 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] History of MAHJONG - Newsgroup archives 2006-11-15
The following archived messages may be searched from the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) with the following text strings: "A Millington critique(fairly long)".
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 1 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 4:55 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author This is a pretty long post. I would be interested in any comments. I was looking over past threads on Millington and noticed some dissatisfaction with some parts of his book and the way he has presented his case. On closer examination of his book and my past notes, I have to agree. >From the Introduction and chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 it is pretty clear that Millington claims a "...considerable corpus of Mah-Jongg literature, by Chinese and Western authors, has come down to us..."(Page 7) from the period 1910 - 1920. That is news to me! Further, he cites no references to this 'considerable literature' in his bibliography. (This and other points below, have also been pointed out by Julian Bradfield in a past thread.) Apparently, for Millington, this 'literature' reveals that there were considerable variant forms in China during the decade 1910 - 1920. It seems that Millington took these claimed "rival existing forms" and, using the principles explained in his chapters 5 and 7 (Philosophy and Symbolism (considerable portions lifted from Ly Yu Sang's book), and Chinese Variant Forms, respectively), then looked for attributes - that conformed to these principles/concepts - from within these variant forms of the game. This filtering process and differentiation process seems to have yielded for Millington enough attributes to reconstruct what he claims is the form of the game which "is to be regarded as the authentic and definitive form of Mah-Jongg ...". This form he called "classical Mah-Jongg". But the result of this reconstruction, given the name 'classical Mah-Jongg', is entirely in Millington's mind - it is an abstract concept, it is not material - unless he can cite any material documentary evidence from 1910 - 1920 to support the claim that it is, and that it was played by his "most expert and philosophical players". As far as I can tell he has not! Hence this is case of reification - when something abstract is given a name and then treated as though it were an actual or material object. What he also does in my view, is use terms such as "the classical game" and in relation to this "the authentic and definitive form" (Introduction, page 8), or "the fully-developed classical game"(Chapter 5, page 92), and in the context of his ambiguous and vague discussions, this can lead the reader to a type of persuasive redefinition of the term 'classical' - so that it might be read as having the meaning of 'classic' - that is, meaning "remarkably typical". But, in my view the term 'classical', as used by Millington, refers to his claim, in chapter 5, page 92, that "... those persons who brought the game to the final perfection of its classical form were well versed in the Chinese philosophical tradition [he is essentially buying into Ly Yu Sang's viewpoint], and particularly in the Book of Changes and the Book of Surprises: for in the basic ideas and images of these ancient Classics ... are contained the philosophy, and so the ultimate origin of Mah-Jongg." Since the principles he used to reconstruct his form of the game come from two "ancient Classics", then this form is called by him "classical Mah-Jongg", reflecting the philosophical and symbolical origin on which his reconstruction is based. Below is my charitable reconstruction, in a non formal argumentation format, using his own words. For me, his 'argument' is a mass of uncorroborated assertions, which are in fact axioms, in which the occurrence of reification leads to a series of non sequiturs. (i) According to Millington, what is meant by the term 'Mah-Jongg', is the game "... as played in China ... by the most expert and philosophical players in the period from about 1910 - 1920." (Page 7) (ii) It seems this period in time was chosen because "Mah-Jongg, being the product of a unique set of historical, cultural and social phenomena, could not have evolved and reached its perfection at any other time, or in any other place; ... it was only during these years, or in the preceding decade, that it reached the full extant of its logical development according to its inherent principles;..." (Page 7). (iii) This is because "...the surviving evidence would suggest that the transformation was taking place in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The fact that the persons responsible for the evolution and systemization of the classical game must have been educated men, well versed in the Classics, prevents us from ascribing the process to any earlier period." (Page 109). That is, "... those persons who brought the game to the final perfection of its classical form were well versed in the Chinese philosophical tradition and particularly in the Book of Changes and the Book of Surprises..." (Page 92) (iv) They must have been educated men because "...the philosophical scheme of Mah-Jongg ... regarded as the perfect and true form ... clearly articulates the notions and concepts by which more or less wittingly the perfecters of the game were guided, the intellectual tradition in which they had been brought up, and to which therefore their creation gave expression." (Page 104). (v) Thus, "...when players of a philosophical disposition first took to playing what we may term 'proto-Mah-Jongg', they began to systematize and improve the game, newly detecting in it potentialities of symbolism, drawing the necessary conclusions and making the necessary modifications, until finally all the parts fitted neatly into place, with nothing superfluous and nothing inharmonious: at that point the game had reached its classical form. (Pages 103/104). (vi) And so "... the classical game emerges into view about 1910,..." (Page 105). (vii) But "In 1905, however, the old Chinese educational and cultural system was finally overthrown by an edict that abolished the Civil Service examination ... the means by which the upper classes and the intelligentsia had maintained knowledge of the Confucian Classics..." (Page 113) (viii) As a consequence, "...whereas in a previous stage of its development, it had percolated upwards into the higher ranks of society, and so undergone refinement to produce the classical game, it now spread downwards and outwards, and many more people learnt the game, though not all with the same degree of scholarly understanding. Thus side by side with classical Mah-Jongg, there developed what we may call the 'popular game';..." (Page 113) (ix) Because "... mah-Jongg is a philosophical game, and its rules are not arbitrarily determined, but rather they are inter-related..." (Pages 7/8) then there was one authentic and definitive form within the 'authentic' popular forms, one that "... was the most perfect, philosophically considered; which came nearest to the Ideal form of mah-Jongg; which was the most logical and internally consistent." (Pages 7/8) (x) Of all these developed forms of the game, according to Millington, the forms that were 'authentic' are the ones "...which were played in China during the second decade of the twentieth century." (Page 7). (xi) It seems these 'authentic' forms were popular variant forms, and we know which forms existed in the 1910 - 1920 period because "...a very considerable corpus of Mah-Jongg literature, by Chinese and western authors, has come down to us from that period." (Page 7) (xii) To reconstruct this authentic and definitive form we must therefore decide "...between rival existing forms in specific instances ... between the philosophical and the popular game..." (Page 8) (xiii) This distinction is determined according to the symbolic as well as mathematical principles of the Confucian Classics, on which the game is built, because "... in the basic ideas and images of these ancient Classics, and in their number-mysticism ... are contained the philosophy, and so the ultimate origin of Mah-Jongg." (Page 92). (xiv) The form of Mah-Jongg that "...emerges from this process of reconstruction and differentiation ...we have called 'classical mah-Jongg', ..." (Page 8). Other parts of his book are ok of course. My comments realte to his assertions made in the Introduction. Cheers Michael Stanwick Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 2 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 10:46 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hi Michael, you wrote: >From the Introduction and chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 it is pretty clear >that Millington claims a "...considerable corpus of Mah-Jongg >literature, by Chinese and Western authors, has come down to >us..."(Page 7) from the period 1910 - 1920. That is news to me! Right. Hardly anything before 1920. >Further, he cites no references to this 'considerable literature' in >his bibliography. (This and other points below, have also been pointed >out by Julian Bradfield in a past thread.) Definitely a lack. Need titles, authors. >Apparently, for Millington, this 'literature' reveals that there >were considerable variant forms in China during the decade 1910 - 1920. Which is hogwash. From the "considerable literature" I've read (and cited here before, all 1920 and after), there were basically the 10-point variant and the 20-point variant (assuming that the cleared-hand and one-double games were American inventions) and maybe some undocumented table rules. Would love to read [translations of] the non-Culin pre-1920 works: * Soseki Natsume's 1909 Asahi Shimbun article, "Some Places in Manchuria and Korea" * Robert Dillon Mansfield's 1912 "mâ-chiang" trademark * Shen Yifan's 1914 "Hui Tu Ma Qiao Pai Pu" (Sketch of a Manual of Tiles) * Shou Kan Seki's 1917 "Detailed Description of Maque" >and that it was played by his "most expert and philosophical >players". None of whom he ever names in his book, right. >Hence this is [a] case of >reification - when something abstract is given a name and then treated >as though it were an actual or material object. There's a new word for me! >... and particularly in the Book of Changes and >the Book of Surprises: I don't know what those books are... Oh. The Book of Changes is also called the I Ching. That one I've heard of, of course... And the Book Of Surprises...? Google isn't helping me with that one. >Thus side by side with classical Mah-Jongg, there developed what we may >call the 'popular game';..." (Page 113) >(xii) To reconstruct this authentic and definitive form we must >therefore decide "...between rival existing forms in specific >instances ... between the philosophical and the popular game..." >(Page 8) Wish he'd be more specific as to the differences between these alleged two different variants! >Other parts of his book are ok of course. Except for that "kong box and flower wall" thing - never heard of that anywhere else. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 3 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 3:33 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> writes: > Except for that "kong box and flower wall" thing - never heard of that > anywhere else. The 16-tile kong box comes from Ly Yu Sang - who doesn't philosophize about it, but makes the simple argument that a 16-tile box gives everybody an equal chance to draw, whereas a 14-tile box favours East and South. This is a poor argument, of course, since turns are lost or gained by pung/kong anyway, so there is no "equal chance to draw". LYS adds the number of flowers to the 16 of dead wall, and replaces flowers from the dead wall - so the unusual Millingtonism of replacing flowers from the live wall does seem to be due to him. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 4 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 9:34 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote > The 16-tile kong box comes from Ly Yu Sang Oh, OK. Thanks. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 5 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 5:15 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hello Tom. > >From the Introduction and chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 it is pretty clear > >that Millington claims a "...considerable corpus of Mah-Jongg > >literature, by Chinese and Western authors, has come down to > >us..."(Page 7) from the period 1910 - 1920. That is news to me! > Right. Hardly anything before 1920. It seems so to me. I suppose it depends on what Millington means by 'considerable'. But the amount of literature I know of certainly doesn't come under the term 'considerable' by any stretch of my imagination, and Millington's pre 1920 references certainly do not either. As Julian said in a previous post ... "Obviously I'm expecting him to adhere to normal scholarly standards: maybe that's not appropriate for a games manual, but it does seem appropriate for a book claiming to be a definitive historical and philosophical treatise. So it worries me that he doesn't even apply high school standards of scholarly citation, let alone real academic standards." I wholeheartedly concur with these sentiments. > >Apparently, for Millington, this 'literature' reveals that there > >were considerable variant forms in China during the decade 1910 - 1920. > Which is hogwash. From the "considerable literature" I've read (and cited > here before, all 1920 and after), there were basically the 10-point variant > and the 20-point variant (assuming that the cleared-hand and one-double > games were American inventions) and maybe some undocumented table rules. Again, it depends on what Millington means by 'variant'. That is, to which part of the game does the term 'variant' apply - the tile set?, certainly there were variant forms of this between 1910 and 1920 see Culin's(1909, but on the point of 1910), the Nagawa set(~1910) and the variations described by Mauger (1915)), or the name? - probably, and the game-play? - undetermined, but probably. > Would love to read [translations of] the non-Culin pre-1920 works: > * Soseki Natsume's 1909 Asahi Shimbun article, "Some Places in Manchuria and > Korea" I thought I gave you the reference to his book? There isn't much in it- basically a very brief, vague reference to some game that is similar to Ma Que. The ISBN is 1-901903-30-3. > * Robert Dillon Mansfield's 1912 "mâ-chiang" trademark > * Shen Yifan's 1914 "Hui Tu Ma Qiao Pai Pu" (Sketch of a Manual of Tiles) > * Shou Kan Seki's 1917 "Detailed Description of Maque" Same here! Count me in! > >and that it was played by his "most expert and philosophical > >players". > None of whom he ever names in his book, right. Right. His is mere assertion again because he provides no evidence for this claim. > >Hence this is [a] case of > >reification - when something abstract is given a name and then treated > >as though it were an actual or material object. > There's a new word for me! You're welcome! :) And no charge either. > >... and particularly in the Book of Changes and > >the Book of Surprises: > I don't know what those books are... Oh. The Book of Changes is also called > the I Ching. That one I've heard of, of course... And the Book Of > Surprises...? Google isn't helping me with that one. I wouldn't worry about it. It is Millington's thinking that is important in this case. > >Thus side by side with classical Mah-Jongg, there developed what we may > >call the 'popular game';..." (Page 113) > >(xii) To reconstruct this authentic and definitive form we must > >therefore decide "...between rival existing forms in specific > >instances ... between the philosophical and the popular game..." > >(Page 8) > Wish he'd be more specific as to the differences between these alleged two > different variants! Well the 1st is, for Millington, his ideal form. Don't forget that he does not offer any independant evidence that it *actually* existed pre 1920. For him it is the Ideal, it is not a variant as such. Everything else is a variant of it. On page 126 of his book he discusses this in a characteristically obscure way. And even if the playing method and rules of his 'classical form' were found in one of the unread Chinese Manuals from 1910-1920, that still does not mean that this game-play form can be regarded as the result of having been perfected by 'philosophical/confucian players. That assertion or claim requires further evidence. I would also like to say that in view of the lack of evidence for Millington's ideal form of the game, called 'Classical Mah-Jong', I think it would be inappropriate to use this term in relation to the playing rules post 1920, that are called 'Chinese Classical' or 'Classical Mah-Jong' etc.., because it may give the impression that these post 1920 rules are the result of Millington's thesis - which, for me, lacks any credibility. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 6 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 9:33 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Michael wrote: >I would also like to say that in view of the lack of evidence for >Millington's ideal form of the game, called 'Classical Mah-Jong', I >think it would be inappropriate to use this term in relation to the >playing rules post 1920, that are called 'Chinese Classical' or >'Classical Mah-Jong' etc.., We've been calling the well-documented 1920s game "Classical" for years. We've not seen any clear documentation of any pre-1920 rules in English. It would be very inconvenient to change the name we use to refer to the well-documented 1920s game, and for future researchers who'd have to be aware of a nomenclature change that occurred in, say, late 2006 after the famous Stanwick "Millington diatribe." (^_^) >because it may give the impression that >these post 1920 rules are the result of Millington's thesis - which, >for me, lacks any credibility. We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized those rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been calling it that because those are the earliest well-documented rules. It's reasonable to continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 7 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 10:36 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > Michael wrote: > >I would also like to say that in view of the lack of evidence for > >Millington's ideal form of the game, called 'Classical Mah-Jong', I > >think it would be inappropriate to use this term in relation to the > >playing rules post 1920, that are called 'Chinese Classical' or > >'Classical Mah-Jong' etc.., > We've been calling the well-documented 1920s game "Classical" for years. > We've not seen any clear documentation of any pre-1920 rules in English. It > would be very inconvenient to change the name we use to refer to the > well-documented 1920s game, and for future researchers who'd have to be > aware of a nomenclature change that occurred in, say, late 2006 after the > famous Stanwick "Millington diatribe." (^_^) Enough of the 'famous'(but I will sign autographs) :) Well, it is an issue of inclination. But no matter. I think future researchers will be confused enough, with both terms being used for the same game but meaning different things! :) > >because it may give the impression that > >these post 1920 rules are the result of Millington's thesis - which, > >for me, lacks any credibility. > We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized those > rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been calling it that > because those are the earliest well-documented rules. It's reasonable to > continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." Interesting Tom. Oddly enough, it was partly because I noticed the use of the term 'classical' on this group, in relation to 1920's rules, that I began to wonder about the term's origin. But why is the term being used for 1920's rules? Why is it reasonable, and why not some other term? I cant find any link between the word 'classical' and these 1920's rules - unless the actual term is 'classic'? > Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be > confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical > philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose > thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? How would it do that? Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 8 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 16 2006 5:13 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - mstanw...@aol.com wrote: > Tom Sloper wrote: > > Michael wrote: > > >I would also like to say that in view of the lack of evidence for > > >Millington's ideal form of the game, called 'Classical Mah-Jong', I > > >think it would be inappropriate to use this term in relation to the > > >playing rules post 1920, that are called 'Chinese Classical' or > > >'Classical Mah-Jong' etc.., > > We've been calling the well-documented 1920s game "Classical" for years. > > We've not seen any clear documentation of any pre-1920 rules in English. It > > would be very inconvenient to change the name we use to refer to the > > well-documented 1920s game, and for future researchers who'd have to be > > aware of a nomenclature change that occurred in, say, late 2006 after the > > famous Stanwick "Millington diatribe." (^_^) > Enough of the 'famous'(but I will sign autographs) :) > Well, it is an issue of inclination. But no matter. > I think future researchers will be confused enough, with both terms > being used for the same game but meaning different things! :) Hi Michael, I am not sure if this is considered another round of exchange about the "history of mahjong" ^_^ However, I am with you! That is, there were many forms of mahjong co-existing in and before the 1920s, together with the form that was defined as "Chinese Classical" by Millington in his book in 1977 (sorry if I recalled the year correctly, as I don't have the book on hand). I used to believe that the term "Chinese Classical" is a term created by Millington, not a term that was "well-documented" in the 1920s - See my article at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > > >because it may give the impression that > > >these post 1920 rules are the result of Millington's thesis - which, > > >for me, lacks any credibility. > > We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized those > > rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been calling it that > > because those are the earliest well-documented rules. It's reasonable to > > continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." > Interesting Tom. Oddly enough, it was partly because I noticed the use > of the term 'classical' on this group, in relation to 1920's rules, > that I began to wonder about the term's origin. But why is the term > being used for 1920's rules? Why is it reasonable, and why not some > other term? I cant find any link between the word 'classical' and these > 1920's rules - unless the actual term is 'classic'? > > Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be > > confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical > > philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose > > thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? > How would it do that? Interesting question, I am eager to learn an answer as well! Because not only "that form of mahjong" was called "classical", it was also called the "origin", too! Of course, I would be more interested in knowing how the game could be called the "origin", than it was called "classical", using the same rigid standards that Michael has applied. Cheers! Cofa (from away from home) www.iMahjong.com . Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 9 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 17 2006 5:47 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > Hi Michael, I am not sure if this is considered another round of > exchange about the "history of mahjong" ^_^ However, I am with you! Hello Cofa. Perhaps you mean you are in agreement with my basic argument? I would like to be left out of the equation, because bringing personalities into a discussion can polarise an issue very quickly. Just refer to the argument presented. ^_^ > That is, there were many forms of mahjong co-existing in and before the > 1920s, together with the form that was defined as "Chinese Classical" > by Millington in his book in 1977 (sorry if I recalled the year > correctly, as I don't have the book on hand). (I think you got the date correct for the 1st edition.) Millington says that there were many variant forms existing between 1910 and 1920, but he doesn't give any evidential support for this assertion. Babcock twice reported a similar observation as far as I know but, as I said, what is meant by 'variant' when applied to the game as a whole? Babcock has more weight for me since he was there at the time. Millington may have been reporting Babcock but crucially, Millington claims to have decided "between rival existing forms in specific instances" in a process of reconstruction and differentiation to arrive at his form which he calls 'classical Mah-Jong'. That means Millington must have had material evidence of these variant forms, but he doesn't give any evidence to support this. (but see below) So in the light of the absence of any evidence to support his claims, I cannot accept Millington's claim that his 'classical form', which he names 'classical Mah-Jong', existed between 1910 and 1920, and neither can I accept his notion that some 'derivative forms' in turn evolved from **his** so-called 'classical game'(Page 8). Even though it is the case that rule books from the 1920s illustrate rules that are similar to Millington's rules (with only minor differences), and hence are similar to his 'classical Mah-Jong' rules in this respect, it cannot be the case that we can say these rules can be called 'classical Mah-Jong' rules, because that implies that these rules (in the 1920's rulebooks) are the culmination of the process of development as put forward by Millington. And as I (and others I think) contend, Millington's hypothesis is not supported by any credible evidence. > I used to believe that > the term "Chinese Classical" is a term created by Millington, not a > term that was "well-documented" in the 1920s [snip] We have to be careful here. Millington's game is called 'classical Mah-Jong' NOT 'Chinese Classical'. I know that this name appears with Millington's name elsewhere, but I think that connection is inappropriate for the reason above and because Millington is quite specific about what his rules are called (but if he does use the term 'Chinese Classical' I would like to be corrected, so please let me know). Millington also repeatedly refers to "the classical game" as well (see pages 120 and 121) but not to the name 'Chinese Classical'. To be charitable to Millington, It is possible he used rule books from the 1920's and inferred that the diversity (in the details) of rules he encountered in them originated, and were in use, in the prior decade - hence his ambiguous claim that a considerable corpus of MJ literature has come down to us from that period. (but see below) > > > Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be > > > confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical > > > philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose > > > thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? > > How would it do that? > Interesting question, I am eager to learn an answer as well! Because > not only "that form of mahjong" was called "classical", it was also > called the "origin", too! Of course, I would be more interested in > knowing how the game could be called the "origin", than it was called > "classical", using the same rigid standards that Michael has applied. Hmm. Can you tell me where the 'classical' form is called the 'origin' Cofa? And the origin of what? IMO, it is important to note that for his entire book Millington specifically attributes the term 'Mah-Jong' to the game, **and that game only**, which was played by by the "most expert and philosophical players" between 1910 and 1920. And he contends that there were many variants of this 'popular' game. Accordingly, it is these variants that he sifts through, using principles from certain classical Chinese texts, to reconstruct his 'ideal form', the one that is most philosophically perfect and which he calls the 'philosophical' game, AKA 'classical Mah-Jong'. But is it philosophically perfect for him because he is the instrument that constructed it in the 1st place, by using the very Confucian principles that it is then perfectly in accord with??!! (Get your thinking around that one! ^_^) Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Nov 18 2006 1:13 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1163771260.708034.124560@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> Hi Michael, I am not sure if this is considered another round of >> exchange about the "history of mahjong" ^_^ However, I am with you! > Hello Cofa. > Perhaps you mean you are in agreement with my basic argument? I would > like to be left out of the equation, because bringing personalities > into a discussion can polarise an issue very quickly. Just refer to the > argument presented. ^_^ Be assured there is no personality attached - as always ^_^ By "I am with you" I mean I agree with you that "there were many forms of mahjong co-existing in and before the 1920s..." But perhaps this is not what you exactly meant. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> That is, there were many forms of mahjong co-existing in and before the >> 1920s, together with the form that was defined as "Chinese Classical" >> by Millington in his book in 1977 (sorry if I recalled the year >> correctly, as I don't have the book on hand). > (I think you got the date correct for the 1st edition.) Millington says > that there were many variant forms existing between 1910 and 1920, but > he doesn't give any evidential support for this assertion. Babcock > twice reported a similar observation as far as I know but, as I said, > what is meant by 'variant' when applied to the game as a whole? Babcock > has more weight for me since he was there at the time. Millington may > have been reporting Babcock but crucially, Millington claims to have > decided "between rival existing forms in specific instances" in a > process of reconstruction and differentiation to arrive at his form > which he calls 'classical Mah-Jong'. That means Millington must have > had material evidence of these variant forms, but he doesn't give any > evidence to support this. (but see below) > So in the light of the absence of any evidence to support his claims, I > cannot accept Millington's claim that his 'classical form', which he > names 'classical Mah-Jong', existed between 1910 and 1920, and neither > can I accept his notion that some 'derivative forms' in turn evolved > from **his** so-called 'classical game'(Page 8). > Even though it is the case that rule books from the 1920s illustrate > rules that are similar to Millington's rules (with only minor > differences), and hence are similar to his 'classical Mah-Jong' rules > in this respect, it cannot be the case that we can say these rules can > be called 'classical Mah-Jong' rules, because that implies that these > rules (in the 1920's rulebooks) are the culmination of the process of > development as put forward by Millington. And as I (and others I think) > contend, Millington's hypothesis is not supported by any credible > evidence. Let me speak out my understanding of your arguements: - There were many forms of mahjong existed between 1910 and 1920; - What those forms exactly are there are no evidences (or Millington did not provide any evidence to describe details of those forms); - One or some of the many forms were very similar to one another; - Based on these *specific* similar forms, Millington has reconstructed them into a form that he specifically defined as "Classical Mah-Jong"; - But that specifically defined form, which was called "Classical Mah-Jong" by Millington in 1977, is not the same as those forms that were played between 1910 and 1920 (or at least, there is lack of evidence from Millington to prove the same). Let me know if I understand wrongly. Either way, the above are in line with what I used to believe. (And what I believe even includes things beyond 1910.) >> I used to believe that >> the term "Chinese Classical" is a term created by Millington, not a >> term that was "well-documented" in the 1920s [snip] > We have to be careful here. Millington's game is called 'classical > Mah-Jong' NOT 'Chinese Classical'. I know that this name appears with > Millington's name elsewhere, but I think that connection is > inappropriate for the reason above and because Millington is quite > specific about what his rules are called (but if he does use the term > 'Chinese Classical' I would like to be corrected, so please let me > know). Millington also repeatedly refers to "the classical game" as > well (see pages 120 and 121) but not to the name 'Chinese Classical'. I agree with you. I must have had been influenced by those who deeply believe "Chinese Classical" was the only form of mahjong existed in the 1920s. [...] > Hmm. Can you tell me where the 'classical' form is called the 'origin' > Cofa? And the origin of what? I mean the "origin of mahjong". For your question you better ask Tom and Allan ^_^ (Refer to http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html for collection exchanges about the history of mahjong.) > IMO, it is important to note that for his entire book Millington > specifically attributes the term 'Mah-Jong' to the game, **and that > game only**, which was played by by the "most expert and philosophical > players" between 1910 and 1920. And he contends that there were many > variants of this 'popular' game. Accordingly, it is these variants that > he sifts through, using principles from certain classical Chinese > texts, to reconstruct his 'ideal form', the one that is most > philosophically perfect and which he calls the 'philosophical' game, > AKA 'classical Mah-Jong'. > But is it philosophically perfect for him because he is the instrument > that constructed it in the 1st place, by using the very Confucian > principles that it is then perfectly in accord with??!! (Get your > thinking around that one! ^_^) I guess I understand what you mean - see my 2nd part above. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sat, Nov 18 2006 9:13 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > Be assured there is no personality attached - as always ^_^ By "I am with > you" I mean I agree with you that "there were many forms of mahjong > co-existing in and before the 1920s..." But perhaps this is not what you > exactly meant. Hello Cofa. Yes. That is is what Millington claims - that there were variant forms. Just how many, Millington doesn't say. All he says is that there were these variants and there was very considerable diversity between them in their details. I also said that Babcock claimed something similar and I would lend some credence to his observations because he was there at the time etc. and I have no good reason to doubt his accounts at present. > Let me speak out my understanding of your arguments: > - There were many [variant] forms of mahjong [that] existed between 1910 and 1920; > - What those [variant] forms exactly are there are no evidences (or Millington did not > provide any evidence to describe details of those forms); I have inserted words in [ ] where necessary. I hope you don't mind. Ok so far ^_^ > - One or some of the many forms were very similar to one another; Not exactly. I said it is my understanding that the rules **in 1920's rule books** are in essence very similar to Millington's 1977 'classical Mah-Jong' rules. > - Based on these *specific* similar forms, Millington has reconstructed them > into a form that he specifically defined as "Classical Mah-Jong"; No. What I said was "Millington claims to have decided "between rival existing forms [from the period 1910 - 1920] in specific instances" in a process of reconstruction and differentiation to arrive at his form which he calls 'classical Mah-Jong'." I have put additional words in [ ] in this quote to make it clearer. > - But that specifically defined form, which was called "Classical Mah-Jong" > by Millington in 1977, is not the same as those forms that were played > between 1910 and 1920 (or at least, there is lack of evidence from > Millington to prove the same). Yes. In the sense that his creation (or variant form I suppose) was called 'classical Mah-Jong' because he used principles in certain classical Chinese texts as a criteria to weed or sift out certain attributes from the 1910-1920 variant forms. He then lumped them together to form his 'ideal' or 'perfect variant form' which he called 'classical Mah-Jong'. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> I used to believe that > >> the term "Chinese Classical" is a term created by Millington, not a > >> term that was "well-documented" in the 1920s [snip] > > We have to be careful here. Millington's game is called 'classical > > Mah-Jong' NOT 'Chinese Classical'. I know that this name appears with > > Millington's name elsewhere, but I think that connection is > > inappropriate for the reason above and because Millington is quite > > specific about what his rules are called (but if he does use the term > > 'Chinese Classical' I would like to be corrected, so please let me > > know). Millington also repeatedly refers to "the classical game" as > > well (see pages 120 and 121) but not to the name 'Chinese Classical'. > I agree with you. I must have had been influenced by those who deeply > believe "Chinese Classical" was the only form of mahjong existed in the > 1920s. I'm not sure what you are agreeing to Cofa. What I said was in relation to the term 'classical Mah-Jong'. I was merely being a little pedantic about the terms used, just so we don't go around using potentially confusing terms - such as 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese' or 'classic game' for example, as references for Millington's 'classical Mah-Jong'. The word 'classic' has a different meaning to the word 'classical' for example. But it is my understanding that the majority of 1920's rule books sport rules that are, in their fundamentals, very similar to Millington's creation, 'classical Mah-Jong'. But that is not the same as saying that Millington's 'classical Mah-Jong' rules existed in the 1920's, because to say that, we would have to accept Millington's other baggage - that his rules were a result of the developmental history as described by him. And as you know, IMO, he hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims. If Millington had said that his claims amount to a hypothesis or explanation for these very similar 1920's rules then I would have no problem with that as his would be one of presumeably other hypotheses or explanations for the origin of these prevalent rules. > > Hmm. Can you tell me where the 'classical' form is called the 'origin' > > Cofa? And the origin of what? > I mean the "origin of mahjong". For your question you better ask Tom and > Allan ^_^ > (Refer to http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html for collection > exchanges about the history of mahjong.) Well, Tom's tree diagram and associated discussion illustrates the claim that a specific set of rules, very prevalent in the 1920's, which he calls 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese rules', gave rise to other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules. I think Tom and Allan have given a good account of their hypothesis that seeks to explain the relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were around in that time frame. (I only have a small quibble with some of their terms, which I think are potentially confusing). So I think they are claiming that this prevalent rule set(that had very minor regional differences in its details) gave rise or was the origin of other sets of 'Mahjong' rules. But prior to 1920 is another matter. ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 1:02 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1163869995.015172.82080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> Let me speak out my understanding of your arguments: >> - There were many [variant] forms of mahjong [that] existed between 1910 >> and 1920; >> - What those [variant] forms exactly are there are no evidences (or >> Millington did not >> provide any evidence to describe details of those forms); > I have inserted words in [ ] where necessary. I hope you don't mind. Ok > so far ^_^ >> - One or some of the many forms were very similar to one another; > Not exactly. I said it is my understanding that the rules **in 1920's > rule books** are in essence very similar to Millington's 1977 > 'classical Mah-Jong' rules. >> - Based on these *specific* similar forms, Millington has reconstructed >> them >> into a form that he specifically defined as "Classical Mah-Jong"; > No. What I said was "Millington claims to have decided "between rival > existing forms [from the period 1910 - 1920] in specific instances" in > a process of reconstruction and differentiation to arrive at his form > which he calls 'classical Mah-Jong'." I have put additional words in [ > ] in this quote to make it clearer. >> - But that specifically defined form, which was called "Classical >> Mah-Jong" >> by Millington in 1977, is not the same as those forms that were played >> between 1910 and 1920 (or at least, there is lack of evidence from >> Millington to prove the same). > Yes. In the sense that his creation (or variant form I suppose) was > called 'classical Mah-Jong' because he used principles in certain > classical Chinese texts as a criteria to weed or sift out certain > attributes from the 1910-1920 variant forms. He then lumped them > together to form his 'ideal' or 'perfect variant form' which he called > 'classical Mah-Jong'. Thanks for the clarifications. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > Hmm. Can you tell me where the 'classical' form is called the 'origin' >> > Cofa? And the origin of what? >> I mean the "origin of mahjong". For your question you better ask Tom and >> Allan ^_^ >> (Refer to http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html for collection >> exchanges about the history of mahjong.) > Well, Tom's tree diagram and associated discussion illustrates the > claim that a specific set of rules, very prevalent in the 1920's, which > he calls 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese rules', gave rise to > other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules. I think Tom and Allan have given > a good account of their hypothesis that seeks to explain the > relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were > around in that time frame. (I only have a small quibble with some of > their terms, which I think are potentially confusing). > So I think they are claiming that this prevalent rule set(that had very > minor regional differences in its details) gave rise or was the origin > of other sets of 'Mahjong' rules. IMHO, the problem with their claim (that "Chinese Classical is the origin of mahjong, all other variants are derived from it" - more or less like this) is that they have ignored the existance of all other variants that were co-existing with that specific or similar variant(s) in the 1920s, which they later called "Chinese Classical". Although the details of those "other variants" were not recorded, their *existance* was clearly evidenced in the same documentation providing the details of that specific variant(s). I also noticed that in Tom's FAQ 11 I now could not find any definite statement that "Chinese Classical is the origin of mahjong" - I consider this a correct improvement of that article. (I do not have records of the previous versions of the article, I am not sure if there was any statement that "Chinese Classical is the original of mahjong" in those previous versions. Whether there was or was not, I believe "Chinese Classical is the original of mahjong" is still a statement that is yet to be proved, if it could be at all.) One important correction to the FAQ 11 that I wish to make, though: At the end of Part VI it states: "Although it is widely believed that the well-documented Chinese Classical rules (which were of course not called "Chinese Classical" at that time) form the trunk of the mah-jongg family tree, there is at least one detractor who believes that it is, rather, Hong Kong Old Style mah-jongg which deserves that place of honor. The next chapter examines the debate on this topic. It can safely be ignored (you can simply skip to the Timeline without missing much)." I never said that "Hong Kong Old Style mah-jongg [..] deserves that place of honor". What I believe are always these: "(1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game MAHJONG." (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) In my opinion, there should be more than just one trees ^_^ > But prior to 1920 is another matter. ^_^ Of course! And it all depends on the definitions of relative terms. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 7:18 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author > > Cofa Tsui wrote: Hello Cofa. [snip] > > So I think they are claiming that this prevalent rule set(that had very > > minor regional differences in its details) gave rise or was the origin > > of other sets of 'Mahjong' rules. > IMHO, the problem with their claim (that "Chinese Classical is the origin of > mahjong, all other variants are derived from it" - more or less like this) > is that they have ignored the existance of all other variants that were > co-existing with that specific or similar variant(s) in the 1920s, which > they later called "Chinese Classical". Although the details of those "other > variants" were not recorded, their *existance* was clearly evidenced in the > same documentation providing the details of that specific variant(s). Really? From Tom's claims I am under the impression that all the rule books he looked at had in essence, the same scoring attributes. Can you tell me where the existence of these other variants is recorded - I mean the name of the book/booklet and the page numbers. I can then look up these and see what you mean, assuming I have the books of course. > I also noticed that in Tom's FAQ 11 I now could not find any definite > statement that "Chinese Classical is the origin of mahjong" - I consider > this a correct improvement of that article. (I do not have records of the > previous versions of the article, I am not sure if there was any statement > that "Chinese Classical is the original of mahjong" in those previous > versions. Whether there was or was not, I believe "Chinese Classical is the > original of mahjong" is still a statement that is yet to be proved, if it > could be at all.) Sure. But I think that a case could be made for how that could have happened - and I think Allan has made a robust attempt at that. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > One important correction to the FAQ 11 that I wish to make, though: > At the end of Part VI it states: "Although it is widely believed that the > well-documented Chinese Classical rules (which were of course not called > "Chinese Classical" at that time) form the trunk of the mah-jongg family > tree, there is at least one detractor who believes that it is, rather, Hong > Kong Old Style mah-jongg which deserves that place of honor. The next > chapter examines the debate on this topic. It can safely be ignored (you can > simply skip to the Timeline without missing much)." > I never said that "Hong Kong Old Style mah-jongg [..] deserves that place of > honor". What I believe are always these: > "(1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese > Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. > (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style > ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many > variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the > long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game > MAHJONG." (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) > In my opinion, there should be more than just one trees ^_^ Interesting. But have you offered a critical appraisal of Allan Kwan's "Argument 2"? I would be interested to know whehther you consider his reasoning to be ok and if not, why not. I would certainly find it enlightening. > > But prior to 1920 is another matter. ^_^ > Of course! And it all depends on the definitions of relative terms. Yes, to a point. But where disgreement occurs it is best to just move on. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 6:52 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1163949501.366026.97710@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > Cofa Tsui wrote: > Hello Cofa. > [snip] >> > So I think they are claiming that this prevalent rule set(that had very >> > minor regional differences in its details) gave rise or was the origin >> > of other sets of 'Mahjong' rules. >> IMHO, the problem with their claim (that "Chinese Classical is the origin >> of >> mahjong, all other variants are derived from it" - more or less like >> this) >> is that they have ignored the existance of all other variants that were >> co-existing with that specific or similar variant(s) in the 1920s, which >> they later called "Chinese Classical". Although the details of those >> "other >> variants" were not recorded, their *existance* was clearly evidenced in >> the >> same documentation providing the details of that specific variant(s). > Really? From Tom's claims I am under the impression that all the rule > books he looked at had in essence, the same scoring attributes. Can you > tell me where the existence of these other variants is recorded - I > mean the name of the book/booklet and the page numbers. I can then look > up these and see what you mean, assuming I have the books of course. First of all, there were "several popular Chinese variant forms" of mahjong existed in the 1920s (Millington's book, page 8); and in Millington's search for the "authentic" form of mahjong he found that "even within China a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game" (page 7). (I didn't review the Millington's book at this time, I just copied texts from my article #205 at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) I do not have other books relevant to the topic, but Millington's statement clearly tells, at least to me, that those differences between variants are not "minor" at all. At least not to a degree that they (the variants) *all* CAN be considered just one form of game. Secondly, (this you may call it a hypothesis, which is based on common sense) among all the variants existed at that time (1920s), there could have variants that were different from the "classic" or "classical" forms, and variants that had not been recorded could still evolved. No book (or any documentation) evidenced the birth of HKOS. If they could not believe the existance of anything that is not documented, how could they be so sure HKOS was derived from "Chinese Classical", a name itself also not existed in the 1920s? >> I also noticed that in Tom's FAQ 11 I now could not find any definite >> statement that "Chinese Classical is the origin of mahjong" - I consider >> this a correct improvement of that article. (I do not have records of the >> previous versions of the article, I am not sure if there was any >> statement >> that "Chinese Classical is the original of mahjong" in those previous >> versions. Whether there was or was not, I believe "Chinese Classical is >> the >> original of mahjong" is still a statement that is yet to be proved, if it >> could be at all.) > Sure. But I think that a case could be made for how that could have > happened - and I think Allan has made a robust attempt at that. Still it is not proved. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> One important correction to the FAQ 11 that I wish to make, though: >> At the end of Part VI it states: "Although it is widely believed that the >> well-documented Chinese Classical rules (which were of course not called >> "Chinese Classical" at that time) form the trunk of the mah-jongg family >> tree, there is at least one detractor who believes that it is, rather, >> Hong >> Kong Old Style mah-jongg which deserves that place of honor. The next >> chapter examines the debate on this topic. It can safely be ignored (you >> can >> simply skip to the Timeline without missing much)." >> I never said that "Hong Kong Old Style mah-jongg [..] deserves that place >> of >> honor". What I believe are always these: >> "(1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese >> Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. >> (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style >> ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). >> Many >> variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the >> long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game >> MAHJONG." (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) >> In my opinion, there should be more than just one trees ^_^ > Interesting. But have you offered a critical appraisal of Allan Kwan's > "Argument 2"? I would be interested to know whehther you consider his > reasoning to be ok and if not, why not. His reasoning is only hypothesis, hypothesis that can be made the other way around. Also, if "Chinese Classical" is so "well documented", why the birth of HKOS is not? > I would certainly find it enlightening. >> > But prior to 1920 is another matter. ^_^ >> Of course! And it all depends on the definitions of relative terms. > Yes, to a point. But where disgreement occurs it is best to just move > on. We both are, already ^_^ -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 15 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:52 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1163949501.366026.97710@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > Cofa Tsui wrote: > > Hello Cofa. > > [snip] > >> > So I think they are claiming that this prevalent rule set(that had very > >> > minor regional differences in its details) gave rise or was the origin > >> > of other sets of 'Mahjong' rules. > >> IMHO, the problem with their claim (that "Chinese Classical is the origin > >> of > >> mahjong, all other variants are derived from it" - more or less like > >> this) > >> is that they have ignored the existance of all other variants that were > >> co-existing with that specific or similar variant(s) in the 1920s, which > >> they later called "Chinese Classical". Although the details of those > >> "other > >> variants" were not recorded, their *existance* was clearly evidenced in > >> the > >> same documentation providing the details of that specific variant(s). > > Really? From Tom's claims I am under the impression that all the rule > > books he looked at had in essence, the same scoring attributes. Can you > > tell me where the existence of these other variants is recorded - I > > mean the name of the book/booklet and the page numbers. I can then look > > up these and see what you mean, assuming I have the books of course. > First of all, there were "several popular Chinese variant forms" of mahjong > existed in the 1920s (Millington's book, page 8); and in Millington's search > for the "authentic" form of mahjong he found that "even within China a very > considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game" (page 7). (I > didn't review the Millington's book at this time, I just copied texts from > my article #205 at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) I do not > have other books relevant to the topic, but Millington's statement clearly > tells, at least to me, that those differences between variants are not > "minor" at all. At least not to a degree that they (the variants) *all* CAN > be considered just one form of game. Hello Cofa. I think think Millington is characteristically confusing here. I took it that these "several popular Chinese variant forms" were the forms played in the "second decade of the twentieth century" (page 7), that is 1910 - 1920. He says that "a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game" so I understood this to mean that this is what defined these forms as being variations or variants. Actually, I don't think that Millington's statement that "even within China a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game" (page 7) says anything about how much the details differed from game to game. Only that the details were different over a lot of games. Also, what does he mean by 'details'? > Secondly, (this you may call it a hypothesis, which is based on common > sense) among all the variants existed at that time (1920s), It can be an explanation but it does not have any evidence to support some of its contentions at this point. > there could have been variants that were different from the "classic" or "classical" forms, > and variants that had not been recorded could still [have] evolved. It is possible. But we don't know at this point. > No book (or any documentation) evidenced the birth of HKOS. If they could not believe the > existance of anything that is not documented, how could they be so sure HKOS > was derived from "Chinese Classical", a name itself also not existed in the > 1920s? I think Allan has provided a plausible developmental scenario in their hypothesis. Have you checked it out? I would be interested in what you think Cofa? > >> I also noticed that in Tom's FAQ 11 I now could not find any definite > >> statement that "Chinese Classical is the origin of mahjong" - I consider > >> this a correct improvement of that article. (I do not have records of the > >> previous versions of the article, I am not sure if there was any > >> statement > >> that "Chinese Classical is the original of mahjong" in those previous > >> versions. Whether there was or was not, I believe "Chinese Classical is > >> the > >> original of mahjong" is still a statement that is yet to be proved, if it > >> could be at all.) > > Sure. But I think that a case could be made for how that could have > > happened - and I think Allan has made a robust attempt at that. > Still it is not proved. Sure. But I don't think they have claimed that. They have offered what appears to me to be a very plausible hypothesis or explanation to account for the various styles of the game in the 1920's etc. But it is a hypothesis which is capable of being modified or refuted, if contrary evidence comes to light [snip] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> "(1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese > >> Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. > >> (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style > >> ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). > >> Many > >> variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the > >> long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game > >> MAHJONG." (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html) > >> In my opinion, there should be more than just one trees ^_^ > > Interesting. But have you offered a critical appraisal of Allan Kwan's > > "Argument 2"? I would be interested to know whether you consider his > > reasoning to be ok and if not, why not. > His reasoning is only hypothesis, hypothesis that can be made the other way > around. But it does have evidential support. Can you offer a hypothesis that has evidential support? Also, if "Chinese Classical" is so "well documented", why the birth of HKOS is not? I have no idea at present. I could think of various possible explanations. But, time presses on and I must go to work! ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 16 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 9:34 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1164030775.894390.220580@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [...] > I think Allan has provided a plausible developmental scenario in their > hypothesis. > Have you checked it out? I would be interested in what you think Cofa? [...] > Sure. But I don't think they have claimed that. They have offered what > appears to me to be a very plausible hypothesis or explanation to > account for the various styles of the game in the 1920's etc. But it is > a hypothesis which is capable of being modified or refuted, if contrary > evidence comes to light [...] > But it does have evidential support. Can you offer a hypothesis that > has evidential support? A lengthy exchange of messages was recorded at: http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html Cheers! Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 17 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 12:18 pm Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > A lengthy exchange of messages was recorded at: > http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html Thanks, Cofa. I'll check it out and respond to you directly, in due course, as I think this is slightly off the topic. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 18 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 12:39 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Wow, I can see I took too long drafting my reply to Michael's 9:13AM 11/18 post. My reply needed a massive edit, now that I see what else has been said. Classic vs. Classical ==================== Michael wrote: >As to a term to call this prevalent rule set, well, for example what >about '1920's Chinese' or '1920's Chinese variant P' (P for prevalent)? >Obviously the term needs to tell us exactly what relationship the rule >set has to its environment and time etc. (My examples might be totally >inappropriate but they are only suggestions). >What [I] meant to ask is where did you get the idea to call them >'classical'? ... (I >know you said below that 'classical' implies age). >>The word 'classic' has a different meaning to the word >>'classical' for example. Yes, let's get this out of the way first. I needed to look up these words (and did so before seeing Julian's reply). My current favorite dictionary is the American Heritage (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/). There I found these definitions: + clas·sic + 2.a. Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a classic piece of research. + 5. Having historical or literary associations: classic battlefields of the Civil War. + + clas·si·cal + 5.a. Standard and authoritative rather than new or experimental: classical methods of navigation. + 5.b. Well-known; classic: the classical argument between free trade and protectionism. In listing these, I only list the apropos definitions. But then it occurred to me, neither you nor Cofa (and now Julian) are American, and could well object to any definition coming from an American dictionary. So I checked Cambridge Dictionaries Online (from Cambridge University, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/) and found (again, listing only the apropos definitions): + classic (TRADITIONAL) + having a simple, traditional style which is always fashionable: + She wore a classic navy suit. + + classical (TRADITIONAL) + traditional in style or form, or based on methods developed over a long period of time: + Does she study classical ballet or modern ballet? + He is one of our greatest classical actors. So the word "classic" would be useful when referring to mahjong in the context of other games: "mahjong is a classic rummylike game for 4 players." And the word "classical" is useful for referring to the most well documented, standard, and authoritative variant of the game. Thus I hold that it is not unreasonable to continue using the term "classical." Millington ==================== Now, back to what I'd been working on - my reply to Michael's 9:13AM 11/18 post: >Yes. In the sense that his creation (or variant form I suppose) was >called 'classical Mah-Jong' because he used principles in certain >classical Chinese texts as a criteria to weed or sift out certain >attributes from the 1910-1920 variant forms. He then lumped them >together to form his 'ideal' or 'perfect variant form' which he called >'classical Mah-Jong'. I don't think he so much formed it as described it. >But it is my understanding that the majority of 1920's rule books sport >rules that are, in their fundamentals, very similar to Millington's >creation, "Creation"? It was more of a compilation than a creation. >that is not the same as saying that >Millington's 'classical Mah-Jong' rules existed in the 1920's, because >to say that, we would have to accept Millington's other baggage Although I might not say that "Millington's rules" existed in the 1920s, I disagree. To *not* split hairs, and say that Millington's rules were essentially the same as those of the 1920s, would not be unreasonable. And saying that does not require one to accept Millington's "other baggage." (Since I'm not much of one for splitting hairs.) >Well, Tom's tree diagram and associated discussion illustrates the >claim that a specific set of rules, very prevalent in the 1920's, which >he calls 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese rules', gave rise to >other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules. I think Tom and Allan have given >a good account of their hypothesis that seeks to explain the >relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were >around in that time frame. What others? We have no documentation of any other rule sets extant in the 1920s. Alleged Other Variants of the 1920s ==================== Cofa wrote: >Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style >("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many >variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the >long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game >MAHJONG." Anything is possible, but without documentation, there is nothing to support the likelihood of this theory being correct. We do know of some minor variations (Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand - and we can even list Millington among these), but those variations aren't sufficient enough to remove them from the family "Chinese Classical." Time to talk taxonomy for a moment. Taxonomy (how mahjong variations might be classified/categorized) ==================== The lowest (most narrowly specific) category on a taxonomy chart might be "species." The next higher (less narrowly specific) category might be "genus," and the next higher one than that might be "family." One higher than that would be "order." If we taxonomize mahjong, we might say that there are two orders: Asian forms, and NMJL (Modern American). Both belong to the class of games called "mahjong." Mahjong, rummy, and Rummikub could be said to be members of a phylum "games for multiple players in which sets are collected to form a hand." (I'm just throwing out ideas here, not presenting a fully-formed theory, don't anybody shoot me for any inconsistencies that may exist in this idea.) Let's get back to the Asian order. Asian mahjong consists of numerous variants, which we can call "families." Chinese Classical, Hong Kong Old Style, Japanese Riichi/Dora, British Empire (Western), etc. Under each family there can be subvariants. The one we're discussing here is Chinese Classical (CC). 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand, and now Millington, would be different genuses (geni? Microsoft's spellchecker seems to dislike either word) under the family "CC." And table rules people might use under each of those genuses could be "species," if one wishes to continue classifying that far down. Tangent (OK to ignore and skip paragraph): Taxonomizing American mah-jongg is a little different, since there aren't exactly variants - rather, there have been evolutionary stages since the birth of the variant in 1937. Under NMJL there are the old pre-joker rules, then the varying-number-of-joker rules, then the current post-joker rules - we might say those are "families," and table rules used within those rule sets might be called "geni." I don't know, I'm not a taxonomist, and I'm not as analytical as some of you are. This is just a thought I'm throwing out there - you analyzers can run with it. Taxonomic words may be useful in discussing variants in detail, but I'm not about to drop the words "form" or "variant" in favor of the words "genus," "species," or "phylum" for general mahjong discussions. (^_^) Quibbles ==================== Michael wrote: >(I only have a small quibble with some of >their terms, which I think are potentially confusing). Those definitions were suitable for the knowledge we had at the time. Not every reader will be satisfied 100%. Next time I write a thesis, I may need to redefine some terms. Even then, it's likely that not every reader will be satisfied 100%. And I'm not particularly inclined to revisit an old thesis and rewrite it using different terms. Oh. And I've learned a lot since creating that tree diagram, too, and someday I may indeed revisit that. But when I do, I'm confident that there will be some who disagree with that too. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 19 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:21 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hello Tom. Tom Sloper wrote: [snip] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Yes, let's get this out of the way first. I needed to look up these words > (and did so before seeing Julian's reply). My current favorite dictionary is > the American Heritage (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/). > There I found these definitions: > + clas·sic > + 2.a. Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a > classic piece of research. > + 5. Having historical or literary associations: classic battlefields of the > Civil War. > + > + clas·si·cal > + 5.a. Standard and authoritative rather than new or experimental: classical > methods of navigation. > + 5.b. Well-known; classic: the classical argument between free trade and > protectionism. > In listing these, I only list the apropos definitions. > But then it occurred to me, neither you nor Cofa (and now Julian) are > American, and could well object to any definition coming from an American > dictionary. I don't object to any definition you wish to use, when you have stipulated it. ^_^ - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > So I checked Cambridge Dictionaries Online (from Cambridge > University, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/) and found (again, listing only > the apropos definitions): > + classic (TRADITIONAL) > + having a simple, traditional style which is always fashionable: > + She wore a classic navy suit. > + > + classical (TRADITIONAL) > + traditional in style or form, or based on methods developed over a long > period of time: > + Does she study classical ballet or modern ballet? > + He is one of our greatest classical actors. > So the word "classic" would be useful when referring to mahjong in the > context of other games: "mahjong is a classic rummylike game for 4 players." > And the word "classical" is useful for referring to the most well > documented, standard, and authoritative variant of the game. > Thus I hold that it is not unreasonable to continue using the term > "classical." Excellent. That removes any ambiguity or confusion on my part, so I now understand your reasoning and hence your arguments more fully. (Though I do not agree entirely with your usage of 'classical'. See below ^_^) > >Yes. In the sense that his creation (or variant form I suppose) was > >called 'classical Mah-Jong' because he used principles in certain > >classical Chinese texts as a criteria to weed or sift out certain > >attributes from the 1910-1920 variant forms. He then lumped them > >together to form his 'ideal' or 'perfect variant form' which he called > >'classical Mah-Jong'. > I don't think he so much formed it as described it. He does that as well. But in this case that's not what I meant. In the context of '...lumped them together to form his...', my word 'formed' relates to Millington's own process which he describes as "reconstruction and differentiation". (Actually, the way he discusses it I think he should have said 'differentiation and reconstruction'). But in any event, I think my word is appropriate to sum up this process. > >But it is my understanding that the majority of 1920's rule books sport > >rules that are, in their fundamentals, very similar to Millington's > >creation, > "Creation"? It was more of a compilation than a creation. Again, it is that as well. But again that is not what I meant. I was referring to the set of rules called 'classical Mah-Jong' being the product of Millington's process above. > >that is not the same as saying that > >Millington's 'classical Mah-Jong' rules existed in the 1920's, because > >to say that, we would have to accept Millington's other baggage > Although I might not say that "Millington's rules" existed in the 1920s, I > disagree. To *not* split hairs, and say that Millington's rules were > essentially the same as those of the 1920s, would not be unreasonable. > And saying that does not require one to accept Millington's "other baggage." > (Since I'm not much of one for splitting hairs.) Tom, I hope I have not misunderstood you, but I have never said that by saying Millington's rules were essentially the same as those of the 1920's requires one to accept Millington's "other baggage". On the contrary. Here is how I saw it. 1) It is claimed that Millington's 'classical MJ' (hereafter CMJ) rules are essentially the same as of the 1920's CC MJ (hereafter CCMJ) rules. 2) Millington claims his CMJ was developed intentionally by Confucian players. 2) Millington claims that his CMJ rules were around just before the 1920's, and it seems at the beginning of the 1920's. 3) Both rule sets are described as 'classical'. 4) Therefore one could be forgiven for conflating both CMJ and CCMJ. Without a stipulated definition of 'classical' from either party, I was confused as to what 'classical' meant in each context - hence my initial comments about confusion and hence the possible conflation issue. Here is how I see it now. Actually, I think I may be wrong about Millington's usage! After rereading his page 8 it seems that he uses the term 'classical' to refer to a form, in the sense of it used in music (thanks in part to the Oxford English Dictionary and Julian Bradfield). So Millington's 'classical' term seems to refer to a set of MJ rules developed according to Confucian principles so as to embody a certain ideal, the chief element of which is perfection of form. So if this is the case then Millington's 'classical' is not Tom's 'classical' (but see below), now that we have both meanings. (Coincidentally, both CMJ and CCMJ use the term 'standard'!! Fortunately, careful reading shows one is used as a noun(Millington) and one as an adjective (Tom) ^_^) But the appearance of these words is too close for my comfort so I'll therefore develop my own term instead of the 'CC' term. And there is still the problem, for me at least, with the CC definition under your 'CC Theory, Definitions'; "Chinese Classical - A name used by the proponents of the CC Theory to refer to the mah-jongg rules that were prevalent in the 1920s (as documented by the books of Hartman, Foster, Babcock, Racster, Millington, and many others)...". Does this mean that the 1920's CC rules were *documented by Millington* (among others)? But Millington documents his CMJ rules, so therefore does CC = CMJ? If so, since CC existed in the 1920's, then so did CMJ! Is this what you mean? As you know, I don't agree that Millington's 'CMJ' *existed* in the 1920's. 'CMJ' = rules intentionally developed by Confucian players and embodying certain ideals, one being perfection of form and reconstructed by Millington. > >Well, Tom's tree diagram and associated discussion illustrates the > >claim that a specific set of rules, very prevalent in the 1920's, which > >he calls 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese rules', gave rise to > >other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules. I think Tom and Allan have given > >a good account of their hypothesis that seeks to explain the > >relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were > >around in that time frame. > What others? We have no documentation of any other rule sets extant in the > 1920s. 'The others' = 'other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules'. Sorry for the vagueness. > Taxonomy (how mahjong variations might be classified/categorized) [snip] Very interesting stuff! Excellent. > This is just a thought I'm throwing out there - you analyzers can run with > it. Taxonomic words may be useful in discussing variants in detail, but I'm > not about to drop the words "form" or "variant" in favor of the words > "genus," "species," or "phylum" for general mahjong discussions. (^_^) Fair enough. I for one may use them where the discussion warrants it. (^_^) Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 20 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:17 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hi Michael, you wrote: >2) Millington claims that his CMJ rules were around just before the >1920's, and it seems at the beginning of the 1920's. I didn't get that before. In any case, the game as described by Millington (in his book, in detail) falls within the "family" I refer to as "Chinese Classical," just as does the game as described by Babcock, and by Hartman, Foster, Racster, Work, and many others. (I am not talking about any other alleged variant[s] Millington mentioned, since I know absolutely zilch about those.) And of course it matters not whether the term "classical" was used in reference to the 1920s rules during the 1920s or not. Nobody called World War I "World War I" at the time it happened, nor during the intervening years before World War II. But if I say "World War I" to you, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I guess we could debate exactly which date it started on, but that alone doesn't obviate the correctness of calling it "World War I." >So if this is the case then Millington's 'classical' is not Tom's >'classical' (but see below), now that we have both meanings. Millington's described game, having minor variations from the usual described CC game, is a "species" under the "family" of CC. Babcock's Red Book describes a sibling "species," with minor differences from Millington's but still under the "family" of CC. My name is Tom, and although I'm a bit older than my sisters (who are different genders and have different names), we are all still Slopers. You can't say "she can't be Sloper, because HE's Sloper." I'm sorry, but if this is getting silly, it's probably because I don't think on the same elevated level that you do (and do not understand the thinking that's used on your level). To me, the analogy I just made fits perfectly - if it doesn't to you, then I may never be able to understand the level of thinking you're engaged in. >Does this mean that the 1920's CC rules were *documented by Millington* Yes. He documented his own take on CC (his own "species" within the "family"), but long after the 1920s. What of it? >>>relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were >>>around in that time frame. >> What others? We have no documentation of any other rule sets extant in >> the >> 1920s. >'The others' = 'other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules'. Yes, but WHAT other variants of mahjong? Millington says there were such, but it's a throwaway fact, offered with no evidence, names, titles, or details of any kind. We have no documented proof of *ANY* other rule sets extant in the 1920s. I'm just objecting to your saying "the others that were around in that time frame," without having used the word "alleged" or "allegedly" in there somewhere. Until I see some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other variants (outside the CC "family") during the 1920s. -- Tom Sloper - Game Development Consultant - Sloperama Productions. Services for game developers and publishers; "Making Games Fun, And Getting Them Done." http://www.sloperama.com/business.html. - Helpful information and answers for game industry hopefuls. http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html. - Information and bulletin boards about the game of mah-jongg. http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 21 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 8:19 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:QuCdnS4n9bbw7P_YnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > Yes, but WHAT other variants of mahjong? Millington says there were such, > but it's a throwaway fact, offered with no evidence, names, titles, or > details of any kind. We have no documented proof of *ANY* other rule sets > extant in the 1920s. I'm just objecting to your saying "the others that > were around in that time frame," without having used the word "alleged" or > "allegedly" in there somewhere. Until I see some hard evidence, I reject > the notion that there WERE any other variants (outside the CC "family") > during the 1920s. Interesting "logic"! On one hand, "CC 'family'" is part of the MAHJONG family. On the other hand, Millington, who created the term "Classic Mah-Jongg" (later on being called "Chinese Classical or CC"), testified at the same time that there are other [MAHJONG] members that is not belong to the CC family, although he provided no names for these "other members". How could the existance of the "CC 'family'" be so strongly supported, while the existance of the "other members" could be equally strongly rejected? "Babcock, and Hartman, Foster, Racster, Work, and many others," including Millington, never, ever, say there was just one and only one form of mahjong that existed in the 1920s - These people must all be wrong! -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 22 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 1:57 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> writes: > On one hand, "CC 'family'" is part of the MAHJONG family. On the other hand, > Millington, who created the term "Classic Mah-Jongg" (later on being called > "Chinese Classical or CC"), testified at the same time that there are other > [MAHJONG] members that is not belong to the CC family, although he provided > no names for these "other members". How could the existance of the "CC > 'family'" be so strongly supported, while the existance of the "other > members" could be equally strongly rejected? Err, obvious, isn't it? The CC family existed, and its existence is therefore documented. The other families didn't exist, and therefore weren't documented. As Tom keeps saying, we have no hard evidence, other than an unsupported remark by Millington, that there were any significant variants before the 20s. > "Babcock, and Hartman, Foster, Racster, Work, and many others," including > Millington, never, ever, say there was just one and only one form of mahjong > that existed in the 1920s - These people must all be wrong! Err - they don't say there were significant variants, either. Tom isn't saying they're wrong. In fact, Foster says "upon a comparison of all the text books on the purely Chinese game, I find they are practically in agreement, both as to the fundamentals and the frills". Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 23 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 8:19 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:e6cu00tdswb.fsf@palau.inf.ed.ac.uk... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> writes: >> On one hand, "CC 'family'" is part of the MAHJONG family. On the other >> hand, >> Millington, who created the term "Classic Mah-Jongg" (later on being >> called >> "Chinese Classical or CC"), testified at the same time that there are >> other >> [MAHJONG] members that is not belong to the CC family, although he >> provided >> no names for these "other members". How could the existance of the "CC >> 'family'" be so strongly supported, while the existance of the "other >> members" could be equally strongly rejected? > Err, obvious, isn't it? The CC family existed, and its existence is > therefore documented. The other families didn't exist, and therefore > weren't documented. > As Tom keeps saying, we have no hard evidence, other than an unsupported > remark by Millington, that there were any significant variants before > the 20s. In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND 2. there were other variants. You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented in books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement about item 2 in his book. Is this correct? Accordingly, in other word, when foreigners went to China in/around 1920s and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use here? let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began to exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of the game. The fact is, at the time in and prior to 1920s, and up to as late as in the 1970s, all Chinese learn the game by mouth and practice, not by the book. (There was no book to learn by. And I have said that it was "the fact", it might not have documentation to support such statement repesting the time in and prior to 1920s, but I myself can prove it to be true at least for the time in the 1970s, as this was the time I first started learning the game.) The game being learned and played at those times were never documented. Could we say that they, the game and all aspects related thereto, never existed prior to 1920s? And how many foreign authors who wrote about mahjong, had actually met all Chinese who played mahjong all over China in those years, to be sure and accurate that there was one but no other form of play? >> "Babcock, and Hartman, Foster, Racster, Work, and many others," including >> Millington, never, ever, say there was just one and only one form of >> mahjong >> that existed in the 1920s - These people must all be wrong! > Err - they don't say there were significant variants, either. Tom > isn't saying they're wrong. In fact, Foster says "upon a comparison of > all the text books on the purely Chinese game, I find they are > practically in agreement, both as to the fundamentals and the frills". And they did say there *were* variants, right? My opinion (with no *documented* support, of course ^_^) is that such variants are good enough hindrance for all those authors, who lived in the 1920s, to say that there was one and only one form of play. Otherwise, they must all be wrong not saying so in their time, only to allow Tom, who lives in the 2000's, to make such a statement almost 100 years later! -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 24 From: J. R. Fitch - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 10:17 pm Email: "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author > And they did say there *were* variants, right? My opinion (with no > *documented* support, of course ^_^) is that such variants are good enough > hindrance for all those authors, who lived in the 1920s, to say that there > was one and only one form of play. > Otherwise, they must all be wrong not saying so in their time, only to allow > Tom, who lives in the 2000's, to make such a statement almost 100 years > later! Tom has carefully and repeatably stated that the reference to other variants is hearsay. Not a single detail of explanation nor proof was provided. This doesn't mean that it is untrue, but it does mean that it provides precious little to discuss. Rewinding to the origin of this thread, the question was whether or not it is appropriate to use the term "Chinese Classical" to refer to a certain well-known variant of mahjong. - It seems appropriate in that this form of mahjong, by all that we know, is closest to that which was popular in the earliest days of this genre. - It seems appropriate in that "classic" and "classical" are well understood by the lay public to have implications of "early, close to the the original, formerly some sort of standard, etc.". Historians and word mavens could dispute the term "classical music" too, yet it works rather well as a means of describing a certain genre of music. - It seems appropriate in that no great harm is done by it's usage. This would, of course, no longer be true if someone discovered that in 1905 most Chinese played with 16 jokers and a Charleston. -- J. R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software San Francisco, CA USA http://www.ninedragons.