site. Do you see those two posts?] > > >Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game ... > >'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard > >card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection > >between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money > >cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is > >concerned, remains to be discovered. > > Of course we need to know as much as can be known about the money-suited > card games that preceded mah-jongg. And perhaps some research into Conquian > might help as well. In my reply to Thierry dated Jan 11 I did mention as follows, in case you have missed the message: QUOTE But wait! "Kan" and "peng" are different - If your meaning (or that of those writing) is the same as the plain Chinese: Kan = 3 consecutive pieces Peng = 3 identical pieces Are triplets (peng or 3 identical pieces) really not included in "Penghu" according to those writing? Could you please verify? > So 'Penghu' seems to belong to the same family of draw-and-discard > card games as mahjong but there is no clear or direct connection > between the two games--save they are based on three-suited money > cards. The direct ancestor of mahjong, as far as the gameplay is > concerned, remains to be discovered. Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head" cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has? UNQUOTE [I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I should repost the message.] Cheers! Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-14 23:27:48 PST Cofa wrote: >But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern >mahjong" and that of the origin So what? We have found hardly anything we can agree on yet. I do not expect we will find anything to agree on now. I say that we need (and can have) a definition of mah-jongg, without having first to know its moment of origin. I say that we do not need to define what mah-jongg's origin is (I say that it's self-evident, once one has a definition of what mah-jongg is, that its origin is the moment that divides the time when mah-jongg did not yet exist from the time when it did). I had written: >> And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot >> define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its creation >> and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment. > >I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom >please point that out? You wrote, on Jan. 10: >>>And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always >>>subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make the >>>change necessary. >>>... >>>1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth >>>should be easily determined; >>>2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in >>>the history! If I have misinterpreted what you said, it may be because of my inexact reading. But I have to say, just being honest, that I find your English difficult to follow sometimes. It sounded to me like you were saying that the term "mah-jongg" could not be defined without first knowing the game's origin. And/or that the definition of the term "mah-jongg" would have to be rewritten once the game's origin was known with more certainty. Personally, I believe differently - that one can (and rightly should) have a definition of what "mah-jongg" is, in order then to have criteria with which to quantify its origins. And, once having learned about the game's origin, that the definition would not have to change. >We all have in >mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on >information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes of >debating its history, is fine for me. Horrors! You mean we agree on something after all? >But I believe the parties of the >debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin. Double horrors! You mean we agree on two things (that (1) it's right and proper to first define what mah-jongg is, for the purposes of discovering its origins, and (2) we have not yet gotten Cofa to agree to an acceptable-to-everybody-else definition of "mah-jongg")? I had written (to Thierry): >> Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not >> pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." ... >> That doesn't mean that >> one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply >> means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves >> about pinyin. >I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese >term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note that >the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin). We have agreed on THREE things now? Will wonders never cease! >On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu, you >would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in >Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace). > >Which way should we take? Right. So there, Thierry! Cofa and I agree that you shouldn't just go around writing Chinese words any old way you feel like! (^_^) >Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics of >those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those characteristics >were introduced in that web page but without any sources. > >So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the >origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's >"Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783? Show me, please. (Note: I am not replying to the rest of Cofa's post, since I don't see how it's applicable to the discussion.) Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-15 09:26:48 PST "Tom Sloper" news:QhrNb.57722$nt4.88269@attbi_s51... > Cofa wrote: > > >But I still see the big differences between the definition of the "modern > >mahjong" and that of the origin > > So what? We have found hardly anything we can agree on yet. I do not expect > we will find anything to agree on now. I say that we need (and can have) a > definition of mah-jongg, without having first to know its moment of origin. > I say that we do not need to define what mah-jongg's origin is (I say that > it's self-evident, once one has a definition of what mah-jongg is, that its > origin is the moment that divides the time when mah-jongg did not yet exist > from the time when it did). I had written: If your definition is for "modern mahjong" and since history of it is so well recorded, why the need of discussing its (modern mahjong's) origin? I see that our discussion is for the origin of mahjong in general, not the origin of modern mahjong. Isn't it? > > >> And I disagree completely with Cofa's previous assertion that we cannot > >> define mah-jongg unless we can determine the precise moment of its creation > >> and what mah-jongg consisted of at that moment. > > > >I am not quite sure if and where I had made such statement - Would Tom > >please point that out? > > You wrote, on Jan. 10: > > >>>And one should not ignore, that even a definition is set, it is always > >>>subject to change if historical evidences or facts are found which make the > >>>change necessary. > >>>... > >>>1. If you could define the term ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, a date of its birth > >>>should be easily determined; > >>>2. If you could not define ORIGIN OF MAHJONG, its origin is still at lost in > >>>the history! > > If I have misinterpreted what you said, it may be because of my inexact > reading. But I have to say, just being honest, that I find your English > difficult to follow sometimes. An advice: If you are not sure of something, ask question. Don't put your word in other's mouth. It sounded to me like you were saying that > the term "mah-jongg" could not be defined without first knowing the game's > origin. And/or that the definition of the term "mah-jongg" would have to be > rewritten once the game's origin was known with more certainty. Personally, > I believe differently - that one can (and rightly should) have a definition > of what "mah-jongg" is, in order then to have criteria with which to > quantify its origins. And, once having learned about the game's origin, that > the definition would not have to change. My meaning is clearly stated - The foundamental point being that the origin of mahjong is still lost in the history. I have no objection you can define mahjong whatever way you like. Defining the origin of mahjong is totally different. That's why I provided those options 1 and 2 for those who think they have found the origin of mahjong as well as for those who think the origin is still at lost. And for the discussion purposes, I had posted some suggestions on the definition of the origin in some recent messages. In brief, I suggested that the origin should be something between Mo He Pai and the "modern mahjong" as defined by you. You didn't seem to have responded to this yet. > > >We all have in > >mind what (modern) mahjong is. A definition of the origin based on > >information we have about the existing (modern) mahjong, for the purposes of > >debating its history, is fine for me. > > Horrors! You mean we agree on something after all? I guess you might have difficulty in following my meaning again. You have defined what you call as mahjong. I called it "modern mahjong". And for the purposes of debating its history, I have suggested how the origin of mahjong should be defined (something in between Mo He Pai and your modern mahjong)... I am not sure if you are also in agreement with this. > > >But I believe the parties of the > >debate are still yet to agree on the definition of the origin. > > Double horrors! You mean we agree on two things (that (1) it's right and > proper to first define what mah-jongg is, for the purposes of discovering > its origins, and (2) we have not yet gotten Cofa to agree to an > acceptable-to-everybody-else definition of "mah-jongg")? Double difficulty in following my meaning! Again you have every right to define what mahjong is and you did. Then I called it the modern mahjong. For he purposes of the discussion, I have suggested... (see above paragraph) > > I had written (to Thierry): > > >> Well, yes, in the pinyin Romanization system, the character "e" is not > >> pronounced as "e" as in "eBay," nor as "e" as in "wet." ... > >> That doesn't mean that > >> one should simply do away with pinyin as a Romanization system! It simply > >> means that someone looking at pinyin words needs to educate themselves > >> about pinyin. > >I guess there is a technical issue about writing Pinyin here. The Chinese > >term is Peng He (assuming these are Chinese words). One may make a note that > >the term should be pronounced as "peng hu" (in Pinyin). > > We have agreed on THREE things now? Will wonders never cease! > > >On the other hand, if you are to write the words in Pinyin as Peng Hu, you > >would wish to point out that the 2nd Pinyin should be written as He in > >Chinese word, as if in "He Ping" (peace). > > > >Which way should we take? > > Right. So there, Thierry! Cofa and I agree that you shouldn't just go around > writing Chinese words any old way you feel like! (^_^) Perhaps Tom is haveing triple difficulty following my meaning. (^_^) > > >Before that, I also mentioned that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics of > >those "modern definitions" from Tom and from Thierry; those characteristics > >were introduced in that web page but without any sources. > > > >So Tom, should I now repeat that Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the > >origin of mahjong should have, and Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's > >"Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783? > > Show me, please. What do you want me to show? It's all out there. Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mahjong should have - Refer to my message dated 2004-01-09 under topic "Looking for cheap mahjong set". Mo He Pai was mentioned in Jin Xueshi's "Muzhu Xianhua" written before 1783 - Refer to Thierry's message dated 2004-01-11 under topic "Re: Origin of mahjong (was Looking for cheap MahJong Set)". Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-15 16:23:30 PST As usual, not only do Cofa and I have difficulty understanding one another, we disagree when we do understand one another. There is no benefit to be gained in my trying to understand Cofa's arguments or in my replying to them any further. Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Nath Krishmaratala (my@privacy.net) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-15 20:51:16 PST Tom Sloper wrote: > As usual, not only do Cofa and I have difficulty understanding one another, > we disagree when we do understand one another. There is no benefit to be > gained in my trying to understand Cofa's arguments or in my replying to them > any further. It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known as a ... paradox. Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the game. For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner of itself. Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong should also be a successor of itself. If it corresponds to a definition of mah-jong it isn't mah-jong anymore. And when it isn't mah-jong yet then it's real mah-jong. That's the way real mah-jong should be defined. =============END OF MESSAGE From: Tom Sloper (tomster@sloperamaNOSPAM.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-15 23:39:24 PST >From: Nath Krishmaratala >It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this >case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known >as a ... paradox. Right. But try explaining that to Cofa. >Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing >to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental >character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the game. (^_^) >For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't >mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner >of itself. > >Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have >but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong >should also be a successor of itself. Quite right. Mo he pai is not mah-jongg because its suit cards and "heads" are only doubled, not quadrupled, and the set of cards doesn't have any winds. Peng he pai is closer because the suit cards are quadrupled, but it still doesn't have any winds (and it furthermore doesn't have the sangenpai, the 3 dragons). And of course I haven't mentioned flowers in regard to either game. Nor the actual gameplay. Neither mo he pai nor peng he pai were mah-jongg. Yes, they were both ancestors of mah-jongg. But neither is mah-jongg. And the term "origin of mah-jongg" as used by Cofa is misleading (it's an improper use of English words, incoherently self-referential, as you say) - "parent of mah-jongg" is closer to being accurate. >If it corresponds to a definition of mah-jong it isn't mah-jong anymore. Right - Cofa would call THAT "modern mah-jongg" - not "mah-jongg." >And when it isn't mah-jong yet then it's real mah-jong. That's the way >real mah-jong should be defined. Again: (^_^) Tom =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-16 09:51:54 PST "Tom Sloper" news:LyMNb.66455$nt4.95318@attbi_s51... > >From: Nath Krishmaratala > >It's more than difficult to understand Cofa's arguments because in this > >case they constitute a self-referentially incoherent system, also known > >as a ... paradox. > > Right. But try explaining that to Cofa. > > >Essentially, he says that the only definition of mah-jong he is willing > >to admit is one that isn't a definitive statement conveying fundamental > >character of the game. He wants a definition that doesn't define the game. > > (^_^) > > >For him, the real time of birth of mah-jong is when mah-jong wasn't > >mah-jong yet. He will be only satisfied with a game that is a forerunner > >of itself. Looks like Tom has found a good partner! Perhaps it's easier and more fun to put one's word in other's mouth, or attacking other personnally rather than other's words or the matter of a discussion. Is the environment of this ng changed? > > > >Mo He Pai has all the characteristics the origin of mah-jong should have > >but it's not enough for him to call it mah-jong. So the real mah-jong > >should also be a successor of itself. > > Quite right. Mo he pai is not mah-jongg because its suit cards and "heads" > are only doubled, not quadrupled, and the set of cards doesn't have any > winds. Peng he pai is closer because the suit cards are quadrupled, but it > still doesn't have any winds (and it furthermore doesn't have the sangenpai, > the 3 dragons). And of course I haven't mentioned flowers in regard to > either game. Nor the actual gameplay. > > Neither mo he pai nor peng he pai were mah-jongg. Yes, they were both > ancestors of mah-jongg. But neither is mah-jongg. And the term "origin of > mah-jongg" as used by Cofa is misleading (it's an improper use of English > words, incoherently self-referential, as you say) - "parent of mah-jongg" is > closer to being accurate. In case you have forgotten: I did express my idea about the origin of mahjong for the purposes of the debate - I suggested it be something between Mo He Pai and the modern mahjong as defined by Tom. I even would call Mo He Pai the origin of mahjong if in my own opinion. (Haven't you, Tom, put all these on your website already?) You have mentioned the differences of the number of cards being "doubled", "quadrupled", and the contents of "winds" and perhaps "flowers". So these are also characteristics of "mahjong", depending on how one defines it. So these differences between your definition and my ideas have at least been identified. I don't know why you agree to one who provided these essentials being called "paradox". I also don't understand why the use of "origin of mahjong" is misleading. It is used to distinquish the core object of the discussion, especially when the parties of the debate all understand the existence of numerious variants by the name of mahjong. "Origin of mahjong" is a neutral term, it's not attached to any definition of anyone yet. Once a definition is agreed upon for the purposes of the debate, it is then a term well defined. To me, it doesn't matter whether the core object is called "parent of mahjong" or "origin of mahjong". The outstanding issue remains how it is being defined. Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Nath Krishmaratala (my@privacy.net) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-16 12:13:40 PST Cofa Tsui wrote: > I don't know why you agree to one who provided these essentials > being called "paradox". Your arguments and reasoning are self-referentially incoherent. Not those "essentials". > I also don't understand why the use of "origin of mahjong" is misleading. If you don't master the established meaning of words it's easy to get caught in such confusing situations. > [...] "Origin of mahjong" is a neutral term, it's not > attached to any definition of anyone yet. Once a definition is agreed upon > for the purposes of the debate, it is then a term well defined. "Origin" has already a meaning in English. So does "parent", "child" and "birth". Your use of "origin of mah-jong" is not neutral but equivocal. Your term is open to more than two interpretations : parent, child or birth of mah-jong. At your whim, it has one of those significations or a combination of those. This term, as defined by you, means nothing and everything at the same time. > To me, it doesn't matter whether the core object is called "parent of > mahjong" or "origin of mahjong". But, it should matter to you if you want to communicate your ideas. It's essential you use different words to talk about different concepts. Also, you need to use words the same way as others to be understood by them. If not, you'll sound like a smurf: "The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as possible." Have a smurfilicious day. =============END OF MESSAGE From: Gil (gilbert@runbox.