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 25 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 4:14 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author J. R. Fitch wrote: > > And they did say there *were* variants, right? My opinion (with no > > *documented* support, of course ^_^) is that such variants are good enough > > hindrance for all those authors, who lived in the 1920s, to say that there > > was one and only one form of play. > > Otherwise, they must all be wrong not saying so in their time, only to allow > > Tom, who lives in the 2000's, to make such a statement almost 100 years > > later! > Tom has carefully and repeatably stated that the reference to other > variants is hearsay. Not a single detail of explanation nor proof was > provided. This doesn't mean that it is untrue, but it does mean that it > provides precious little to discuss. This last statement is true. However, I wouldn't regard Babcock's observations as 'hearsay'. He doesn't mention the word 'variants' in relation to the game he claims he witnessed, as played in the various provinces of China, but he does allude to the fact that the fundamental game - which he describes in detail in his little red book(hardcover) - was played differently in the different provinces he visited. But as to the nature of these differences, who can say? Unfortunately Babcock doesn't describe them as far as I am aware. > - It seems appropriate in that "classic" and "classical" are well > understood by the lay public to have implications of "early, close to > the the original, formerly some sort of standard, etc.". I beg to differ, suffice it to say that when used in a sufficently detailed discussion about a narrow subject, and the term is used by two different parties in different senses of the word, then it is wise to define your meaning of the word - ie., state your stipulative definition. > - It seems appropriate in that no great harm is done by it's usage. Sure, but there is the potential for confusion. Cheers Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 26 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 3:39 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> writes: > In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: > 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND > 2. there were other variants. > You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other > authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented in > books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement about > item 2 in his book. Is this correct? Correct, except that I don't say that CC is exactly Millington's "classical mah-jong", because his "classical mah-jong" was constructed by doing some tidying up and adding philosophical baggage to the game as actually played. > Accordingly, in other word, when foreigners went to China in/around 1920s > and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use here? > let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began to > exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of the > game. Stop being so wilfully stupid. Firstly, there is pre-1920s evidence for the game, as you know; and secondly, the existence of the 1920s game rather suggests its prior existence. There is *no* evidence of significant variants from CC being played in the years in which mah-jong rose to popularity, say 1905-1925. As far as we know, Millington's research consisted of sitting in the Bodleian consulting various texts, many of which he partially incorporated into his book. We have the testimony of an acquaintance of his that he learned sufficient Chinese to read Chinese primary sources; but he does not reference any such sources in his book. Moreover, the Bodleian Chinese catalogue doesn't appear to contain any books on mah-jong, let alone the 1920s books, so then the question arises of where he did consult them, if at all. No other British library contains any pre-1990s Chinese books on mah-jong, either, according to the UK union catalogue of Chinese texts. So I see no reason why we should give any weight at all to an unsupported claim by Millington that many other variants existed. Now it is true that absence of evidence is not hard evidence of absence; but when no contemporary primary source (as far as we know) mentions the existence of significant variations, that is at least strongly suggestive that significant variations did not exist in quantity. > And how many foreign authors who wrote about mahjong, had actually met all > Chinese who played mahjong all over China in those years, to be sure and > accurate that there was one but no other form of play? Obviously none had met all. We're dealing with probabilities, not certainties. Winters at least spent a long time in China and travelled widely, and several other authors were based in Hong Kong, or indeed natives of Hong Kong. (E.g. many of the authors whose booklets I've posted about over the last couple of years.) > And they did say there *were* variants, right? My opinion (with no > *documented* support, of course ^_^) is that such variants are good enough > hindrance for all those authors, who lived in the 1920s, to say that there > was one and only one form of play. Those authors who claim to have spent time in China or with Chinese players, or who are themselves Chinese, talk about variants such as 10-points vs 20-points for going mah-jong, or variations in the limit hands. None of them mentions variations that would go outside the CC "species" (or whatever we're going to agree to call it). Jean Bray claims that there are countless (unspecified) variations - but she also claims that mah-jong has been played for many centuries, so I think we can discount her. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 27 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 1 2006 10:40 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Julian Bradfield wrote: > "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> writes: > > In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: > > 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND > > 2. there were other variants. > > You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other > > authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented in > > books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement about > > item 2 in his book. Is this correct? > Correct, except that I don't say that CC is exactly Millington's > "classical mah-jong", because his "classical mah-jong" was constructed > by doing some tidying up and adding philosophical baggage to the game > as actually played. > > Accordingly, in other word, when foreigners went to China in/around 1920s > > and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use here? > > let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began to > > exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of the > > game. > Stop being so wilfully stupid. (??) > Firstly, there is pre-1920s evidence for the game, as you know; and > secondly, the existence of the 1920s game rather suggests its prior > existence. > There is *no* evidence of significant variants from CC being played in > the years in which mah-jong rose to popularity, say 1905-1925. I certainly support the existence of mahjong (or should I say "mahjong-like") prior to the 1920s. But what books published in that time say so? Alternatively, I certainly agree that the existence does not need the support of any written books. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > As far as we know, Millington's research consisted of sitting in the > Bodleian consulting various texts, many of which he partially > incorporated into his book. We have the testimony of an acquaintance > of his that he learned sufficient Chinese to read Chinese primary > sources; but he does not reference any such sources in his book. > Moreover, the Bodleian Chinese catalogue doesn't appear to contain > any books on mah-jong, let alone the 1920s books, so then the question > arises of where he did consult them, if at all. No other British > library contains any pre-1990s Chinese books on mah-jong, either, > according to the UK union catalogue of Chinese texts. > So I see no reason why we should give any weight at all to an > unsupported claim by Millington that many other variants existed. > Now it is true that absence of evidence is not hard evidence of > absence; but when no contemporary primary source (as far as we know) > mentions the existence of significant variations, that is at least > strongly suggestive that significant variations did not exist in > quantity. The existence of variants other than the "CC-like" game in the 1920s certainly does not need any books to proove, either. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > > And how many foreign authors who wrote about mahjong, had actually met all > > Chinese who played mahjong all over China in those years, to be sure and > > accurate that there was one but no other form of play? > Obviously none had met all. We're dealing with probabilities, not > certainties. Winters at least spent a long time in China and travelled > widely, and several other authors were based in Hong Kong, or indeed > natives of Hong Kong. (E.g. many of the authors whose booklets I've > posted about over the last couple of years.) > > And they did say there *were* variants, right? My opinion (with no > > *documented* support, of course ^_^) is that such variants are good enough > > hindrance for all those authors, who lived in the 1920s, to say that there > > was one and only one form of play. > Those authors who claim to have spent time in China or with Chinese > players, or who are themselves Chinese, talk about variants such as > 10-points vs 20-points for going mah-jong, or variations in the limit > hands. None of them mentions variations that would go outside the CC > "species" (or whatever we're going to agree to call it). Jean Bray > claims that there are countless (unspecified) variations - but she > also claims that mah-jong has been played for many centuries, so I > think we can discount her. All I say is that there *were* variants other than the "CC-like" game that existed in the 1920s. You said "There is *no* evidence of significant variants from CC being played..." I assume you consider the term *significant* to be important in your statement, which is quite contrary to Tom's saying (back on Nov 20): QUOTE > Yes, but WHAT other variants of mahjong? Millington says there were such, > but it's a throwaway fact, offered with no evidence, names, titles, or > details of any kind. We have no documented proof of *ANY* other rule sets > extant in the 1920s. I'm just objecting to your saying "the others that > were around in that time frame," without having used the word "alleged" or > "allegedly" in there somewhere. Until I see some hard evidence, I reject > the notion that there WERE any other variants (outside the CC "family") > during the 1920s. UNQUOTE ---------- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 28 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 5:06 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hello Cofa. Cofa Tsui wrote: > In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: > 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND > 2. there were other variants. No, not specifically the 1920's: 1. To be accurate, he calls a game he claims he reconstructed "classical Mah-Jong". 2. No. It is my understanding that Millington specifically deals with the period from *about* 1910 to 1920. It seems his 'variant forms' (page 7) relate to this period. > You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other > authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented in > books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement about > item 2 in his book. Is this correct? On page 8 Millington appears to claim his 'classical Mah-Jong' did exist in the 1920's because he mentions "...derivative forms which in turn have evolved from the 'classical game". Not a *wrong* statement per se, just an unsupported one. > Accordingly, in other words, when foreigners went to China in/around the 1920s > and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use here? > let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began to > exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of the > game. Wilkinson documented a precursor/proto MJ game way back in 1889. He described/listed the melds/combinations that could be formed. So we have some evidential support that the 'game' did in fact exist prior to 1920. This, plus the three dated sets we know about after 1889 provide strong support to the contention that the 'game' did exist prior to 1920. > The fact is, at the time in and prior to 1920s, and up to as late as in the > 1970s, all Chinese learn the game by mouth and practice, not by the book. [snip] > The game being learned and played at those times were never documented. But Babcock et al describes the fundamental game that was played while he was in China (around 1913 to 1923 or so). So I don't get your point Cofa. > Could we say that they, the game and all aspects related thereto, never > existed prior to 1920s? No. Because we have evidential support that provides us with good reasons to consider that the game did exist. Logically, you cannot have evidence that something does not exist. Look, to quote one of my critical thinking texts, "a claim's truth is established by the amount of evidence in its *favour*, not by the lack of evidence against it."(my asterisks instead of italics) If there were a total lack of documentary of evidence of the 'game' prior to the 1920's say, then there is no compelling reason for thinking that it *does exist*. That's all. > And how many foreign authors who wrote about mahjong, had actually met all > Chinese who played mahjong all over China in those years, to be sure and > accurate that there was one but no other form of play? The same logic applies here as immediately above Cofa. Are you claiming that no one has documented that there are no other forms of the game. Therefore these other forms existed? If you are claiming this, then all you are saying is that the lack of documentary evidence shows us what we don't know. It doesn't give us any good reason for thinking these forms did exist. A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 29 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 2 2006 11:44 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1164200760.385447.290560@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Hello Cofa. > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: >> 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND >> 2. there were other variants. > No, not specifically the 1920's: > 1. To be accurate, he calls a game he claims he reconstructed > "classical Mah-Jong". > 2. No. It is my understanding that Millington specifically deals with > the period from *about* 1910 to 1920. It seems his 'variant forms' > (page 7) relate to this period. >> You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other >> authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented >> in >> books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement >> about >> item 2 in his book. Is this correct? > On page 8 Millington appears to claim his 'classical Mah-Jong' did > exist in the 1920's because he mentions "...derivative forms which in > turn have evolved from the 'classical game". > Not a *wrong* statement per se, just an unsupported one. >> Accordingly, in other words, when foreigners went to China in/around the >> 1920s >> and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use >> here? >> let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began >> to >> exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of >> the >> game. > Wilkinson documented a precursor/proto MJ game way back in 1889. He > described/listed the melds/combinations that could be formed. So we > have some evidential support that the 'game' did in fact exist prior to > 1920. This, plus the three dated sets we know about after 1889 provide > strong support to the contention that the 'game' did exist prior to > 1920. >> The fact is, at the time in and prior to 1920s, and up to as late as in >> the >> 1970s, all Chinese learn the game by mouth and practice, not by the book. > [snip] >> The game being learned and played at those times were never documented. > But Babcock et al describes the fundamental game that was played while > he was in China (around 1913 to 1923 or so). So I don't get your point > Cofa. Hi Michael, Babcock (and others) came to know the games and wrote about the games in early 1920s. It doesn't mean the games did not exist prior to the 1920s. I have used the term "games" - it means more than one form. My points actually mean that the existence of the games of mahjong (here name is irrelevant - it has no record anyway) in and *prior to* the 1920s does not need to have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be qualified. My points may not have supporting evidence at this point in time; but it is a common sense. Chinese people learn the game by mouth and practice, not by the book; common sense makes me believe that they should be learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any book, and that the games (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods. And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I see some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other variants (outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." > A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ I have no argument to this at all. With mahjong, however, I believe the evidence is just not yet found. And I just couldn't agree to any statement that is made with the assumption that such evidence never ever would have existed. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 30 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sun, Dec 3 2006 6:16 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1164200760.385447.290560@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Hello Cofa. > > Cofa Tsui wrote: > >> In Millington's book he testified that in the 1920s: > >> 1. there existed a game play he called "classic Mah-Jongg"; AND > >> 2. there were other variants. > > No, not specifically the 1920's: > > 1. To be accurate, he calls a game he claims he reconstructed > > "classical Mah-Jong". > > 2. No. It is my understanding that Millington specifically deals with > > the period from *about* 1910 to 1920. It seems his 'variant forms' > > (page 7) relate to this period. > >> You will support item 1 because they were documented in books by other > >> authors, and you do not support item 2 because they were not documented > >> in > >> books by other authors. So Millington must have made a wrong statement > >> about > >> item 2 in his book. Is this correct? > > On page 8 Millington appears to claim his 'classical Mah-Jong' did > > exist in the 1920's because he mentions "...derivative forms which in > > turn have evolved from the 'classical game". > > Not a *wrong* statement per se, just an unsupported one. > >> Accordingly, in other words, when foreigners went to China in/around the > >> 1920s > >> and started writing books about *the game* (or, what name should i use > >> here? > >> let's just call it "mahjong" for now), and all of a sudden mahjong began > >> to > >> exist! Because prior to 1920s, there was obivously no documentation of > >> the > >> game. > > Wilkinson documented a precursor/proto MJ game way back in 1889. He > > described/listed the melds/combinations that could be formed. So we > > have some evidential support that the 'game' did in fact exist prior to > > 1920. This, plus the three dated sets we know about after 1889 provide > > strong support to the contention that the 'game' did exist prior to > > 1920. > >> The fact is, at the time in and prior to 1920s, and up to as late as in > >> the > >> 1970s, all Chinese learn the game by mouth and practice, not by the book. > > [snip] > >> The game being learned and played at those times were never documented. > > But Babcock et al describes the fundamental game that was played while > > he was in China (around 1913 to 1923 or so). So I don't get your point > > Cofa. > Hi Michael, > Babcock (and others) came to know the games and wrote about the games in > early 1920s. It doesn't mean the games did not exist prior to the 1920s.[snip] Hello Cofa. Ok. Actually, this is wrong. Babcock came to know the game *before* the 1920's. From about 1913, according to his testimony. But perhaps you mean these Western authors came to know the game *prior* to the 1920's? I'll take this latter interpretation to be what you mean. But if I do, there is confusion here. (see below). > My points actually mean that the existence of the games of mahjong (here > name is irrelevant - it has no record anyway) in and *prior to* the 1920s > does not need to have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be > qualified. My points may not have supporting evidence at this point in time; > but it is a common sense. Chinese people learn the game by mouth and > practice, not by the book; common sense makes me believe that they should be > learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any book, > and that the games (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods. Ok. You say that "... common sense makes me believe that they should be learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any book, and that the games (in various forms) [therefore] *did* exist in those time periods." (I put in the [therefore] as I assume this is your conclusion?) 1stly, "common sense" is not a euphemism for 'guess' so therefore I assume you have some type of evidence that tells you that the Chinese people were playing the game *prior to the 1920's*? ^_^ 2ndly, and contrary to my interpretation of what you said above (hence the confusion), you say the existence of the games "...does not need to have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be qualified." Well, I disagree. You contend that the Chinese people, by and large, learnt and played the game prior to the 1920's. But how do you know this? How do you know the game wasn't created into existence some time in about 1920? Remember, you can't refer to any books or documents to say otherwise since you contend you don't need any books to provide evidence for the games existence prior to 1920. But, our knowledge of what was going on prior to 1920 is precisely due to reports that appeared in books. So you should be saying, Babcock (and others) came to know the game **[prior to 1920]** - in Babcock's case, between 1913 and 1920, **after witnessing the Chinese playing it** - and therefore they provide some evidence for the game's existence. Babcock (1923) also provides support or evidence for your notion that the Chinese people at that time learnt the game as children and therefore did not need a book of instruction or rules. However, we know there was at least one Chinese manual floating around in 1914 - 'Hui tu ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan. So perhaps this says that - prior to the 1920's - as far as Chinese play was concerned, the situation was a little more complex than your straightforward "Chinese people learn the game by mouth and practice"? ^_^ > And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I see > some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other variants > (outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." > > A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ > I have no argument to this at all. With mahjong, however, I believe the > evidence is just not yet found. And I just couldn't agree to any statement > that is made with the assumption that such evidence never ever would have > existed. Believing "the evidence is just not yet found" seems to me to be a restatement of "I believe the lack of evidence (because it hasn't been found) provides good reason for me to believe my claim "that the games (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods"". But your claim's correctness or accuracy is established by the amount of evidence **in its favour**, not by stating the lack of evidence against it. As I said before, a lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ Now, because no evidence has been found, I don't think we can say that these 'other variants' did not exist. We might find a piece of supporting evidence tomorrow. So, in my view, the correct and proper statement is; 'even if there is no good evidence for other variants (outside the CC "family") during the 1920's, we cannot claim that those variants *did not exist* during the 1920's. What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. I'm sorry if this reply seems long-winded Cofa. Discussing an issue, in which some of the reasoning involved is important to that issue, is never a quick affair. ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 31 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Dec 3 2006 3:14 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165155401.605702.205170@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > But Babcock et al describes the fundamental game that was played while >> > he was in China (around 1913 to 1923 or so). So I don't get your point >> > Cofa. >> Hi Michael, >> Babcock (and others) came to know the games and wrote about the games in >> early 1920s. It doesn't mean the games did not exist prior to the >> 1920s.[snip] > Hello Cofa. Ok. Actually, this is wrong. Babcock came to know the game > *before* the 1920's. From about 1913, according to his testimony. But > perhaps you mean these Western authors came to know the game *prior* to > the 1920's? I'll take this latter interpretation to be what you mean. > But if I do, there is confusion here. (see below). Thanks for providing the exact time, although the time does not really matter at this issue - see below. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> My points actually mean that the existence of the games of mahjong (here >> name is irrelevant - it has no record anyway) in and *prior to* the 1920s >> does not need to have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be >> qualified. My points may not have supporting evidence at this point in >> time; >> but it is a common sense. Chinese people learn the game by mouth and >> practice, not by the book; common sense makes me believe that they should >> be >> learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any >> book, >> and that the games (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods. > Ok. You say that "... common sense makes me believe that they should be > learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any > book, and that the games (in various forms) [therefore] *did* exist in > those time periods." (I put in the [therefore] as I assume this is your > conclusion?) > 1stly, "common sense" is not a euphemism for 'guess' so therefore I > assume you have some type of evidence that tells you that the Chinese > people were playing the game *prior to the 1920's*? ^_^ > 2ndly, and contrary to my interpretation of what you said above (hence > the confusion), you say the existence of the games "...does not need to > have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be qualified." > Well, I disagree. You contend that the Chinese people, by and large, > learnt and played the game prior to the 1920's. But how do you know > this? How do you know the game wasn't created into existence some time > in about 1920? Remember, you can't refer to any books or documents to > say otherwise since you contend you don't need any books to provide > evidence for the games existence prior to 1920. > But, our knowledge of what was going on prior to 1920 is precisely due > to reports that appeared in books. So you should be saying, Babcock > (and others) came to know the game **[prior to 1920]** - in Babcock's > case, between 1913 and 1920, **after witnessing the Chinese playing > it** - and therefore they provide some evidence for the game's > existence. Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already known. My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no evidence) one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any direct evidence. We now have: - Babcock came to know the game in 1913 and later testified the existence of it as of 1913. - You mentioned: "...we know there was at least one Chinese manual floating around in 1914 - 'Hui tu ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan." According to these evidences, we know the game existed in 1913. But what about prior to 1913? Can we say that the game never existed prior to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting it? Here the date does not really matter, as long as it is the time of the earliest evidence of the game we have found to date, and as long as such evidence is not the creation of the ORIGIN of the game. For example, say we have someone in the year 2006, who announced a game called "the origina of mahjong" and it was so documented. In the future, everyone would know, and could say *definitely*, that "the origina of mahjong" never existed prior to 2006. Can we make the same kind of *definite* statement about mahjong, that it never existed prior to the year so and so (i.e., the date of the earliest evidence we have found to date)? My answer is certainly NO. I am just against any definite statement that mahjong did not exist prior to the year so and so because there is no evidence that supports such existence. > Babcock (1923) also provides support or evidence for your notion that > the Chinese people at that time learnt the game as children and > therefore did not need a book of instruction or rules. However, we know > there was at least one Chinese manual floating around in 1914 - 'Hui tu > ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan. So perhaps this says that - prior to the > 1920's - as far as Chinese play was concerned, the situation was a > little more complex than your straightforward "Chinese people learn the > game by mouth and practice"? ^_^ Complex if we mix it with other issues; it is still straightforward if we read the statement on its own ^_^ I have not read the booklet "Hui tu ma qiao pu". Did Shen Yifan (the author) say the game was new and of his creation? Or did he just present what he learned about the game, like Babcock and other authors did? If the game was not new at that time, and if people did not learn the game by mouth and practice, how could people learn to play the game, especially prior to 1914? Can we say the game never existed prior to 1914? Common sense tells me that the game was not new at the time Shen wrote the "tu pu" (graphic booklet), otherwise there will be no chance for someone in the year 2006 to define the game in details and make statement that he/she has found the origin of the game ^_^ Common sense also makes me believe the game did exist prior to 1914, otherwise there would not be any game being played and waiting to be found by Shen in 1914. And I know there is no evidence to support my statements (as of today). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I see >> some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other >> variants >> (outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." >> > A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ >> I have no argument to this at all. With mahjong, however, I believe the >> evidence is just not yet found. And I just couldn't agree to any >> statement >> that is made with the assumption that such evidence never ever would have >> existed. > Believing "the evidence is just not yet found" seems to me to be a > restatement of "I believe the lack of evidence (because it hasn't been > found) provides good reason for me to believe my claim "that the games > (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods"". > But your claim's correctness or accuracy is established by the amount > of evidence **in its favour**, not by stating the lack of evidence > against it. As I said before, a lack of evidence is no evidence at all. > ^_^ > Now, because no evidence has been found, I don't think we can say that > these 'other variants' did not exist. We might find a piece of > supporting evidence tomorrow. > So, in my view, the correct and proper statement is; 'even if there is > no good evidence for other variants (outside the CC "family") during > the 1920's, we cannot claim that those variants *did not exist* during > the 1920's. What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to > consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. This is in line with what I used to hold. > I'm sorry if this reply seems long-winded Cofa. Discussing an issue, in > which some of the reasoning involved is important to that issue, is > never a quick affair. ^_^ No "sorry" is necessary. In fact, it's my honour to have a learned person like you to rewrite what I wish to say - a big THANKS to you ^_^ -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 32 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 5 2006 4:39 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1165155401.605702.205170@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [snip] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > > Ok. You say that "... common sense makes me believe that they should be > > learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any > > book, and that the games (in various forms) [therefore] *did* exist in > > those time periods." (I put in the [therefore] as I assume this is your > > conclusion?) > > 1stly, "common sense" is not a euphemism for 'guess' so therefore I > > assume you have some type of evidence that tells you that the Chinese > > people were playing the game *prior to the 1920's*? ^_^ > > 2ndly, and contrary to my interpretation of what you said above (hence > > the confusion), you say the existence of the games "...does not need to > > have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be qualified." > > Well, I disagree. You contend that the Chinese people, by and large, > > learnt and played the game prior to the 1920's. But how do you know > > this? How do you know the game wasn't created into existence some time > > in about 1920? Remember, you can't refer to any books or documents to > > say otherwise since you contend you don't need any books to provide > > evidence for the games existence prior to 1920. > > But, our knowledge of what was going on prior to 1920 is precisely due > > to reports that appeared in books. So you should be saying, Babcock > > (and others) came to know the game **[prior to 1920]** - in Babcock's > > case, between 1913 and 1920, **after witnessing the Chinese playing > > it** - and therefore they provide some evidence for the game's > > existence. > Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already known. > My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no evidence) > one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any direct > evidence. Hello Cofa. (I have put some important words in CAPITALS) Then in this case, where your conclusion is not supported or based upon *any evidence* - be it documentary or from experience, your conclusion is NOT based on common sense but is instead just a guess, and guesses are worthless when discussing issues because they tell us absolutely nothing. ^_^ > We now have: > - Babcock came to know the game in 1913 and later testified the existence of > it as of 1913. > - You mentioned: "...we know there was at least one Chinese manual floating > around in 1914 - 'Hui tu ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan." > According to these evidences, we know the game existed in 1913. OK. > But what about prior to 1913? Can we say that the game never existed prior > to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting it? No, we can't - at least not in the way you mean. You continue to phrase your statements in the negative - for example, you keep using the phrase 'did not exist', and above you say 'never existed', which to me = 'did not exist'. BUT, I cannot prove - and no one can - a universal negative such as 'never existed'. What should be asked is; "can we say that the game existed prior to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting its existence?" My answer to this HYPOTHETICAL question would be no. Since I have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* of its existence prior to 1913, then I have no good reasons to consider that the game did exist prior to 1913. > Here the date does not really matter, as long as it is the time of the > earliest evidence of the game we have found to date, and as long as such > evidence is not the creation of the ORIGIN of the game. > For example, say we have someone in the year 2006, who announced a game > called "the origin of mahjong" and it was so documented. In the future, > everyone would know, and could say *definitely*, that "the origin of > mahjong" never existed prior to 2006. OK. > Can we make the same kind of *definite* statement about mahjong, that it > never existed prior to the year so and so (i.e., the date of the earliest > evidence we have found to date)? My answer is certainly NO. I am just > against any definite statement that mahjong did not exist prior to the year > so and so because there is no evidence that supports such existence. OK. Any *definite* statement that says mahjong DID NOT EXIST prior to the year so and so, cannot be answered as no one can prove a universal negative. That would be asking someone to search the entire universe in order to say that it did not exist! Clearly that is impossible. ^_^ So you are right, we cannot make that kind of *definite* negative statement about mahjong. The question must be positive - "can we say that mahjong did exist prior to the year so and so." The answer to this would depend on the nature of the evidence. For example, we know that a tile set was collected by Carl Himly sometime between 1868 and 1876. Another two sets were collected by George Glover, very probably between 1872 and 1873. These are the EARLIEST references we have. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the earliest probable date is 1868. We can therefore ask; do we have any compelling reason to consider that 'mahjong'(or its precursor) did exist prior to 1868? THAT is the question we should be asking in my view. And the answer would depend on the type of evidence in its favour. Such evidence could come from our knowledge of how games developed within Chinese society and the relationship of this game to other preceding and contemporary Chinese games etc. Such an answer would be probablistic, in that we would have to attach some words to it that tell us how close to correct the answer is likely to be. > > [snip] However, we know > > there was at least one Chinese manual floating around in 1914 - 'Hui tu > > ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan. [snip] > I have not read the booklet "Hui tu ma qiao pu". Did Shen Yifan (the author) > say the game was new and of his creation? Or did he just present what he > learned about the game, like Babcock and other authors did? > If the game was not new at that time, and if people did not learn the game > by mouth and practice, how could people learn to play the game, especially > prior to 1914? Can we say the game never existed prior to 1914? "If the game was not new at that time[1914]" cancels the statement "...the game never existed prior to 1914". > Common sense tells me that the game was not new at the time Shen wrote the > "tu pu" (graphic booklet), otherwise there will be no chance for someone in > the year 2006 to define the game in details and make statement that he/she > has found the origin of the game ^_^ EH?! You have lost me here Cofa. > Common sense also makes me believe the game did exist prior to 1914, > otherwise there would not be any game being played and waiting to be found > by Shen in 1914. You mean "The game was being played in 1914. The game was waiting to be found in 1914. Shen found the game and described the game in detail in his 1914 manual. Therefore the game did exist prior to 1914. But let us say, HYPOTHICALLY, that is the earliest booklet and bit of evidence we have. Well, it is possible that (1) the game could then have been invented by someone in early 1914 or (2) the game was around before then and Shen is just describing how it was at that time in 1914(your claim). These are two hypotheses we would need to discuss to see which has the more merit. > And I know there is no evidence to support my statements (as of today). Well, I think, just maybe, you are not recognising an assumption in your thinking. Are you assuming that games just don't pop into existence but are the result of a developmental process? If you are assuming that, then that may be evidence in your argument's favour - depending on whether that is how Chinese games came to be. > >> And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I see > >> some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other > >> variants(outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." > >> > A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. ^_^ Quite right. What the above Nov 20th statement says to me is; "no one has proven that 'non CC variants' existed during the 1920's, therefore they didn't." The problem with this is that even if nobody has not yet found evidence of 'non CC 1920's variants', we cannot conclude that none will ever be found. We may find some evidence tomorrow for example. (I said this below) I don't think I will repeat it again. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> With mahjong, however, I believe the > >> evidence is just not yet found. And I just couldn't agree to any > >> statement > >> that is made with the assumption that such evidence never ever would have > >> existed. > > Believing "the evidence is just not yet found" seems to me to be a > > restatement of "I believe the lack of evidence (because it hasn't been > > found) provides good reason for me to believe my claim "that the games > > (in various forms) *did* exist in those time periods"". > > But your claim's correctness or accuracy is established by the amount > > of evidence **in its favour**, not by stating the lack of evidence > > against it. As I said before, a lack of evidence is no evidence at all. > > ^_^ > > Now, because no evidence has been found, I don't think we can say that > > these 'other variants' did not exist. We might find a piece of > > supporting evidence tomorrow. > > So, in my view, the correct and proper statement is; 'even if there is > > no good evidence for other variants (outside the CC "family") during > > the 1920's, we cannot claim that those variants *did not exist* during > > the 1920's. What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to > > consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. > This is in line with what I used to hold. In my view Cofa, you SHOULD BE holding it NOW! ^_^ We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. Can you say they did exist?? ^_^ If you can Cofa, can you ... read more » Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 33 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 5 2006 8:57 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hi Michael, You'd written: >>>> And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I >>>> see >>>> some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other >>>> variants(outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." > ...What the above Nov 20th statement says to me is; "no one > has proven that 'non CC variants' existed during the 1920's, therefore > they didn't." My rejecting the "notion" (perhaps a poor choice of word on my part) that variants did exist does not equate with my concluding, "therefore they didn't." I would accept the notion(?), were evidence of their existence found. Since there is no evidence showing that they existed, I reject assertions (better word?) that they did exist. > The problem with this is that even if nobody has not yet found evidence > of 'non CC 1920's variants', we cannot conclude that none will ever be > found. >>> ... What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to >>> consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. > We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC > 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. I agree with those statements. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 34 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 5 2006 10:40 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > Hi Michael, > You'd written: > >>>> And my points were in response to Tom's statement (Nov 20): "Until I > >>>> see > >>>> some hard evidence, I reject the notion that there WERE any other > >>>> variants(outside the CC "family") during the 1920s." > > ...What the above Nov 20th statement says to me is; "no one > > has proven that 'non CC variants' existed during the 1920's, therefore > > they didn't." Hello Tom. > My rejecting the "notion" (perhaps a poor choice of word on my part) that > variants did exist does not equate with my concluding, "therefore they > didn't." I would accept the notion(?), were evidence of their existence > found. Since there is no evidence showing that they existed, I reject > assertions (better word?) that they did exist. OK. Sure. The final sentence is ok for me. > > The problem with this is that even if nobody has not yet found evidence > > of 'non CC 1920's variants', we cannot conclude that none will ever be > > found. > >>> ... What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to > >>> consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. > > We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC > > 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. > I agree with those statements. That's good enough for me. And of course there are no 'compelling reasons' because there is no good evidence, for those '1920's non CC variants'. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 35 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 5 2006 10:39 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165322375.733576.34910@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:1165155401.605702.205170@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > [snip] >> > Ok. You say that "... common sense makes me believe that they should be >> > learning and playing the games in and prior to the 1920s without any >> > book, and that the games (in various forms) [therefore] *did* exist in >> > those time periods." (I put in the [therefore] as I assume this is your >> > conclusion?) >> > 1stly, "common sense" is not a euphemism for 'guess' so therefore I >> > assume you have some type of evidence that tells you that the Chinese >> > people were playing the game *prior to the 1920's*? ^_^ >> > 2ndly, and contrary to my interpretation of what you said above (hence >> > the confusion), you say the existence of the games "...does not need to >> > have anyone to see any book showing such existence to be qualified." >> > Well, I disagree. You contend that the Chinese people, by and large, >> > learnt and played the game prior to the 1920's. But how do you know >> > this? How do you know the game wasn't created into existence some time >> > in about 1920? Remember, you can't refer to any books or documents to >> > say otherwise since you contend you don't need any books to provide >> > evidence for the games existence prior to 1920. >> > But, our knowledge of what was going on prior to 1920 is precisely due >> > to reports that appeared in books. So you should be saying, Babcock >> > (and others) came to know the game **[prior to 1920]** - in Babcock's >> > case, between 1913 and 1920, **after witnessing the Chinese playing >> > it** - and therefore they provide some evidence for the game's >> > existence. >> Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already >> known. >> My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no evidence) >> one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any direct >> evidence. > Hello Cofa. (I have put some important words in CAPITALS) > Then in this case, where your conclusion is not supported or based upon > *any evidence* - be it documentary or from experience, your conclusion > is NOT based on common sense but is instead just a guess, and guesses > are worthless when discussing issues because they tell us absolutely > nothing. ^_^ I agree with you. That's why I used "direct evidence." ^_^ - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> We now have: >> - Babcock came to know the game in 1913 and later testified the existence >> of >> it as of 1913. >> - You mentioned: "...we know there was at least one Chinese manual >> floating >> around in 1914 - 'Hui tu ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan." >> According to these evidences, we know the game existed in 1913. > OK. >> But what about prior to 1913? Can we say that the game never existed >> prior >> to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting it? > No, we can't - at least not in the way you mean. You continue to phrase > your statements in the negative - for example, you keep using the > phrase 'did not exist', and above you say 'never existed', which to me > = 'did not exist'. > BUT, I cannot prove - and no one can - a universal negative such as > 'never existed'. > What should be asked is; "can we say that the game existed prior to > 1913, as there is no evidence supporting its existence?" > My answer to this HYPOTHETICAL question would be no. Since I have *NO > EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* of its existence prior to 1913, then I have no > good reasons to consider that the game did exist prior to 1913. But since the one who found the existence of the game in 1913 did not invent the game in 1913, the game should have existed prior to his discovery of the game in 1913, therefore, the game should have existed prior to 1913. Is this correct? (No one can prove the game's non-existence prior to 1913; but with certain indirect evidence, i.e., the one who found the game in 1913 did not invent the game in 1913, I would believe the game did exist prior to 1913.) - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> Here the date does not really matter, as long as it is the time of the >> earliest evidence of the game we have found to date, and as long as such >> evidence is not the creation of the ORIGIN of the game. >> For example, say we have someone in the year 2006, who announced a game >> called "the origin of mahjong" and it was so documented. In the future, >> everyone would know, and could say *definitely*, that "the origin of >> mahjong" never existed prior to 2006. > OK. >> Can we make the same kind of *definite* statement about mahjong, that it >> never existed prior to the year so and so (i.e., the date of the earliest >> evidence we have found to date)? My answer is certainly NO. I am just >> against any definite statement that mahjong did not exist prior to the >> year >> so and so because there is no evidence that supports such existence. > OK. Any *definite* statement that says mahjong DID NOT EXIST prior to > the year so and so, cannot be answered as no one can prove a universal > negative. That would be asking someone to search the entire universe in > order to say that it did not exist! Clearly that is impossible. ^_^ > So you are right, we cannot make that kind of *definite* negative > statement about mahjong. That's what I always meant to say! You now present this in a professional form. The question must be positive - "can we say > that mahjong did exist prior to the year so and so." OK, this is a question I always keep open with. I don't mind people making questions this way, and I know many learned people out there can make good answers. What really used to bother me is those type of *definite* negative statement about mahjong (using your professional term ^_^). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > The answer to this would depend on the nature of the evidence. For > example, we know that a tile set was collected by Carl Himly sometime > between 1868 and 1876. Another two sets were collected by George > Glover, very probably between 1872 and 1873. These are the EARLIEST > references we have. > So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the earliest probable date > is 1868. We can therefore ask; do we have any compelling reason to > consider that 'mahjong'(or its precursor) did exist prior to 1868? > THAT is the question we should be asking in my view. > And the answer would depend on the type of evidence in its favour. Such > evidence could come from our knowledge of how games developed within > Chinese society and the relationship of this game to other preceding > and contemporary Chinese games etc. Such an answer would be > probablistic, in that we would have to attach some words to it that > tell us how close to correct the answer is likely to be. This sounds reasonable to me. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > [snip] However, we know >> > there was at least one Chinese manual floating around in 1914 - 'Hui tu >> > ma qiao pu' by Shen Yifan. [snip] >> I have not read the booklet "Hui tu ma qiao pu". Did Shen Yifan (the >> author) >> say the game was new and of his creation? Or did he just present what he >> learned about the game, like Babcock and other authors did? >> If the game was not new at that time, and if people did not learn the >> game >> by mouth and practice, how could people learn to play the game, >> especially >> prior to 1914? Can we say the game never existed prior to 1914? > "If the game was not new at that time[1914]" cancels the statement > "...the game never existed prior to 1914". >> Common sense tells me that the game was not new at the time Shen wrote >> the >> "tu pu" (graphic booklet), otherwise there will be no chance for someone >> in >> the year 2006 to define the game in details and make statement that >> he/she >> has found the origin of the game ^_^ > EH?! You have lost me here Cofa. Sorry it's off topic ^_^ It's about the origin of mahjong discussion. Someone defined what mahjong was and said they had found the origin of mahjong - Not in the year 2006 though. In 2006 I could not find such statement any more! On the other hand, if what Shen wrote in 1914 is about mahjong, the game he wrote about could not be new at that time, otherwise those who claimed having found the origin of mahjong in or close to 2006 would have mentioned Shen's name. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> Common sense also makes me believe the game did exist prior to 1914, >> otherwise there would not be any game being played and waiting to be >> found >> by Shen in 1914. > You mean "The game was being played in 1914. The game was waiting to be > found in 1914. Shen found the game and described the game in detail in > his 1914 manual. Therefore the game did exist prior to 1914. > But let us say, HYPOTHICALLY, that is the earliest booklet and bit of > evidence we have. Well, it is possible that (1) the game could then > have been invented by someone in early 1914 or (2) the game was around > before then and Shen is just describing how it was at that time in > 1914(your claim). > These are two hypotheses we would need to discuss to see which has the > more merit. Both of your two hypotheses are reasonable. What I really mean is, if the booklet about the existence of the game is not itself also the creation (hence, the origin) of the game, the game should always have existed prior to its being discovered (recorded). Again, the time (1914, etc) really doesn't matter here. And how far prior is still open to be found out. >> And I know there is no evidence to support my statements (as of today). > Well, I think, just maybe, you are not recognising an assumption in > your thinking. Are you assuming that games just don't pop into > existence but are the result of a developmental process? If you are > assuming that, then that may be evidence in your argument's favour - > depending on whether that is how Chinese games came to be. Well, with respect to mahjong, I really don't think it's an invented game. ... read more » Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 36 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Dec 6 2006 1:34 pm Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > >> Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already > >> known. > >> My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no evidence) > >> one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any direct > >> evidence. [snip] > > Then in this case, where your conclusion is not supported or based upon > > *any evidence* - be it documentary or from experience, your conclusion > > is NOT based on common sense but is instead just a guess, and guesses > > are worthless when discussing issues because they tell us absolutely > > nothing. ^_^ > I agree with you. That's why I used "direct evidence." ^_^ Hello Cofa. I am confused here. Are you saying that 'without any direct evidence' = indirect evidence? If so, what indirect evidence are you talking about? [snip] [you asked] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> But what about prior to 1913? Can we say that the game never existed > >> prior to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting it? > > No, we can't - at least not in the way you mean. You continue to phrase > > your statements in the negative - for example, you keep using the > > phrase 'did not exist', and above you say 'never existed', which to me > > = 'did not exist'. > > BUT, I cannot prove - and no one can - a universal negative such as > > 'never existed'. > > What should be asked is; "can we say that the game existed prior to > > 1913, as there is no evidence supporting its existence?" > > My answer to this HYPOTHETICAL question would be no. Since I have *NO > > EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* of its existence prior to 1913, then I have no > > good reasons to consider that the game did exist prior to 1913. > But since the one who found the existence of the game in 1913 did not invent > the game in 1913, the game should have existed prior to his discovery of the > game in 1913, therefore, the game should have existed prior to 1913. Is this > correct? (No one can prove the game's non-existence prior to 1913; but with > certain indirect evidence, i.e., the one who found the game in 1913 did not > invent the game in 1913, I would believe the game did exist prior to 1913.) This would be a more likely explanation. But in this hypothetical situation I cannot discount the possibility that someone in 1913 had invented the game and the person finding that game was describing the playing of that newly invented game. So your 'should have existed' would be rephrased as 'may have existed' prior to 1913 - this 'may have' reflects that your explanation is one of few possible answers. By discussing the others we can say which ones are more likely to be better explanations etc. [snip] > On the other hand, if what Shen wrote in 1914 is about mahjong, the game he > wrote about could not be new at that time, otherwise those who claimed > having found the origin of mahjong in or close to 2006 would have mentioned > Shen's name. I still don't understand the last bit. Who claimed to have fond the origin of MJ in or close to 2006?? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> Common sense also makes me believe the game did exist prior to 1914, > >> otherwise there would not be any game being played and waiting to be > >> found > >> by Shen in 1914. > > You mean "The game was being played in 1914. The game was waiting to be > > found in 1914. Shen found the game and described the game in detail in > > his 1914 manual. Therefore the game did exist prior to 1914. > > But let us say, HYPOTHICALLY, that is the earliest booklet and bit of > > evidence we have. Well, it is possible that (1) the game could then > > have been invented by someone in early 1914 or (2) the game was around > > before then and Shen is just describing how it was at that time in > > 1914(your claim). > > These are two hypotheses we would need to discuss to see which has the > > more merit. > Both of your two hypotheses are reasonable. What I really mean is, if the > booklet about the existence of the game is not itself also the creation > (hence, the origin) of the game, the game should always have existed prior > to its being discovered (recorded). Again, the time (1914, etc) really > doesn't matter here. And how far prior is still open to be found out. Yes. > >> And I know there is no evidence to support my statements (as of today). > > Well, I think, just maybe, you are not recognising an assumption in > > your thinking. Are you assuming that games just don't pop into > > existence but are the result of a developmental process? If you are > > assuming that, then that may be evidence in your argument's favour - > > depending on whether that is how Chinese games came to be. > Well, with respect to mahjong, I really don't think it's an invented game. > Several ancient games may have merged into one; and that merged form may > then diverged into many forms. By the time foreigners found the games in > China, the games already existed in different forms. This is just my > imagination. But this could perhaps explain why the "original manual" is > missing. This is your hypothesis that seeks to explain your assumption [nothing wrong with that] that its not an invented game. It makes several predictions which basically say that we should be able to find evidence of different forms of the game around the time foreigners found the games. Finding this evidence might be difficult but not impossible in my opinion. I think you could tie mohe pai and peng he pai into this here? You use your assumption for another one of your arguments, which I won't go into here. > >> > Now, because no evidence has been found, I don't think we can say that > >> > these 'other variants' did not exist. We might find a piece of > >> > supporting evidence tomorrow. > >> > So, in my view, the correct and proper statement is; 'even if there is > >> > no good evidence for other variants (outside the CC "family") during > >> > the 1920's, we cannot claim that those variants *did not exist* during > >> > the 1920's. What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason to > >> > consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. > Yes, and more on this part: "even if there is no good evidence for other > variants (outside the CC "family") during the 1920's, we cannot claim that > those variants *did not exist* during the 1920's." ^_^ Best to take the whole statement and treat each part equally. Each part clarifies the other. > > We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC > > 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. > > Can you say they did exist?? ^_^ > We can't *definitely* deny the existence either, can we? ^_^ WHOA! You haven't answered my question. Have you got any good evidence for 'non CC 1920's variants'?? This is why I started questioning Millington's claims. His claims didn't have any good evidence in their favour. Besides, the way you have asked your question is just asking me to prove a negative. 'Definitely denying the existence', to me means asking me to say with certainty that they don't exist. How can I possibly answer that as I would have to search the entire universe!! ^_^ Or do you mean something else? Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 37 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Dec 7 2006 10:14 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165440875.267119.73520@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> >> Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already >> >> known. >> >> My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no >> >> evidence) >> >> one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any >> >> direct >> >> evidence. > [snip] >> > Then in this case, where your conclusion is not supported or based upon >> > *any evidence* - be it documentary or from experience, your conclusion >> > is NOT based on common sense but is instead just a guess, and guesses >> > are worthless when discussing issues because they tell us absolutely >> > nothing. ^_^ >> I agree with you. That's why I used "direct evidence." ^_^ > Hello Cofa. I am confused here. Are you saying that 'without any direct > evidence' = indirect evidence? If so, what indirect evidence are you > talking about? See my reply to your next part. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > [snip] [you asked] >> >> But what about prior to 1913? Can we say that the game never existed >> >> prior to 1913, as there is no evidence supporting it? >> > No, we can't - at least not in the way you mean. You continue to phrase >> > your statements in the negative - for example, you keep using the >> > phrase 'did not exist', and above you say 'never existed', which to me >> > = 'did not exist'. >> > BUT, I cannot prove - and no one can - a universal negative such as >> > 'never existed'. >> > What should be asked is; "can we say that the game existed prior to >> > 1913, as there is no evidence supporting its existence?" >> > My answer to this HYPOTHETICAL question would be no. Since I have *NO >> > EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* of its existence prior to 1913, then I have no >> > good reasons to consider that the game did exist prior to 1913. >> But since the one who found the existence of the game in 1913 did not >> invent >> the game in 1913, the game should have existed prior to his discovery of >> the >> game in 1913, therefore, the game should have existed prior to 1913. Is >> this >> correct? (No one can prove the game's non-existence prior to 1913; but >> with >> certain indirect evidence, i.e., the one who found the game in 1913 did >> not >> invent the game in 1913, I would believe the game did exist prior to >> 1913.) > This would be a more likely explanation. But in this hypothetical > situation I cannot discount the possibility that someone in 1913 had > invented the game and the person finding that game was describing the > playing of that newly invented game. So your 'should have existed' > would be rephrased as 'may have existed' prior to 1913 - this 'may > have' reflects that your explanation is one of few possible answers. By > discussing the others we can say which ones are more likely to be > better explanations etc. I think the use of "should have existed" is appropriate here. Again, as I have emphasized, the exact time is not relevant, as long as it is NOT also the creation of the game. In other word, "should have existed" is a definite truth, based on indirect evidence. For example, if person A reported/described/documented person A's discovery of the game at any point in time, as long as A's discovery is not also the creation of the game, there must also exist the creation of the game that is prior to the time of the discovery. Any evidence of creation found in a later time shall then prove "should have existed" to be true. > [snip] >> On the other hand, if what Shen wrote in 1914 is about mahjong, the game >> he >> wrote about could not be new at that time, otherwise those who claimed >> having found the origin of mahjong in or close to 2006 would have >> mentioned >> Shen's name. > I still don't understand the last bit. Who claimed to have fond the > origin of MJ in or close to 2006?? In the "History of MAHJONG" discussions (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html), Tom and Allan defined "mahjong" using their words, and anounced that "CC" was the "origin of mahjong", all other variants were derived from it - This is my memory of the contents of the early versions of Tom's website about the topic. It might have been removed from the site, or Tom never has made such statements at all. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> >> Common sense also makes me believe the game did exist prior to 1914, >> >> otherwise there would not be any game being played and waiting to be >> >> found >> >> by Shen in 1914. >> > You mean "The game was being played in 1914. The game was waiting to be >> > found in 1914. Shen found the game and described the game in detail in >> > his 1914 manual. Therefore the game did exist prior to 1914. >> > But let us say, HYPOTHICALLY, that is the earliest booklet and bit of >> > evidence we have. Well, it is possible that (1) the game could then >> > have been invented by someone in early 1914 or (2) the game was around >> > before then and Shen is just describing how it was at that time in >> > 1914(your claim). >> > These are two hypotheses we would need to discuss to see which has the >> > more merit. >> Both of your two hypotheses are reasonable. What I really mean is, if the >> booklet about the existence of the game is not itself also the creation >> (hence, the origin) of the game, the game should always have existed >> prior >> to its being discovered (recorded). Again, the time (1914, etc) really >> doesn't matter here. And how far prior is still open to be found out. > Yes. >> >> And I know there is no evidence to support my statements (as of >> >> today). >> > Well, I think, just maybe, you are not recognising an assumption in >> > your thinking. Are you assuming that games just don't pop into >> > existence but are the result of a developmental process? If you are >> > assuming that, then that may be evidence in your argument's favour - >> > depending on whether that is how Chinese games came to be. >> Well, with respect to mahjong, I really don't think it's an invented >> game. >> Several ancient games may have merged into one; and that merged form may >> then diverged into many forms. By the time foreigners found the games in >> China, the games already existed in different forms. This is just my >> imagination. But this could perhaps explain why the "original manual" is >> missing. > This is your hypothesis that seeks to explain your assumption [nothing > wrong with that] that its not an invented game. It makes several > predictions which basically say that we should be able to find evidence > of different forms of the game around the time foreigners found the > games. Finding this evidence might be difficult but not impossible in > my opinion. I think you could tie mohe pai and peng he pai into this > here? Ithinc has just pointed me to a site full of ancient Chinese readings (under topic "Earliest Chinese reference to "ma que"") - This could be a source where one may find valuable info about the games of mahjong. I will take time to explore it - Only if I could spare the time ^_^ > You use your assumption for another one of your arguments, which I > won't go into here. That's OK, and as I said, it's not related to the current topic here. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> >> > Now, because no evidence has been found, I don't think we can say >> >> > that >> >> > these 'other variants' did not exist. We might find a piece of >> >> > supporting evidence tomorrow. >> >> > So, in my view, the correct and proper statement is; 'even if there >> >> > is >> >> > no good evidence for other variants (outside the CC "family") during >> >> > the 1920's, we cannot claim that those variants *did not exist* >> >> > during >> >> > the 1920's. What we can claim is that we have no compelling reason >> >> > to >> >> > consider that they *did exist* during the 1920's'. >> Yes, and more on this part: "even if there is no good evidence for other >> variants (outside the CC "family") during the 1920's, we cannot claim >> that >> those variants *did not exist* during the 1920's." ^_^ > Best to take the whole statement and treat each part equally. Each part > clarifies the other. >> > We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC >> > 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. >> > Can you say they did exist?? ^_^ >> We can't *definitely* deny the existence either, can we? ^_^ > WHOA! You haven't answered my question. Have you got any good evidence > for 'non CC 1920's variants'?? Michael, answering your question will inevitably bring us back to the beginning of this topic. ^_^ Millington's book says there were many variants in the 1920s. Some say they are "CC-like", so they are no variants at all. I of course maintain reading Millington's word in its original form. I don't have books of the 1920s. However, none of those who have those books say those books deny the existence of *other* variants. Nowadays people would say those variants are similar to one another, or the differences are minor. To me they are simply variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^ > This is why I started questioning Millington's claims. His claims > didn't have any good evidence in their favour. > Besides, the way you have asked your question is just asking me to > prove a negative. 'Definitely denying the existence', to me means > asking me to say with certainty that they don't exist. How can I > possibly answer that as I would have to search the entire universe!! > ^_^ > Or do you mean something else? No, there's no something else. In fact, you can't deny the existence of the *variants* - They are part of the history, as I have outlined above. (Whether those variants are "CC-like" or "Non-CC", are addition of nowadays people, these won't change the fact presented by those books in the 1920s.) -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 38 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 4:07 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message 5440875.267119.73...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [snip] > Cofa Tsui wrote: > I think the use of "should have existed" is appropriate here. Again, as I > have emphasized, the exact time is not relevant, as long as it is NOT also > the creation of the game. In other word, "should have existed" is a definite > truth, based on indirect evidence. For example, if person A > reported/described/documented person A's discovery of the game at any point > in time, as long as A's discovery is not also the creation of the game, > there must also exist the creation of the game that is prior to the time of > the discovery. Any evidence of creation found in a later time shall then > prove "should have existed" to be true. Hello Cofa. OK. I think I understand what you are saying now. Thanks for clarifying your meaning. ^_^ If the dates are irrelevant then 'should have existed' could be say.... 3 months before. In other words, it may have been invented 3 months earlier and was discovered 3 months later by someone who then discribed it in there manual? > > I still don't understand the last bit. Who claimed to have fond the > > origin of MJ in or close to 2006?? > In the "History of MAHJONG" discussions > (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html), Tom and Allan defined > "mahjong" using their words, and anounced that "CC" was the "origin of > mahjong", all other variants were derived from it - This is my memory of the > contents of the early versions of Tom's website about the topic. It might > have been removed from the site, or Tom never has made such statements at > all. OK. I won't go into this as it is a bit off topic IMO. [snip] > > Best to take the whole statement and treat each part equally. Each part > > clarifies the other. > >> > We just don't have any compelling reasons to consider that 'non CC > >> > 1920's variants' DID EXIST in the 1920's. > >> > Can you say they did exist?? ^_^ > >> We can't *definitely* deny the existence either, can we? ^_^ > > WHOA! You haven't answered my question. Have you got any good evidence > > for 'non CC 1920's variants'?? > Michael, answering your question will inevitably bring us back to the > beginning of this topic. ^_^ Yep! ^_^ > Millington's book says there were many variants in the 1920s. Some say they > are "CC-like", so they are no variants at all. I of course maintain reading > Millington's word in its original form. I don't have books of the 1920s. > However, none of those who have those books say those books deny the > existence of *other* variants. Nowadays people would say those variants are > similar to one another, or the differences are minor. To me they are simply > variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to the > terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^ OK. I need to clarify a few things about Millington - at least the way I see what he wrote, and to which I think you would agree? For a start, it seems to me the when he used the term **variants** or **other variants**, in his seemingly characteristically muddled way of writing, he was talking about the period 1910 to 1920 and the post 1920 period as well. For the 1910 - 1920 period he explains this in such places as the last paragraph on page 7 and in his summary on page 126 of the 'Chinese Variant Forms' chapter. For the post 1920 period, he uses the term on page 127 of the 'Rival Forms of Mah-Jongg' chapter for example. It seems to me that in Chapter 7 'Chinese Variant Forms of Mah-Jongg' he describes the 4 *important ways*, or categories, these variant forms differed from one another - and presumably his so-called 'Classical Mah-Jongg'. He provides examples in each category. He attrributes certain confusing features or idiosyncracies of the non chinese forms to contamination, by certain features of the 1910 - 1920 'Chinese variant' forms, that were carried over from that period **into the Chinese post 1920 period**.(see page 131) But should we bother with Millington in this regard??? Millington cites no contemporary 1910 - 1920 or post 1920's evidence of these rival existing forms or variants that we can check. How do we know they did exist as he describes them? What we have got are 1920's manuals that describe certain regional and/or local gameplays. I'll leave it to you and others to argue about the merits of their differences (if any) and their consequences - it is not something that greatly interests me, only the citing of Millington as an authority and the thinking involved. However, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence though. [snip] > In fact, you can't deny the existence of the > *variants* - They are part of the history, as I have outlined above. Not from Millington they aren't, IMO. If variants did exist in the 1920's in China then this statement must be backed up by good reasons. These come from the booklets and books that were published in that period and that deal with the game in China. Because these books provide evidence that gives us good reason to consider that these forms in the books did exist, this does not mean that we can deny the existence of other variants forms. BUT, this is not the same as saying other variant forms did exist. We just don't know. They remain possible, that's all. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. No working argument can be founded on a possibility. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 39 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 2:19 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa wrote: >>I don't have books of the 1920s. Seems to me that that's a problem. How can we discuss a thing if both sides of the discussion aren't in possession of sufficient data to discuss it thoroughly? These books should be available through eBay and Amazon. I have two extra 1920s books, Cofa - and I'm willing to sell them to you for US$15 each (including postage). The two I have available are "Snyder's Mah-Jung Manual," by Henry Snyder (Cambridge, MA, 1923) and "Mah Jong And How To Play It," by Chiang Lee (London, 1923). That would at least get you started on building your library. I also have an extra copy of Chung Wu's "An Advanced System For Playing Mah Jong," but that's a 1973 book. Cofa wrote: >>Millington's book says there were many variants in the 1920s. Some say >>they >>are "CC-like", so they are no variants at all. >>...Nowadays people would say those variants are >>similar to one another, or the differences are minor. To me they are >>simply >>variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to >>the >>terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^ This is why we discussed the topic of "taxonomy" recently - to clarify the fact that minor variations on a variant don't necessarily make for a separate variant. The word "variant" mustn't be confused with "table rule" or "regional rule." In a taxonomic system, it would be incorrect to refer to variations within a genus as belonging to a separate genus entirely. When two houses play CC but one house uses different table rules from the other, it isn't necessarily correct to say that the other house isn't playing CC. The term "variant" probably isn't sufficient for the purposes of this discussion, unless a taxonomic system can be agreed to, and both sides of the discussion agree what the word "variant" means. >> In the "History of MAHJONG" discussions >> (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html), Tom and Allan defined >> "mahjong" using their words, and anounced that "CC" was the "origin of >> mahjong", all other variants were derived from it - This is my memory of >> the >> contents of the early versions of Tom's website about the topic. It might >> have been removed from the site, or Tom never has made such statements at >> all. Michael wrote: >OK. I won't go into this as it is a bit off topic IMO. It's tangentially on-topic. To briefly clarify about that previous discussion, Cofa had said that HKOS was the parent form, from which CC and other variants evolved. Alan and I showed that there was a preponderance of historical evidence that indicated that it was, rather, the other way around - that CC was the parent form, from which HKOS and other variants evolved. (Note that "parent form" does not imply an "origin." All parents were children themselves at one time. Alan and I both acknowledged that there surely was or were "pre-Classical" rules, and accepted the Millington term "proto-mahjong" in reference to those rules.) The whole topic wasn't about CC being the "origin of the species" - it was about "which of two forms parented the other." We used 1920s books extensively to show that CC was the form played in Hong Kong in the 1920s - in all of those books, there was no mention whatsoever of any variant similar to HKOS. Michael wrote: >It seems to me that in Chapter 7 'Chinese Variant Forms of Mah-Jongg' >he describes the 4 *important ways*, or categories, these variant forms >differed from one another - and presumably his so-called 'Classical >Mah-Jongg'. He provides examples in each category. Thanks for prompting me to re-read that chapter, Michael. Interesting level of detail therein on the variations in play in China during the time. Too bad he couldn't cite sources. Interestingly (tangentially?), Millington further bolsters the point that CC was the "variant" (read "genus") that was played in southern China and the Cantonese region in the 1920s (even more strictly "classical" than the way the game was played in northern China and Shanghai at the time). Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 40 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 8:00 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:PuWdnS6j5rMceOTYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@giganews.com... > Cofa wrote: >>>I don't have books of the 1920s. > Seems to me that that's a problem. How can we discuss a thing if both > sides of the discussion aren't in possession of sufficient data to discuss > it thoroughly? These books should be available through eBay and Amazon. I > have two extra 1920s books, Cofa - and I'm willing to sell them to you for > US$15 each (including postage). The two I have available are "Snyder's > Mah-Jung Manual," by Henry Snyder (Cambridge, MA, 1923) and "Mah Jong And > How To Play It," by Chiang Lee (London, 1923). That would at least get you > started on building your library. I also have an extra copy of Chung Wu's > "An Advanced System For Playing Mah Jong," but that's a 1973 book. If I were interested in the details of those variants I would have had collection of the appropriate books already. At all times what I have been interested in is information that could tell whether it is true that "Chinese Classical ("CC") is the only origin of MAHJONG and that all other variants are simply its descendants." And I believe whether I possess any books of the 1920s would not hinder me from joining the discussions of the current topic. Anyway, thanks for your offer, Tom. By the way, if a copy of Babcock's "little red book" in good condition is available I would like to know ^_^ - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa wrote: >>>Millington's book says there were many variants in the 1920s. Some say >>>they >>>are "CC-like", so they are no variants at all. >>>...Nowadays people would say those variants are >>>similar to one another, or the differences are minor. To me they are >>>simply >>>variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to >>>the >>>terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^ > This is why we discussed the topic of "taxonomy" recently - to clarify the > fact that minor variations on a variant don't necessarily make for a > separate variant. The word "variant" mustn't be confused with "table rule" > or "regional rule." > In a taxonomic system, it would be incorrect to refer to variations within > a genus as belonging to a separate genus entirely. > When two houses play CC but one house uses different table rules from the > other, it isn't necessarily correct to say that the other house isn't > playing CC. The term "variant" probably isn't sufficient for the purposes > of this discussion, unless a taxonomic system can be agreed to, and both > sides of the discussion agree what the word "variant" means. And until then, those 1920s books do mention or evidence existence of *variants* in the 1920s, and those variants certainly have no connection to the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" - By the way, when is the earliest evidence of the terms "CC" or "Chinese Classical" one can produce? Besides, with the taxonomic system, under the "MAHJONG Family" there can be many genera - "CC-like" can be one, other *variants* that are not "CC-like", although not named, can be others. They are all on the same level of the family tree/chart. The above structure can be changed when new evidences are found in the future. And ultimately only one form can be placed in the highest level, if and only if that form is identified as the origin/creation. And I certainly believe the "CC-like" form (or whatever name you prefer) does not deserve the highest level of the family tree/chart at this point in time. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >>> In the "History of MAHJONG" discussions >>> (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html), Tom and Allan defined >>> "mahjong" using their words, and anounced that "CC" was the "origin of >>> mahjong", all other variants were derived from it - This is my memory of >>> the >>> contents of the early versions of Tom's website about the topic. It >>> might >>> have been removed from the site, or Tom never has made such statements >>> at >>> all. > Michael wrote: >>OK. I won't go into this as it is a bit off topic IMO. > It's tangentially on-topic. To briefly clarify about that previous > discussion, Cofa had said that HKOS was the parent form, from which CC and > other variants evolved. Alan and I showed that there was a preponderance > of historical evidence that indicated that it was, rather, the other way > around - that CC was the parent form, from which HKOS and other variants > evolved. This is a false statement (or a mistake that needs to be corrected) about my position: "Cofa had said that HKOS was the parent form, from which CC and other variants evolved." I cannot recall I made such statement. I believe I never did. If Tom is so serious about hard evidence respecting what Millington has said in his book, I believe it is equally prudent for Tom to provide some hard evidence of my having made such statement before continuing holding my position like this. Instead, quite the opposite, it is the statement (more or less) "Chinese Classical ("CC") is the only origin of MAHJONG and that all other variants are simply its descendants" that I used to oppose. > (Note that "parent form" does not imply an "origin." All parents were > children themselves at one time. Alan and I both acknowledged that there > surely was or were "pre-Classical" rules, and accepted the Millington term > "proto-mahjong" in reference to those rules.) > The whole topic wasn't about CC being the "origin of the species" - it was > about "which of two forms parented the other." We used 1920s books > extensively to show that CC was the form played in Hong Kong in the > 1920s - in all of those books, there was no mention whatsoever of any > variant similar to HKOS. The whole topic *WAS* about "CC being the "origin[ of the species]" - Otherwise I would not have had involved myself into the discussion ^_^ One can easily refer to exchanges on the mahjong newsgroup that are archived on my website (see link below). Again, I do not concern about how CC has come about if it is on its own; my concern is about the statement of HKOS being evolved from CC and that this is the *only* possible history. My possition about HKOS is clear and can be viewed on my website since April 2002 (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html): QUOTE (1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game MAHJONG. UNQUOTE Note that names like "CC", "HKOS", etc., are names of the nowadays people. These names didn't exist in the 1920s and beyond (based on evidence we have to date). -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 41 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 9 2006 2:12 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > ... I believe mahjong (or "the game", if you prefer) is an evolved game. > It might be evolved from different ancient games into one, then that one > game diverged into many forms as part of the evolution progress over time. That is reasonable. > By the time people discovered (or began to record) "the game", it has > already diverged into more than one forms (if not many forms). Depending on what one means by "forms." If the word "forms" must equate with "table rules" or "variants" or "minor regional variations" (ignoring taxonomic principles), then it's hard to believe that it was ever in any single "form" that serves as a narrow focus between "prior CONvergent forms" and "later DIvergent forms." > If mahjong is an invention in the past century or so, it is hard to > believe evidence of its invention does not exist! Of course, thanks to Michael's own efforts, we have the evidence of the tile sets dating back as far as the early 1870s, that there was some sort of mahjong-like game extant back that far. Too bad we don't have the exact rules that were used to play the game(s) those tile sets were played with... > if a copy of Babcock's "little red book" in good condition is available I > would like to know ^_^ Try eBay and Amazon. These are frequently available for sale - but there were at least 14 printings (not including those under Parker Brothers). I don't know if you'd be interested in a later hardcover edition, or if only the 1st softcover printing is of interest to you, or if a Parker Brothers printing would be satisfactory for you. Babcock isn't particularly germane to this particular discussion (either the one about Millington or the slightly tangential one about CC vs. HKOS). >If I were interested in the details of those variants I would have had >collection of the appropriate books already. OK. >At all times what I have been interested in is information that could tell >whether it is true that "Chinese Classical ("CC") is the only origin of >MAHJONG and that all other variants are simply its descendants." CC is not "the only origin of mahjong." >And I believe whether I possess any books of the 1920s would not hinder me >from joining the discussions of the current topic. OK. > By the way, when is the earliest evidence of the terms "CC" or "Chinese > Classical" one can produce? Probably it was coined by Millington. Relevance? > This is a false statement (or a mistake that needs to be corrected) about > my position: "Cofa had said that HKOS was the parent form, from which CC > and other variants evolved." I cannot recall I made such statement. The > whole topic *WAS* about "CC being the "origin[ of the species]" - > Otherwise I would not have had involved myself into the discussion ^_^ It must have been a problem of language. I believe we expressed ourselves clearly. I'm sorry we were never able to make you understand any of our points. > My possition about HKOS is clear and can be viewed on my website since > April 2002 (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html): > QUOTE > (1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese > Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. > (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style > ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many > variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the > long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game > MAHJONG. > UNQUOTE And we showed that the preponderance of the evidence showed that they most likely did NOT co-exist. ALL of the writings of the period described CC. NONE of the writings of the period (even those that mentioned how mahjong was played in Hong Kong at the time) described HKOS. > Note that names like "CC", "HKOS", etc., are names of the nowadays people. > These names didn't exist in the 1920s ... I don't understand the relevance. Can you explain why this is significant and germane? Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 42 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 1:51 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:6u6dnQ8nAtjBqObYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@giganews.com... > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> By the time people discovered (or began to record) "the game", it has >> already diverged into more than one forms (if not many forms). > Depending on what one means by "forms." If the word "forms" must equate > with "table rules" or "variants" or "minor regional variations" (ignoring > taxonomic principles), then it's hard to believe that it was ever in any > single "form" that serves as a narrow focus between "prior CONvergent > forms" and "later DIvergent forms." I would let you or others to dig into the details. To me, I am quite satisfied with the term "forms" at this point ^_^ >> if a copy of Babcock's "little red book" in good condition is available I >> would like to know ^_^ > Try eBay and Amazon. These are frequently available for sale - but there > were at least 14 printings (not including those under Parker Brothers). I > don't know if you'd be interested in a later hardcover edition, or if only > the 1st softcover printing is of interest to you, or if a Parker Brothers > printing would be satisfactory for you. Babcock isn't particularly germane > to this particular discussion (either the one about Millington or the > slightly tangential one about CC vs. HKOS). Thanks for the details. I would be interested in only the 1st softcover print - And this is not related to this discussion. Again thanks for telling the differences. >>At all times what I have been interested in is information that could tell >>whether it is true that "Chinese Classical ("CC") is the only origin of >>MAHJONG and that all other variants are simply its descendants." > CC is not "the only origin of mahjong." Good to know it finally from your mouth! Thanks. Do you think it is also correct to say that "CC is not the origin of mahjong", given the recent discovery of the "1903 ma que" game? >> By the way, when is the earliest evidence of the terms "CC" or "Chinese >> Classical" one can produce? > Probably it was coined by Millington. Relevance? Thanks. Whether it is relevant does not matter any more now. You've already made your points clear to me: "CC is not the only origin of mahjong" and "CC did not exist prior to Millington's book." >> This is a false statement (or a mistake that needs to be corrected) about >> my position: "Cofa had said that HKOS was the parent form, from which CC >> and other variants evolved." I cannot recall I made such statement. The >> whole topic *WAS* about "CC being the "origin[ of the species]" - >> Otherwise I would not have had involved myself into the discussion ^_^ > It must have been a problem of language. I believe we expressed ourselves > clearly. I'm sorry we were never able to make you understand any of our > points. Whether it is a "problem of language" can be found out in the newsgroup's archives. However, you just did make your point clear now, as above. And I have never said that "HKOS was the parent form, from which CC and other variants evolved." So I guess the debate about HKOS and CC shall come to an end here? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> My possition about HKOS is clear and can be viewed on my website since >> April 2002 (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html): >> QUOTE >> (1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese >> Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. >> (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style >> ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). >> Many variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether >> for the long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of >> the game MAHJONG. >> UNQUOTE > And we showed that the preponderance of the evidence showed that they most > likely did NOT co-exist. ALL of the writings of the period described CC. > NONE of the writings of the period (even those that mentioned how mahjong > was played in Hong Kong at the time) described HKOS. If you used *definite* descriptions like "ALL of the writings of the period described CC" and "NONE of the writings of the period ... described HKOS", how come you still use "most likely did NOT co-exist" to describe HKOS? Is it because we all believe in the fact that "we still have not found all we need to know about mahjong to make such a definit statement?" >> Note that names like "CC", "HKOS", etc., are names of the nowadays >> people. These names didn't exist in the 1920s ... > I don't understand the relevance. Can you explain why this is significant > and germane? The relevance is you cannot say something older is like the younger. Games in the 1920s are on their own; games like "CC", "HKOS", etc., were formed after the mid-1900s. Saying any of these later forms to be the same as those in the 1920s, without considering any possible evolutions over time, is simply inaccurate. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 43 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 11:09 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author I'd written: >> It must have been a problem of language. I believe we expressed ourselves >> clearly. I'm sorry we were never able to make you understand any of our >> points. "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote > Whether it is a "problem of language" can be found out in the newsgroup's > archives. Yes, it can. >>> Note that names like "CC", "HKOS", etc., are names of the nowadays >>> people. These names didn't exist in the 1920s ... >> I don't understand the relevance. Can you explain why this is significant >> and germane? > The relevance is you cannot say something older is like the younger. Games > in the 1920s are on their own; games like "CC", "HKOS", etc., were formed > after the mid-1900s. The terms were, but not both games. As Thierry wrote in the 1903 thread today: TD>We call "Chinese Classical" a set of rules of the 1920s In other words, it's just a name we've been using to refer to the 1920s rules. As I've been saying since 2002 (http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/defs.html). > Saying any of these later forms to be the same as those in the 1920s, > without considering any possible evolutions over time, is simply > inaccurate. CC = the 1920s rules. Those rules have not evolved over time. It's very interesting ("jaw-dropping," as Michael said in the 1903 thread) that you now say that HKOS was "formed" after the mid-1900s. Do you have any evidence for that? Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 44 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 6:45 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:y82dnSlTTNDpMODYnZ2dnUVZ_qK3nZ2d@giganews.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >>> I don't understand the relevance. Can you explain why this is >>> significant and germane? >> The relevance is you cannot say something older is like the younger. >> Games in the 1920s are on their own; games like "CC", "HKOS", etc., were >> formed after the mid-1900s. > The terms were, but not both games. As Thierry wrote in the 1903 thread > today: > TD>We call "Chinese Classical" a set of rules of the 1920s > In other words, it's just a name we've been using to refer to the 1920s > rules. As I've been saying since 2002 > (http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/defs.html). Sorry, typo. I should have written "terms like "CC", "HKOS", etc." But then, how could you distinguish Millington's rules ("Classical mah-jongg", if not "CC") from rules of the 1920s. I used to think CC = Millington's rules in 1977, which are not the same as those in the 1920s. >> Saying any of these later forms to be the same as those in the 1920s, >> without considering any possible evolutions over time, is simply >> inaccurate. > CC = the 1920s rules. Those rules have not evolved over time. It might be correct those rules have not evolved over time; however, "CC = the 1920s rules" could be ambiquous. Even within Babcock's book, more than one form of play in the 1920s were recorded - Big THANKS to Thierry for bringing this up. It is better to provide more precise info when useing the equal sign - Just my thought. > It's very interesting ("jaw-dropping," as Michael said in the 1903 thread) > that you now say that HKOS was "formed" after the mid-1900s. Do you have > any evidence for that? No, because it was a typo (please see above) ^_^ Sorry! From JR's post (Dec 11 under thread "Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903") HKOS is a term created in Perlmen & Chan's "The Chinese Game of Mahjong" in 1979. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 45 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 9:01 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote > But then, how could you distinguish Millington's rules ("Classical > mah-jongg", if not "CC") from rules of the 1920s. They are hardly distinguishable. Millington describes the 1920s standard rules, which we have been calling "CC." > I used to think CC = Millington's rules in 1977, which are not the same as > those in the 1920s. OK, that's what you used to think. > It might be correct those rules have not evolved over time; however, "CC = > the 1920s rules" could be ambiquous. OK: "the mah-jongg rules that were prevalent in the 1920s (as documented by the books of Hartman, Foster, Babcock, Racster, Millington, and many others), and as distinguished from the earlier rules described by Mauger and Li, and as further distinguished from the so-called 'new method' mentioned briefly by Babcock and Tchou." - Or maybe we can come up with a longer, even less ambiguous, way of saying it. - Or maybe we can just agree on what a commonly used term means - if only until a reasonable number of us can decide that Pluto is no longer to be referred to as a planet. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 46 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 10:05 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:NZqdnUKfTL21pePYnZ2dnUVZ_uG3nZ2d@giganews.com... >> It might be correct those rules have not evolved over time; however, "CC >> = the 1920s rules" could be ambiquous. > OK: "the mah-jongg rules that were prevalent in the 1920s (as documented > by the books of Hartman, Foster, Babcock, Racster, Millington, and many > others), and as distinguished from the earlier rules described by Mauger > and Li, and as further distinguished from the so-called 'new method' > mentioned briefly by Babcock and Tchou." > - Or maybe we can come up with a longer, even less ambiguous, way of > saying it. > - Or maybe we can just agree on what a commonly used term means - if only > until a reasonable number of us can decide that Pluto is no longer to be > referred to as a planet. OR, we can simply use these terms: Millington's rules, Hartman's rules, Foster's rules, and so on. With Babcock's rules, one would have to say something more to distinguish which of the two forms in his book you mean to refer to (you have not mentioned that two forms are described in Babcock's book). -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 47 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 11:34 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author > Cofa Tsui wrote: >Do you think it is also correct to say that "CC is not the origin of >mahjong", given the recent discovery of the "1903 ma que" game? I have long been aware that the original rules were unknown, and that they must be different from the 1920s CC rules, because the oldest known mahjong sets contained different tiles. I have just now discovered an inconsistency in the definition of "the CC theory" from that old 2002 debate. The original rules are referred to as "proto-mahjong" (with a note saying that CC evolved from those), and I also found one claim, on the very same page (http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/defs.html) that CC is the original rule set. This is clearly an inconsistency. I just fixed it today (I hadn't looked at that page in a very long time). Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 48 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 10:16 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:RrudnWtICoQRKeDYnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@giganews.com... >> Cofa Tsui wrote: >>Do you think it is also correct to say that "CC is not the origin of >>mahjong", given the recent discovery of the "1903 ma que" game? > I have long been aware that the original rules were unknown, and that they > must be different from the 1920s CC rules, because the oldest known > mahjong sets contained different tiles. How about this your statement (found in Argument 2, paragraph a, under title "Argument FOR the CC Theory" http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/cctheory.htm): 1. Chinese Classical (something the same or very similar to the form described in Millington) was the original form of mahjong. It was the predominant form of mahjong played all over China (including Canton and Hong Kong) in the 20's. 2. All other styles, new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from Chinese Classical. > I have just now discovered an inconsistency in the definition of "the CC > theory" from that old 2002 debate. The original rules are referred to as > "proto-mahjong" (with a note saying that CC evolved from those), and I > also found one claim, on the very same page > (http://www.sloperama.com/cctheory/defs.html) that CC is the original rule > set. This is clearly an inconsistency. I just fixed it today (I hadn't > looked at that page in a very long time). Perhaps you might wish to rewrite the entire "CC Theory", given the recent corrections you've made in the recent discussions? -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 49 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 10:36 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote > How about this your statement (found in Argument 2, paragraph a, under > title "Argument FOR the CC Theory" OK, fixed, thanks. > Perhaps you might wish to rewrite the entire "CC Theory", given the recent > corrections you've made in the recent discussions? Not just yet, thanks. Would you like to rewrite your unified mahjong terminology to be in accord with the terms everyone else uses? Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 50 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 10:49 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:cKGdnb5u-KyK0-PYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote >> How about this your statement (found in Argument 2, paragraph a, under >> title "Argument FOR the CC Theory" > OK, fixed, thanks. Good! >> Perhaps you might wish to rewrite the entire "CC Theory", given the >> recent corrections you've made in the recent discussions? > Not just yet, thanks. Would you like to rewrite your unified mahjong > terminology to be in accord with the terms everyone else uses? I will, IF I have made corrections or changes openly AND such corrections or changes are in conflict with the contents of the table ^_^ -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 51 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 7:58 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165579647.972997.77820@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Cofa Tsui wrote: > Hello Cofa. OK. I think I understand what you are saying now. Thanks > for clarifying your meaning. ^_^ > If the dates are irrelevant then 'should have existed' could be say.... > 3 months before. In other words, it may have been invented 3 months > earlier and was discovered 3 months later by someone who then discribed > it in there manual? Yes. Or even 3 days - As long as those prequalifications are met. > OK. I won't go into this as it is a bit off topic IMO. No problem. But I knew someone will ;-) - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> >> > Can you say they did exist?? ^_^ >> >> We can't *definitely* deny the existence either, can we? ^_^ >> > WHOA! You haven't answered my question. Have you got any good evidence >> > for 'non CC 1920's variants'?? >> Michael, answering your question will inevitably bring us back to the >> beginning of this topic. ^_^ > Yep! ^_^ >> Millington's book says there were many variants in the 1920s. Some say >> they >> are "CC-like", so they are no variants at all. I of course maintain >> reading >> Millington's word in its original form. I don't have books of the 1920s. >> However, none of those who have those books say those books deny the >> existence of *other* variants. Nowadays people would say those variants >> are >> similar to one another, or the differences are minor. To me they are >> simply >> variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to >> the >> terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^ > OK. I need to clarify a few things about Millington - at least the way > I see what he wrote, and to which I think you would agree? For a start, > it seems to me the when he used the term **variants** or **other > variants**, in his seemingly characteristically muddled way of > writing, he was talking about the period 1910 to 1920 and the post 1920 > period as well. For the 1910 - 1920 period he explains this in such > places as the last paragraph on page 7 and in his summary on page 126 > of the 'Chinese Variant Forms' chapter. For the post 1920 period, he > uses the term on page 127 of the 'Rival Forms of Mah-Jongg' chapter for > example. > It seems to me that in Chapter 7 'Chinese Variant Forms of Mah-Jongg' > he describes the 4 *important ways*, or categories, these variant forms > differed from one another - and presumably his so-called 'Classical > Mah-Jongg'. He provides examples in each category. > He attrributes certain confusing features or idiosyncracies of the non > chinese forms to contamination, by certain features of the 1910 - 1920 > 'Chinese variant' forms, that were carried over from that period **into > the Chinese post 1920 period**.(see page 131) > But should we bother with Millington in this regard??? Millington cites > no contemporary 1910 - 1920 or post 1920's evidence of these rival > existing forms or variants that we can check. How do we know they did > exist as he describes them? Thanks for asking my opinions ^_^ To me, while no other evidences indicating otherwise, I would have accepted what Millington says about those variants, even though he did not provide any hard evidence (but I believe he has done intensive research). Now given you having raised this question and providing your concerns, and Julian having talked about how Millington did his research (Nov 22), one may become reasonably cautioned about what he (Millington) says about the relevant topic. By the way, I see evidences about mahjong in a different way than you do (I guess). I believe mahjong (or "the game", if you prefer) is an evolved game. It might be evolved from different ancient games into one, then that one game diverged into many forms as part of the evolution progress over time. By the time people discovered (or began to record) "the game", it has already diverged into more than one forms (if not many forms). If mahjong is an invention in the past century or so, it is hard to believe evidence of its invention does not exist! As to your question "How do we know they did exist as he describes them?" My answer is: Accept it or find evidence to prove they didn't ^_^ [...] > However, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence though. My last sentence was: "To me they are simply >> variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to >> the >> terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^" Simple, because the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" did not exist in the 1920s (these names are used to discribe Millington's form of play, if I understand correctly). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > [snip] >> In fact, you can't deny the existence of the >> *variants* - They are part of the history, as I have outlined above. > Not from Millington they aren't, IMO. If variants did exist in the > 1920's in China then this statement must be backed up by good reasons. > These come from the booklets and books that were published in that > period and that deal with the game in China. Because these books > provide evidence that gives us good reason to consider that these forms > in the books did exist, this does not mean that we can deny the > existence of other variants forms. BUT, this is not the same as saying > other variant forms did exist. We just don't know. They remain > possible, that's all. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. > No working argument can be founded on a possibility. This is quite a special "feature" with mahjong, I guess. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 52 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 9 2006 4:40 pm Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1165579647.972997.77820@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Cofa Tsui wrote: Hello Cofa. [snip] [I wrote] > > But should we bother with Millington in this regard??? Millington cites > > no contemporary 1910 - 1920 or post 1920's evidence of these rival > > existing forms or variants that we can check. How do we know they did > > exist as he describes them? > Thanks for asking my opinions ^_^ > To me, while no other evidences indicating otherwise, I would have accepted > what Millington says about those variants, even though he did not provide > any hard evidence (but I believe he has done intensive research). Now given > you having raised this question and providing your concerns, and Julian > having talked about how Millington did his research (Nov 22), one may become > reasonably cautioned about what he (Millington) says about the relevant > topic. OK. > By the way, I see evidences about mahjong in a different way than you do (I > guess). I believe mahjong (or "the game", if you prefer) is an evolved game. > It might be evolved from different ancient games into one, This is part of a strong hypothesis that has some supporting evidence. Another possible explanation for the game's appearance is that it is a creation by an individual or group of individuals with influence from preceding games. Another is that it is a creation by an individual or group of individuals without any influence from preceding games. There are other explanations/hypotheses than one can draw up I should think. >then that one > game diverged into many forms as part of the evolution progress over time. This hypothesis is supported by good evidence for the tile set - at least from the 1870's to the 1920's. > By the time people discovered (or began to record) "the game", it had > already diverged into more than one forms (if not many forms). This is also supported by good evidence. [snip] > As to your question "How do we know they did exist as he describes them?" My > answer is: Accept it or find evidence to prove they didn't ^_^ Hang on Cofa. You are asking me to find evidence that they didn't exist? That would mean I would have to go back in time to the period 1910 to at least 1925 and search all of China to find evidence that that didn't exist. Is that what you are asking me to do? Millington claims that these variants existed in the periods I mentioned. He provides NO good evidence to give me compelling reason to consider that these variants did exist. So why should I accept his claim that they did?? I am not saying they didn't exist however, only that there is nothing to give me good reasons for thinking they did exist. I could search and try to find evidence they did exist and that is still part of an ongoing project with myself and Thierry and Tom etc. So far, there is evidence from the post 1920 period in the form of documents from various writers(Babcock, Lee, etc etc). There are some pieces of documentation for the period 1910 - 1920 and one that we know of that mentions the rules etc is from Mauger (1915) (mentioned by Thierry on this Newsgroup as I recall?). > > However, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence though. > My last sentence was: "To me they are simply > >> variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection to > >> the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^" > Simple, because the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" did not exist in the 1920s (these > names are used to discribe Millington's form of play, if I understand > correctly). I don't see the problem with these terms as applied to the variants as defined by Tom. As I see it these terms are used by Tom to describe certain groups into which these variants are placed, after analysis of their respective gameplay features. Do you disagree with Tom's classification? I would like to know your thoughts on this. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> In fact, you can't deny the existence of the > >> *variants* - They are part of the history, as I have outlined above. > > Not from Millington they aren't, IMO. If variants did exist in the > > 1920's in China then this statement must be backed up by good reasons. > > These come from the booklets and books that were published in that > > period and that deal with the game in China. Because these books > > provide evidence that gives us good reason to consider that these forms > > in the books did exist, this does not mean that we can deny the > > existence of other variants forms. BUT, this is not the same as saying > > other variant forms did exist. We just don't know. They remain > > possible, that's all. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. > > No working argument can be founded on a possibility. > This is quite a special "feature" with mahjong, I guess. What "feature" do you mean Cofa? Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 53 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 1:54 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165711206.873538.44770@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> As to your question "How do we know they did exist as he describes them?" >> My >> answer is: Accept it or find evidence to prove they didn't ^_^ > Hang on Cofa. You are asking me to find evidence that they didn't > exist? That would mean I would have to go back in time to the period > 1910 to at least 1925 and search all of China to find evidence that > that didn't exist. Is that what you are asking me to do? > Millington claims that these variants existed in the periods I > mentioned. He provides NO good evidence to give me compelling reason to > consider that these variants did exist. So why should I accept his > claim that they did?? I am not saying they didn't exist however, only > that there is nothing to give me good reasons for thinking they did > exist. OK, Michael, here's something why I said "accept it or prove they didn't." You said: "He provides NO good evidence to give me compelling reason to consider that these variants did exist." Did you mean he did at least "provide *some* evidences but *not strong enough* to convince you that these variants did exist"? Work on these "some evidences" and prove that they are wrong, in order to prove that these variants did not exist. [...] - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > However, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence though. >> My last sentence was: "To me they are simply >> >> variants, not to mention the fact that they don't have any connection >> >> to >> >> the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" ^_^" >> Simple, because the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" did not exist in the 1920s >> (these >> names are used to discribe Millington's form of play, if I understand >> correctly). > I don't see the problem with these terms as applied to the variants as > defined by Tom. As I see it these terms are used by Tom to describe > certain groups into which these variants are placed, after analysis of > their respective gameplay features. Do you disagree with Tom's > classification? I would like to know your thoughts on this. I quote what I have replied to Tom's similar question: "The relevance is you cannot say something older is like the yonger. Games in the 1920s are on their own; games like "CC", "HKOS", etc., were formed after the mid-1900s. Saying any of these later forms to be the same as those in the 1920s, without considering any possible evolutions over time, is simply inaccurate." [...] >> > No working argument can be founded on a possibility. >> This is quite a special "feature" with mahjong, I guess. > What "feature" do you mean Cofa? The "feature" is the fact that we have so much that we don't know about the history of mahjong, that we can't say definitely that something did not exist in a time, even though evidence of its existence in that time is not found. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 54 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 12:57 pm Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Cofa Tsui wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > > Cofa Tsui wrote: > >> As to your question "How do we know they did exist as he describes them?" > >> My > >> answer is: Accept it or find evidence to prove they didn't ^_^ > > Hang on Cofa. You are asking me to find evidence that they didn't > > exist? That would mean I would have to go back in time to the period > > 1910 to at least 1925 and search all of China to find evidence that > > that didn't exist. Is that what you are asking me to do? > > Millington claims that these variants existed in the periods I > > mentioned. He provides NO good evidence to give me compelling reason to > > consider that these variants did exist. So why should I accept his > > claim that they did?? I am not saying they didn't exist however, only > > that there is nothing to give me good reasons for thinking they did > > exist. Hello Cofa. > OK, Michael, here's something why I said "accept it or prove they didn't." > You said: "He provides NO good evidence to give me compelling reason to > consider that these variants did exist." Did you mean he did at least > "provide *some* evidences but *not strong enough* to convince you that these > variants did exist"? Work on these "some evidences" and prove that they are > wrong, in order to prove that these variants did not exist. OK. 'Good evidence' = evidence in the claims *favour*. Millington provided no evidence in his claims' favour, and therefore no good evidence, regarding the existence of particular variants in the periods I mentioned ( unless I have missed something in his book). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> Simple, because the terms "CC" or "Non-CC" did not exist in the 1920s > >> (these > >> names are used to discribe Millington's form of play, if I understand > >> correctly). > > I don't see the problem with these terms as applied to the variants as > > defined by Tom. As I see it these terms are used by Tom to describe > > certain groups into which these variants are placed, after analysis of > > their respective gameplay features. Do you disagree with Tom's > > classification? I would like to know your thoughts on this. > I quote what I have replied to Tom's similar question: "The relevance is you > cannot say something older is like the yonger. Games in the 1920s are on > their own; games like "CC", "HKOS", etc., were formed after the mid-1900s. > Saying any of these later forms to be the same as those in the 1920s, > without considering any possible evolutions over time, is simply > inaccurate." I think Tom has provided an answer to this, so I'll await your response to that. ^_^ [I said] > >> > No working argument can be founded on a possibility. > >> This is quite a special "feature" with mahjong, I guess. > > What "feature" do you mean Cofa? [you said] > The "feature" is the fact that we have so much that we don't know about the > history of mahjong, that we can't say definitely that something did not > exist in a time, even though evidence of its existence in that time is not > found. No one can reasonably say that something ***did not or does not exist in ANY time***. ( I am sorry Cofa, but I have been saying this repeatedly in this thread ^_^). As far as I am aware no one is claiming that something did not exist in a time period. Can you tell me who is claiming this and where I can find that claim? I am sure that if I said that because there is so much we don't know about the history of elephants, we can't say definitely that pink flying elephants did not exist in the 1920's, even though there is no evidence of their existence in the 1920's - you would disagree with me (I hope). I would hope you would come up to me and say 'hey! Michael, what evidence have you got, to convince me flying pink elephants *did exist* in the 1920's? Show me the evidence.' ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 55 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2006 7:23 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165870671.470723.98000@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > I think Tom has provided an answer to this, so I'll await your response > to that. ^_^ I have replied to Tom already. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > [I said] >> >> > No working argument can be founded on a possibility. >> >> This is quite a special "feature" with mahjong, I guess. >> > What "feature" do you mean Cofa? > [you said] >> The "feature" is the fact that we have so much that we don't know about >> the >> history of mahjong, that we can't say definitely that something did not >> exist in a time, even though evidence of its existence in that time is >> not >> found. > No one can reasonably say that something ***did not or does not exist > in ANY time***. ( I am sorry Cofa, but I have been saying this > repeatedly in this thread ^_^). As far as I am aware no one is claiming > that something did not exist in a time period. Can you tell me who is > claiming this and where I can find that claim? I was talking about the "feature" that you asked about... I made an example before: If "origina of mahjong" is invented in 2006 and is properly documented. In the future, anyone can say, *definitely*, that "origina of mahjong" did not exist prior to 2006. With mahjong (or *the game*), the feature is: only when you find the evidence of the origin/creation, you cannot definitely say that it did not exist. > ( I am sorry Cofa, but I have been saying this repeatedly in this thread > ^_^) (I thought you have told me you understood what I mean ^_^) -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 56 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2006 2:34 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > I have replied to Tom already. OK. Thanks Cofa. I'll check it out. [I said] > > No one can reasonably say that something ***did not or does not exist > > in ANY time***. ( I am sorry Cofa, but I have been saying this > > repeatedly in this thread ^_^). As far as I am aware no one is claiming > > that something did not exist in a time period. Can you tell me who is > > claiming this and where I can find that claim? > I was talking about the "feature" that you asked about... I made an example > before: If [the] "origin of mahjong" is invented in 2006 and is properly > documented. In the future, anyone can say, *definitely*, that [the] "origin of > mahjong" did not exist prior to 2006. With mahjong (or *the game*), the > feature is: only when you find the evidence of the origin/creation, you > cannot definitely say that it did not exist. I am not being pedantic Cofa, but I never use the word 'definitely'. Certainty is not for me because I never know if there is some evidence I have overlooked - even if the documentation seems foolproof. However, I would say I am *justified* in claiming the origin of Mahjong did not exist prior to 2006. Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. Does your last sentence mean 'with mahjong (or the *game*), the feature is: only when you find the evidence of the time of the origin/creation, can you definitely say that the game did not exist before that time'. Is this what you mean by your last sentence? Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 57 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Dec 13 2006 12:40 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1165919660.111964.98940@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > [I said] >> > No one can reasonably say that something ***did not or does not exist >> > in ANY time***. ( I am sorry Cofa, but I have been saying this >> > repeatedly in this thread ^_^). As far as I am aware no one is claiming >> > that something did not exist in a time period. Can you tell me who is >> > claiming this and where I can find that claim? >> I was talking about the "feature" that you asked about... I made an >> example >> before: If [the] "origin of mahjong" is invented in 2006 and is properly >> documented. In the future, anyone can say, *definitely*, that [the] >> "origin of >> mahjong" did not exist prior to 2006. With mahjong (or *the game*), the >> feature is: only when you find the evidence of the origin/creation, you >> cannot definitely say that it did not exist. > I am not being pedantic Cofa, but I never use the word 'definitely'. > Certainty is not for me because I never know if there is some evidence > I have overlooked - even if the documentation seems foolproof. However, > I would say I am *justified* in claiming the origin of Mahjong did not > exist prior to 2006. Michael, I just made an example here - I did mean "originA of mahjong", a fake name for illustration purposes only. Sorry if there is any confusion. > Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. your last sentence doesn't make > sense to me. > Does your last sentence mean 'with mahjong (or the *game*), the feature > is: only when you find the evidence of the time of the origin/creation, > can you definitely say that the game did not exist before that time'. > Is this what you mean by your last sentence? Yes. It's very similar to the creation and proper registration of a trademark. If the date and registration is known, we can definitely say that the registered trademark did not exist prior to a so and so date, which is the date of its registration. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 58 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Dec 13 2006 10:40 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Hello Cofa. [I said] > > I am not being pedantic Cofa, but I never use the word 'definitely'. > > Certainty is not for me because I never know if there is some evidence > > I have overlooked - even if the documentation seems foolproof. However, > > I would say I am *justified* in claiming the origin of Mahjong did not > > exist prior to 2006. I should have said that when I wrote the above I was using your 'did not exist' as an example to point out why I think using 'definitely' or 'certainty' is unwise. I should have said that I do not endorse saying something 'did not exist', even when I used it in my example. Sorry for the omission. > > Does your last sentence mean 'with mahjong (or the *game*), the feature > > is: only when you find the evidence of the time of the origin/creation, > > can you definitely say that the game did not exist before that time'. > > Is this what you mean by your last sentence? > Yes. It's very similar to the creation and proper registration of a > trademark. If the date and registration is known, we can definitely say that > the registered trademark did not exist prior to a so and so date, which is > the date of its registration. My working approach is more circumspect or cautionary (and I may be wrong in all of this ^_^). I would ask how do you know it definitely did not exist prior to so and so a date? It is entirely possible that the registration office made an error of which they are unaware and someone else had already registered the trademark. Humans make errors all the time. So, I would rephrase your statement thus; 'the known date and registration gives us good evidence, and therefore convincing reason, to consider that the registered trademark *did exist* at that date, which is the date of its registration.' AND, the additional statement is; 'since we have no good evidence of the trademark existing before the date of its registration, we can claim that there is no convincing reason for thinking that it *did exist* prior to its registration'. That is why when we make a claim, such as 'the 'game' existed in 1873', we should apportion our acceptance of that claim to the evidence in the claim's **favour**. If the amount of evidence in the claim's favour puts it beyond reasonable doubt, then we are *justified in accepting* that claim and *justified in saying* it is accurate. BUT, even though we are *justified in accepting* that claim, our justification does not ensure or certify the claim is accurate or correct because, as I have said before, we may have overlooked something that weakens our justification. So, once again, we can still *say* our claim is accurate and we are justified in *accepting* it, because we have no good reason to doubt it - it is beyond reasonable doubt, and that gives us our justification. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 59 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 9:41 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yp7eh.451288$R63.126824@pd7urf1no... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1165440875.267119.73520@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Cofa Tsui wrote: >>> >> Common sense [normally] comes from certain evidence that is already >>> >> known. >>> >> My understanding is, for any case else (cases where there is no >>> >> evidence) >>> >> one still has to make conclusion based on common sense without any >>> >> direct >>> >> evidence. >> [snip] >>> > Then in this case, where your conclusion is not supported or based >>> > upon >>> > *any evidence* - be it documentary or from experience, your conclusion >>> > is NOT based on common sense but is instead just a guess, and guesses >>> > are worthless when discussing issues because they tell us absolutely >>> > nothing. ^_^ >>> I agree with you. That's why I used "direct evidence." ^_^ >> Hello Cofa. I am confused here. Are you saying that 'without any direct >> evidence' = indirect evidence? If so, what indirect evidence are you >> talking about? > See my reply to your next part. Gentlemen, It would be SO much easier to read your discussion if both of you would please edit out non-essential parts of the previous message to which you are replying! In the above example, since the entire thread still resides on Usenet for easy retrieval by anyone, the only part that needed to be retained was Michael's question at the end. The discussion is interesting to follow, but it's difficult to read when having to wade through all that back history to find the occasional new comment. Just a thought... Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 60 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2006 3:25 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author [Tom said] > Gentlemen, > It would be SO much easier to read your discussion if both of you would > please edit out non-essential parts of the previous message to which you are > replying! In the above example, since the entire thread still resides on > Usenet for easy retrieval by anyone, the only part that needed to be > retained was Michael's question at the end. > The discussion is interesting to follow, but it's difficult to read when > having to wade through all that back history to find the occasional new > comment. I didn't know if it was THAT interesting. ^_^ I was contemplating a private email discussion but decided that the points I am trying to clarify are important, for me at least, when I discuss historical/development information and how best to treat that evidence and how best to draw some conclusions from it. The very interesting 1903 thread is a case in point. Rule styles are not my forte so I find the discussion particularly educational - and the chart you constructed very helpful. > Just a thought... Sure. It is difficult to know how much to [snip], so I try to leave just the two previous quotes. The idea is to reply to a comment, but that comment has to be seen in context so I try to leave just the comment before it. Hope that makes sense! Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 61 From: Tina Christensen - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:10 am Email: "Tina Christensen" <t...@mahjong.dk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author mstanw...@aol.com wrote: > I didn't know if it was THAT interesting. ^_^ Oh, but it is! Very much so. Thanks, Tina Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 62 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 4:12 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > Hi Michael, you wrote: > >2) Millington claims that his CMJ rules were around just before the > >1920's, and it seems at the beginning of the 1920's. > I didn't get that before. In any case, the game as described by Millington > (in his book, in detail) falls within the "family" I refer to as "Chinese > Classical," just as does the game as described by Babcock, and by Hartman, > Foster, Racster, Work, and many others. (I am not talking about any other > alleged variant[s] Millington mentioned, since I know absolutely zilch about > those.) Hello Tom. Yes, I understand you here. > And of course it matters not whether the term "classical" was used in > reference to the 1920s rules during the 1920s or not. Nobody called World > War I "World War I" at the time it happened, nor during the intervening > years before World War II. But if I say "World War I" to you, you know > exactly what I'm talking about. I guess we could debate exactly which date > it started on, but that alone doesn't obviate the correctness of calling it > "World War I." I don't think this has anything to do with my concerns. My concern was not about the existence or nonexistence of the term 'classical' in the 1920's - just the contemporary use of it in relation to the mah-jongg rules that were prevalent in the 1920's. > >So if this is the case then Millington's 'classical' is not Tom's > >'classical' (but see below), now that we have both meanings. > Millington's described game, having minor variations from the usual > described CC game, is a "species" under the "family" of CC. Babcock's Red > Book describes a sibling "species," with minor differences from Millington's > but still under the "family" of CC. Yes, I understand all this. It is an excellent way of describing the relationships between various rule sets. [snip] > I'm sorry, but if this is getting silly, it's probably because I > don't think on the same elevated level that you do (and do not understand > the thinking that's used on your level). To me, the analogy I just made fits > perfectly - if it doesn't to you, then I may never be able to understand the > level of thinking you're engaged in. I wish you would stop with this 'elevated level' stuff. ^_^ I don't think what you are saying is 'silly' and I certainly don't think any of us in this discussion is thinking on different 'levels' as you describe. I am trying to politely get to grips with an issue that is bothering me and you are very kindly helping me by replying to my queries. I hope you understand that my queries are only to clarify the issues and points raised? ^_^ > >Does this mean that the 1920's CC rules were *documented by Millington* > Yes. He documented his own take on CC (his own "species" within the > "family"), but long after the 1920s. What of it? Because of what you say in the definition of CC under the 'CC Theory, Definitions'...... "Chinese Classical - A name used by the proponents of the CC Theory to refer to the mah-jongg rules that were prevalent in the 1920s (as documented by the books of Hartman, Foster, Babcock, Racster, Millington, and many others)...". In this definition you say that the term 'CC' refers to the MJ rules prevalent *in the 1920's* (as documented by... Millington....) ..." . The way this reads to me is that Millington in 1977 *documented* these 1920's rules. To me this says that in addition to the 1920's authors, Millington is also used as evidence that these 'CC' rules existed. But for me his proposition is without evidential support. That is, there is no evidence his 'classical MJ' existed in the 1920's let alone in the preceding decade, so how can his 'classical MJ' be evidence or provide support for the existence of your 'CC' rules in the 1920's? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >>>relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were > >>>around in that time frame. > >> What others? We have no documentation of any other rule sets extant in > >> the 1920s. > >'The others' = 'other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules'. > Yes, but WHAT other variants of mahjong? Millington says there were such, > but it's a throwaway fact, offered with no evidence, names, titles, or > details of any kind. We have no documented proof of *ANY* other rule sets > extant in the 1920s. I'm just objecting to your saying "the others that were > around in that time frame," without having used the word "alleged" or > "allegedly" in there somewhere. Until I see some hard evidence, I reject the > notion that there WERE any other variants (outside the CC "family") during > the 1920s. Sorry. I'll go back to what I said originally in one of my earlier posts. "Well, Tom's tree diagram and associated discussion illustrates the claim that a specific set of rules, very prevalent in the 1920's, which he calls 'chinese classical' or 'classic Chinese rules', gave rise to other variant sets of 'Mahjong' rules. I think Tom and Allan have given a good account of their hypothesis that seeks to explain the relationship between this prevalent rule set and the others that were around in that time frame." OK. The 'prevalent rule set' in the 1920's refers to your 'CC' rules. The 'others' refers to the sets of 1920's rules that you claim were derived from your 'CC' rules. I called these 'variants', since they differ in their form and details from your 'CC' 1920's rules. And I mentioned this in my original paragraph above, in connection with your tree diagram and your (and Allan's) account of your hypothesis that this tree diagram illustrates. Sorry for the confusion. I hope its clearer?! ^_^ Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 63 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 9:33 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author mstanw...@aol.com wrote: > I wish you would stop with this 'elevated level' stuff. ^_^ I don't > think what you are saying is 'silly' and I certainly don't think any of > us in this discussion is thinking on different 'levels' as you > describe. My point is that I know you aren't stupid, but I don't understand what point you're grappling with. So therefore it must be I who am stupid. > I am trying to politely get to grips with an issue that is > bothering me and you are very kindly helping me by replying to my > queries. I hope you understand that my queries are only to clarify the > issues and points raised? ^_^ I still don't understand the issue that's bothering you. > Because of what you say in the definition of CC under the 'CC Theory, > Definitions'...... > In this definition you say that the term 'CC' refers to the MJ rules > prevalent *in the 1920's* (as documented by... Millington....) ..." . > The way this reads to me is that Millington in 1977 *documented* these > 1920's rules. Yes. > To me this says that in addition to the 1920's authors, > Millington is also used as evidence that these 'CC' rules existed. Um... no... > But for me his proposition is without evidential support. That is, > there is no evidence his 'classical MJ' existed in the 1920's I don't care about Millington's distinctions between different "forms" from the 1920s, since he doesn't explain them enough. That doesn't mean that the rules he describes in his chapter 3 are not essentially the classic 1920s rules (which I've previously called "CC"). Julian said that one detail of Millington's game that I questioned was from Ly Yu Sang, a 1920s author. The game described by Millington is the 1920s game (which continued to be played after the 1920s despite the evolution of later variants), and I don't understand what it is you're saying. > let alone > in the preceding decade, I don't know what (if any) differences may have existed in the prevalent rules during the 1910s, since I haven't read any pre-1920 rule descriptions. > so how can his 'classical MJ' be evidence or > provide support for the existence of your 'CC' rules in the 1920's? I didn't mean to imply that they're "evidence" of any such thing. I don't understand this point. > OK. The 'prevalent rule set' in the 1920's refers to your 'CC' rules. > The 'others' refers to the sets of 1920's rules that you claim were > derived from your 'CC' rules. I called these 'variants', since they > differ in their form and details from your 'CC' 1920's rules. Those other forms evolved later. Whenceforth this notion that they were extant in the 1920s? > Sorry for the confusion. I hope its clearer?! ^_^ No, I'm still feeling stupid. In response to Edwin's revised taxonomy: > Not bad at all! I like it! (But I would leave out Millington ^_^)). I still don't understand. Cheers! (^_^) Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 64 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 12:17 pm Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > So therefore it must be I who am stupid. Hello Tom. Stop this stupidity stuff as well. It might be me not expressing myself properly. ^_^ > > Because of what you say in the definition of CC under the 'CC Theory, > > Definitions'...... > > In this definition you say that the term 'CC' refers to the MJ rules > > prevalent *in the 1920's* (as documented by... Millington....) ..." . > > The way this reads to me is that Millington in 1977 *documented* these > > 1920's rules. > Yes. > > To me this says that in addition to the 1920's authors, > > Millington is also used as evidence that these 'CC' rules existed. > Um... no... AH! Here is the problem then. Again it rests on the seeming (to me) ambiguity of the term 'documented' as used in your CC definition - hence why I asterisked it. My understanding of the term is in the OED sense of "to prove by or support with documents". How does Millington provide support or evidence that these CC rules existed. (I am not denying that they existed in the 1920's, only that **Millington provides support or documentary evidence** for that claim. > > But for me his proposition is without evidential support. That is, > > there is no evidence his 'classical MJ' existed in the 1920's > I don't care about Millington's distinctions between different "forms" from > the 1920s, since he doesn't explain them enough. That doesn't mean that the > rules he describes in his chapter 3 are not essentially the classic 1920s > rules (which I've previously called "CC"). Sure, but how do the rules he describes provide evidence for the claim that your 'classic 1920's rules' existed in the 1920's? That's all I am asking.^_^ [snip] > The game described by Millington is the 1920s game (which continued to be played > after the 1920s despite the evolution of later variants),[snip] Ok. I know the rules described by him are the 1920's (and played after the 1920's) rules. I wont use his term for these rules because for me that term, as I have argued, refers to more than just a set of rules. > > so how can his 'classical MJ' be evidence or > > provide support for the existence of your 'CC' rules in the 1920's? > I didn't mean to imply that they're "evidence" of any such thing. [snip] The implication, as I see it, is a result of the term 'documented' in relation to Millington, in your CC definition. (see above) > > OK. The 'prevalent rule set' in the 1920's refers to your 'CC' rules. > > The 'others' refers to the sets of 1920's rules that you claim were > > derived from your 'CC' rules. I called these 'variants', since they > > differ in their form and details from your 'CC' 1920's rules. > Those other forms evolved later. Whenceforth this notion that they were > extant in the 1920s? My mistake. That date for the derivations shouldn't be in there. But I hope now I have clarified what I meant about the 'others'? ^_^ > > Not bad at all! I like it! (But I would leave out Millington ^_^)). > I still don't understand. See above. Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 65 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 4:44 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote of the... > ambiguity of the term 'documented' as used in your CC definition - > hence why I asterisked it. My understanding of the term is in the OED > sense of "to prove by or support with documents". I never claimed to be using that word in such a strict way. I also use the word to mean "described" or "defined," and I also use the word in regards to game design "documents." I use the word "documents" a lot in my profession, and I don't always use the OED definition. > Sure, but how do the rules he describes provide evidence for the claim > that your 'classic 1920's rules' existed in the 1920's? That's all I am > asking.^_^ They don't, and I never said they did. The existence of the 1920s rules is proven by 1920s books, newspapers, and magazines. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 66 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 3:44 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote of the... > > ambiguity of the term 'documented' as used in your CC definition - > > hence why I asterisked it. My understanding of the term is in the OED > > sense of "to prove by or support with documents". > I never claimed to be using that word in such a strict way. I also use the > word to mean "described" or "defined," and I also use the word in regards to > game design "documents." I use the word "documents" a lot in my profession, > and I don't always use the OED definition. Hello Tom. So do you mean 'described' when you use the word documented? Sorry for my confusion but I usually take a dictionary definition as being the one that has the actual standard usages of a term - a 'reportive definition'. I looked up three versions of the OED plus an online dictionary and they all gave me the same standard usages of the term as I have used it, in relation to your CC definition where Millington is concerned. So I don't think my use is such a strict way of using it - if it were it would be a 'stipulative definition'. But now that you have clarified your intention for me I can rest easy. ^_^ > > Sure, but how do the rules he describes provide evidence for the claim > > that your 'classic 1920's rules' existed in the 1920's? That's all I am > > asking.^_^ > They don't, and I never said they did. The existence of the 1920s rules is > proven by 1920s books, newspapers, and magazines. I said in my previous post that I was not querying the existence of the 1920's rules per se. I was querying your use of Millington as evidence for their existence, based on the ambiguousness of the term 'documented'. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 67 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 10:44 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote > Hello Tom. So do you mean 'described' when you use the word documented? > ... But now that you have clarified your intention for me I can rest easy. I'm glad that's cleared up. Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 68 From: Edwin Phua - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 3:08 am Email: "Edwin Phua" <fant...@pacific.net.sg> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Tom Sloper wrote: > Taxonomy (how mahjong variations might be classified/categorized) > ==================== > The lowest (most narrowly specific) category on a taxonomy chart might be > "species." The next higher (less narrowly specific) category might be > "genus," and the next higher one than that might be "family." One higher > than that would be "order." > If we taxonomize mahjong, we might say that there are two orders: Asian > forms, and NMJL (Modern American). Both belong to the class of games called > "mahjong." Mahjong, rummy, and Rummikub could be said to be members of a > phylum "games for multiple players in which sets are collected to form a