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-21 09:05:22 PST > > "The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily > first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf > game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that > was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as possible." > > Have a smurfilicious day. Classic response. However, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding of the Cofa argument. While it is correct to state that the structure of the argument is a paradox (the argument is insuffucient on its surface), the overall meaning of the argument is another thing. My interpretation of the argument is that one person seeks to define something in terms of its presence in the universe and someone else seeks to define that same thing by determining when that thing came into the universe. The problem here is that both definitions are equally wrong and equally right. We cannot completely define something without knowing what its place is in the grand scheme of things and we can also not completely define something without knowing where it came from. However, a COMPLETE definition is not always necessary to have just a definition. We can look at Mah Jong, know that it is a game, know roughly where it came from, study it, play it, enjoy it, know its variants, and thus define it. And this definition is sufficient on its face. And such a definition can not be dismissed because we can't clock back to a "born-on" date: this is not a can of Bud Light we're talking about here, folks. This is a game older than any of us. So, we must then each decide: At what point do we simply state "we can go no further than knowing THIS"? There is no Holy Grail in this game. No one will walk the lands of the Asian continent and unearth some millenia-old entombed case with a document and game set enclosed with an inscription reading "I invented this game on this date, and here is the first tile case - donations accepted via my Pay Pal account." From all I have read on the subject (and I have only been reading material for a year), we must be ready to do the following: (1) Accept that MahJong does not have a set "date of origin." (2) Accept that we may never know the actual date someone, somewhere, made the first tiles. (3) Accept the fact that the game has evolved so much and over such a wide geographical area that we will never get a concise history - only a compendium of histories. Sometimes, in life, this is all the historical dice will roll you. And you have to just accept that you will never know. What you do, in the mean time, is simply to work together to find more out. And together you may stumble upon something new and redefine what you are seeking and be able to add to the sum of knowledge of a subject. =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (19 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-21 23:07:35 PST "Gil" news:f765ce44.0401210905.34a9fba1@posting.google.com... > > > > "The concept of transferring smurf into International Smurf was smurfily > > first smurfed in 1990. Smurfy, isn't it? It intended to smurf the smurf > > game of smurf to the world in a smurfily new form, with a smurf set that > > was smurfily as complete and as smurf to the Cantonese Smurf as possible." > > > > Have a smurfilicious day. > > Classic response. (At some point I had decided not to response to any message with or seem to bear purposes of primarily attacking others personally or accusing or harming others with allegations that were not supported with facts or evidences. So there it goes.) > > However, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding of the Cofa > argument. While it is correct to state that the structure of the > argument is a paradox (the argument is insuffucient on its surface), > the overall meaning of the argument is another thing. > > My interpretation of the argument is that one person seeks to define > something in terms of its presence in the universe and someone else > seeks to define that same thing by determining when that thing came > into the universe. In order to clear out those "paradox" I have to say that I have not yet started to define anything. However, I did say that it (to define mahjong or the origin of mahjong) is not going to be easy. It was just someone's allegation or misunderstanding that I had defined something, but in fact I had not. > > The problem here is that both definitions are equally wrong and > equally right. We cannot completely define something without knowing > what its place is in the grand scheme of things and we can also not > completely define something without knowing where it came from. > However, a COMPLETE definition is not always necessary to have just a > definition. > > We can look at Mah Jong, know that it is a game, know roughly where it > came from, study it, play it, enjoy it, know its variants, and thus > define it. And this definition is sufficient on its face. And such a > definition can not be dismissed because we can't clock back to a > "born-on" date: this is not a can of Bud Light we're talking about > here, folks. You see it! I completely agree! Why is then there is such a prolonged argument? The way I see it is that one part insists that they had found something definite! What I have been doing is to prove that those things are not definite as so much uncertainty is still out there (refer to topic #205 at http://www.imahjong.com/g0maiarchives.html). > > This is a game older than any of us. > > So, we must then each decide: At what point do we simply state "we can > go no further than knowing THIS"? There is no Holy Grail in this > game. No one will walk the lands of the Asian continent and unearth > some millenia-old entombed case with a document and game set enclosed > with an inscription reading "I invented this game on this date, and > here is the first tile case - donations accepted via my Pay Pal > account." I can't simply continue the debate - I already decided that by saying: Anyone can set the birthday of the origin of mahjong if he/she can define it. > > From all I have read on the subject (and I have only been reading > material for a year), we must be ready to do the following: > > (1) Accept that MahJong does not have a set "date of origin." > > (2) Accept that we may never know the actual date someone, somewhere, > made the first tiles. > > (3) Accept the fact that the game has evolved so much and over such a > wide geographical area that we will never get a concise history - only > a compendium of histories. > > Sometimes, in life, this is all the historical dice will roll you. > > And you have to just accept that you will never know. What you do, in > the mean time, is simply to work together to find more out. And > together you may stumble upon something new and redefine what you are > seeking and be able to add to the sum of knowledge of a subject. I totally agree with what you said in principle, except that truth of the history could still be revealed when relevant evidences are found. (Who knows? But then, this may be called paradox again ^_^) Good post, Gil! Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-21 05:46:49 PST "Cofa Tsui" [snip] > Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm > that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 > identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head" > cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it > contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has? > UNQUOTE > > [I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I > should repost the message.] Hello Cofa. I have recently begun to pay attention to the NG again and found that there are some discussions that interest me. In particular the one associated with this thread. I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent* to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'? Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns". Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by "patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be certain. Best Regards Michael =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-21 09:32:17 PST "Michael Stanwick" news:52f8c9c6.0401210546.5b445a8a@posting.google.com... > "Cofa Tsui" > [snip] > > Well, that webpage (http://www.mjclub.com/Resource/History) does confirm > > that "Peng He" (Peng Hu) consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 > > identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns. In addition to the three "Head" > > cards (equivalent to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong), does it > > contains all the characteristics those modern mahjong has? > > UNQUOTE > > > > [I keep a copy of my reply dated Jan 11 on my Outlook. Let me know if I > > should repost the message.] > > Hello Cofa. I have recently begun to pay attention to the NG again and > found that there are some discussions that interest me. In particular > the one associated with this thread. Hi Michael, glad to hear from you again! > > I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards > above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent* > to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the > so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'? The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the message - Refer to image: http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its images. From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green and Red in modern mahjong. We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be ^_^ As Thierry said Penghu contains sequences only not triplets: "Here 'Penghu' is defined as a draw-and-discard game but the combinations are only sequences (called 'kan' or 'peng') of three or four consecutive cards of the same suit, not triplets (3 of a kind)." I am still eager to find out if what the above webpage said [the game consists of all the Kan (3 consecutive), Peng (3 identical) and Gang (4 identical) patterns] is correct or wrong. Cheers! Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-21 10:00:21 PST "Michael Stanwick" news:52f8c9c6.0401210546.5b445a8a@posting.google.com... > "Cofa Tsui" > [snip] [...] > Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns". > Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by > "patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be > certain. Sorry I have missed this part! Here "patterns" I mean the combinations how the cards are formed into "sets". As per the webpage message: Kan = 3 consecutive pieces Peng = 3 identical pieces Gang = 4 identical pieces I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains sequences only not triplets. Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-22 03:21:24 PST "Cofa Tsui" [snip] > > I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards > > above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent* > > to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the > > so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'? > > The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the > message - Refer to image: > http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg > I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its images. > From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one > colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green and > Red in modern mahjong. > > We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be ^_^ Hello Cofa. Thank you for replying to my post. From your explanation above, is my understading correct that the article is saying that these cards gave rise to the three "Dragons"? If so, I am of the opinion that linking the three cards in any way to the "Dragons" (I mentioned that they were *so-called* as a way of telling you that I was using the term 'Dragon' in what I think is a vernacular sense :)) is unwarranted. There is no evidence, apart from a superficial similarity, that supports the notion that they are directly derived from the three 'Head' cards. Again if I have not misunderstood what the article is saying, the article's contention about these cards could be a hypothesis to explain what the three "Dragons" were derived from, but in my opinion the very little supporting evidence for that can be explained by coincidence. [pasted from your other post] > > Also, you mention that Kan, Peng and Gang are types of "patterns". > > Just so I am clear on this point, can you tell me what you mean by > > "patterns"? I suspect I know what you mean, but I would like to be > > certain. [snip] > Here "patterns" I mean the combinations how the cards are formed into > "sets". As per the webpage message: > Kan = 3 consecutive pieces > Peng = 3 identical pieces > Gang = 4 identical pieces Thank you for the clarification. > I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as > Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains > sequences only not triplets. I am also eagerly awaiting Thierry's reply, which I believe should clarify this point. I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a definition of 'Mah Jong'. Best Regards MIchael =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (19 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-22 09:07:47 PST "Michael Stanwick" news:52f8c9c6.0401220321.7ef7a19d@posting.google.com... > "Cofa Tsui" > [snip] > > > I remember from a past post that you had mentioned these "Head" cards > > > above. Could you tell me in what sense you think they are *equivalent* > > > to White, Green and Red(am I right in presuming you mean these are the > > > so-called 'Dragons'?) in 'modern mahjong'? > > > > The "Heads" are equivalent to White, Green and Red is the meaning of the > > message - Refer to image: > > http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205apic1.jpg > > I can't have any sense about it as I have never seen the game or its images. > > From the message I feel that the three cards are in three colours, one > > colour each. This might make sense for connecting them to White, Green and > > Red in modern mahjong. > > > > We don't call them "Dragons" but I guess they are what you assume to be ^_^ > > Hello Cofa. Thank you for replying to my post. > > From your explanation above, is my understading correct that the > article is saying that these cards gave rise to the three "Dragons"? I don't know, as I don't think that article is in a position or has the intention of delivering any message that is of the academic or scholastic nature. I think the note is given to help readers understand more easily what those three head cards are. > > If so, I am of the opinion that linking the three cards in any way to > the "Dragons" (I mentioned that they were *so-called* as a way of > telling you that I was using the term 'Dragon' in what I think is a > vernacular sense :)) is unwarranted. There is no evidence, apart from > a superficial similarity, that supports the notion that they are > directly derived from the three 'Head' cards. I understand what you mean by "so-called" and the term "dragon" :-)) Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern "dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards could also be possible. However, this is this far I can go. Verifying things that are lost in the history needs much much more than I could afford ^_^ > > Again if I have not misunderstood what the article is saying, the > article's contention about these cards could be a hypothesis to > explain what the three "Dragons" were derived from, but in my opinion > the very little supporting evidence for that can be explained by > coincidence. You could be right. As mentioned, I don't feel any sense that the article is delivering any message of or for the purposes of academic research. However, I can't verify things that I don't know. Taking this opportunity, may I correct a mistake in a message that I posted under subject "Re: Looking for cheap MahJong Set" and dated on Jan 9, 2004: [MO HE PAI] Mo He Pai is a card game using the paper cards to play with. It has the following characteristics: It is played by 4 players; It has 60 cards carrying the following patterns: - Wen Qian [money note] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - Suo Zi [string] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - Wan Guan [10-thousand-coin] titled 1 through 9 with 2 cards each; - "Heads" in 3 colours or patterns (similar to mahjong's Red, Green and White), 2 cards each. The contents of the cards shall comprise of: - Wen Qian [spare coin] ... - Suo Zi [string] ... - Wan Guan [10-thousand money note] ... [...] > > > I am still waiting to find out if what the message said is correct, as > > Thierry quoted from other sources the game Penghu (Peng He Pai) contains > > sequences only not triplets. > > I am also eagerly awaiting Thierry's reply, which I believe should > clarify this point. > > I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a > definition of 'Mah Jong'. I can't wait! Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-22 16:04:39 PST "Cofa Tsui" [snip] > Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern > "dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong > started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three > head cards could also be possible. Hello Cofa. Thank you for your reply :) Please don't take this the wrong way but I think this seems like an appeal to ignorance. It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with). Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be possible. All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it "... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all. My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons" does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible. :) [snip] > > I hope to post, soon, my perpective on the contentious issue of a > > definition of 'Mah Jong'. > > I can't wait! I had written my reply but when I came to post it my computer crashed!! {*$%£!) I shall attempt again on the weekend. Cheers Michael =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-22 21:10:37 PST "Michael Stanwick" news:52f8c9c6.0401221604.416f3abd@posting.google.com... > "Cofa Tsui" > [snip] > > Whether it is warranted linking the three "head cards" to the modern > > "dragons" is yet to be found out. If Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong > > started with, saying that anything newer was "inspired" from these three > > head cards could also be possible. > > Hello Cofa. Thank you for your reply :) > > Please don't take this the wrong way but I think this seems like an > appeal to ignorance. I won't. Don't worry! > > It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is > impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head > cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with). Right. > Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards > (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be > possible. Could also be possible. Yes. > > All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it > "... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence > against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all. Both are correct. And, "no evidence at all" could be no evidence against it and no evidence for it, right? > > My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I > have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons" > does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible. > :) This is also correct. But wait. The "inspiration" part (with the "could also be possible") is my own thinking - Not from the webpage. From the above last step, is it correct that you are trying to say that (a) you have some evidence related to the "Dragons" and (b) the evidence you have does not support the claim that the inspiration could be possible? If so, I believe you are also correct, unless the evidence you have proves otherwise. Other than interpreting the message into English, I am not saying it is correct or wrong. I'll let the researchers find it out. I don't know if I have answered your questions. Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-23 04:34:25 PST > "Michael Stanwick" > news:52f8c9c6.0401221604.416f3abd@posting.google.com... > > "Cofa Tsui" > news: Hello Cofa. > > It seems to me you are saying that 'no one has shown that it is > > impossible that anything newer was "inspired" from these three head > > cards (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with). > > Right. > > > Therefore anything newer was "inspired" from these three head cards > > (if Mo He and Peng He were where mahjong started with)could also be > > possible. > > Could also be possible. Yes. > > > All this says I think is that the credibility of the claim that it > > "... could also be possible" is in terms of the lack of evidence > > against it. But the lack of evidence is no evidence at all. > > Both are correct. And, "no evidence at all" could be no evidence against it > and no evidence for it, right? Yes. Sure. But the cogency of a claim is determined by the amount of evidence in its favour*, not by the lack of evidence against it. > > My small point I was trying to make is that from the documentation I > > have seen, it is my view that the evidence relating to the "Dragons" > > does not support the claim that the "inspiration" could be possible. > > :) > > This is also correct. But wait. The "inspiration" part (with the "could also > be possible") is my own thinking - Not from the webpage. Sure. No problem, I understood that. :) > From the above last step, is it correct that you are trying to say that (a) > you have some evidence related to the "Dragons" and (b) the evidence you > have does not support the claim that the inspiration could be possible? If > so, I believe you are also correct, unless the evidence you have proves > otherwise. For (a), yes. The hypothesis I *currently* favour is that the three so-called 'Dragons' were not a direct derivation of the three Head cards. The small amount of evidence I have can support that contention. In my view it does not support the descent of the three 'Dragons' from the three Head cards. I have substituted derivation for inspiration because that latter term involves, in part, knowing the thought processes of the person having the inspiration. In my view that is a more difficult task than establishing a descent through a comparison of similar features. > I don't know if I have answered your questions. Yes you have. Many thanks Cofa. Cheers Michael =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-25 06:13:50 PST Hello Cofa et al., Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled when dealing with the game's developmental history. My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer. In my view, the term 'Mahjong(g)' was 1st coined by Joseph P Babcock circa 1920 and was, at that point, directly associated or fixed to what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin - literally 'hemp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 'sparrow'; (2) a game-play and (3) a specific tile set. However, using the term 'Mahjong(g)' when investigating any of the proposed similar features (1), (2) or (3) that existed before circa 1920, may give the misleading impression that they are directly related to, or are identical to, their namesakes in the circa 1920 game. These relationships can only be established from analysis of, and between, the documentary evidence of the proposed similar feature and the circa 1920 Mahjong(g) feature. Once a relationship is established and it is found that the proposed similar feature lacks or has additional elements, compared to those that make up the circa 1920 feature, that proposed feature is then stipulated as a 'precursor' to Mahjong(g). In my article I have stipulated the essential element of the game-play, related to the circa 1920 term 'Mahjong(g)', to be the formation of melds of two, three or four identical units from a group or a suit, in addition to a sequence of consecutive units from a suit, using the draw and discard method. I also stipulated that the basic components of a Mahjong(g) tile set are: three quadruplicated Suits(based on money); four quadruplicated Directions; three quadruplicated 'Honours'; two quartets usually, but not always, called 'Flowers' and 'Seasons' and 4 spare Blanks (Babcock, 1920). Thus 148 pieces. So, this approach identifies that the term 'Mahjong(g)' can be applied to three essential elements that make up the game at any point in time after the term was invented. If one were to take the term at say... 1980, then a similar process can be applied - it just would be much longer since a greater time interval is involved. I don't know if this is of any help. Cheers Michael =============END OF MESSAGE From: Cofa Tsui (cofatsui@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View this article only Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-26 09:14:40 PST "Michael Stanwick" news:52f8c9c6.0401250613.51981673@posting.google.com... > Hello Cofa et al., > > Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will > explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled > when dealing with the game's developmental history. > > My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah > Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer. > > In my view, the term 'Mahjong(g)' was 1st coined by Joseph P Babcock > circa 1920 and was, Do you mean the term in English only, or including the corresponding term in the Chinese language ("Ma Que")? at that point, directly associated or fixed to > what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the > circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin - > literally 'hemp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 'sparrow'; (2) a > game-play and (3) a specific tile set. Sorry for the asking as I feel a bit confusing here. > > However, using the term 'Mahjong(g)' when investigating any of the > proposed similar features (1), (2) or (3) that existed before circa > 1920, may give the misleading impression that they are directly > related to, or are identical to, their namesakes in the circa 1920 > game. These relationships can only be established from analysis of, > and between, the documentary evidence of the proposed similar feature > and the circa 1920 Mahjong(g) feature. Once a relationship is > established and it is found that the proposed similar feature lacks > or has additional elements, compared to those that make up the circa > 1920 feature, that proposed feature is then stipulated as a > 'precursor' to Mahjong(g). > > In my article I have stipulated the essential element of the > game-play, related to the circa 1920 term 'Mahjong(g)', to be the > formation of melds of two, three or four identical units from a group > or a suit, in addition to a sequence of consecutive units from a suit, > using the draw and discard method. > > I also stipulated that the basic components of a Mahjong(g) tile set > are: three quadruplicated Suits(based on money); four quadruplicated > Directions; three quadruplicated 'Honours'; two quartets usually, but > not always, called 'Flowers' and 'Seasons' and 4 spare Blanks > (Babcock, 1920). Thus 148 pieces. > > So, this approach identifies that the term 'Mahjong(g)' can be applied > to three essential elements that make up the game at any point in time > after the term was invented. If one were to take the term at say... > 1980, then a similar process can be applied - it just would be much > longer since a greater time interval is involved. > > > I don't know if this is of any help. This, if accepted as a standard, would certainly help people trying to identify how mahjong was recorded in different intervals of history. In my opinion, the "circa 1920" identifier is well used. Thanks for sharing the idea! Cofa www.iMahjong.com =============END OF MESSAGE From: Michael Stanwick (mstanwick@aol.com) Subject: Re: Origin of mahjong View: Complete Thread (22 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong Date: 2004-01-27 04:53:59 PST "Cofa Tsui" > "Michael Stanwick" > news:52f8c9c6.0401250613.51981673@posting.google.com... > > Hello Cofa et al., > > > > Below is a brief rendition from my forthcoming paper which I hope will > > explain my approach to how I think any definition should be handled > > when dealing with the game's developmental history. > > > > My approach was to 1stly identify when the actual term 'Mah > > Jong(g)'was 1st created and to what did it refer. > > > > In my view, the term 'Mahjong(g)' was 1st coined by Joseph P Babcock > > circa 1920 and was, > > Do you mean the term in English only, or including the corresponding term in > the Chinese language ("Ma Que")? Hello Cofa. No, only the term in English, 'Mahjong(g)'. I know from evidence I have that the term "Ma Que" was in existence and associated with a 'precursor tile set and game-play well before 1920. > at that point, directly associated or fixed to > > what I shall stipulate as the three basic features that formed the > > circa 1920 game; (1) a double sinogram [i] ma que in modern pinyin - > > literally 'hemp bird', but in the bonded form meaning 'sparrow'; (2) a > > game-play and (3) a specific tile set. > > Sorry for the asking as I feel a bit confusing here. No problem :) Simply, in my view when the term 'Mahjong(g)' was invented by Babcock, it was directly associated and used as a short-hand way of referring to three essential components that made up the game *at that instant in time*. Those are the three that I list above. > > However, using the term 'Mahjong(g)' when investigating any of the > > proposed similar features (1), (2) or (3) that existed before circa > > 1920, may give the misleading impression that they are directly > > related to, or are identical to, their namesakes in the circa 1920 > > game. These relationships can only be established from analysis of, > > and between, the documentary evidence of the proposed similar feature > > and the circa 1920 Mahjong(g) feature. Once a relationship is > > established and it is found that the proposed similar feature lacks > > or has additional elements, compared to those that make up the circa > > 1920 feature, that proposed feature is then stipulated as a > > 'precursor' to Mahjong(g). > > > > In my article I have stipulated the essential element of the > > game-play, related to the circa 1920 term 'Mahjong(g)', to be the > > formation of melds of two, three or four identical units from a group > > or a suit, in addition to a sequence of consecutive units from a suit, > > using the draw and discard method. > > > > I also stipulated that the basic components of a Mahjong(g) tile set > > are: three quadruplicated Suits(based on money); four quadruplicated > > Directions; three quadruplicated 'Honours'; two quartets usually, but > > not always, called 'Flowers' and 'Seasons' and 4 spare Blanks > > (Babcock, 1920). Thus 148 pieces. > > > > So, this approach identifies that the term 'Mahjong(g)' can be applied > > to three essential elements that make up the game at any point in time > > after the term was invented. If one were to take the term at say... > > 1980, then a similar process can be applied - it just would be much > > longer since a greater time interval is involved. > > > > > > I don't know if this is of any help. > > This, if accepted as a standard, would certainly help people trying to > identify how mahjong was recorded in different intervals of history. In my > opinion, the "circa 1920" identifier is well used. > > Thanks for sharing the idea! Sure. The beauty of the system for me was that I could discuss any of the three features listed above quite independantly of each other, but still compare them to the single term 'Mahjong(g) that, at the 1920 point, links them all. Best Regards Michael =============END OF MESSAGE |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |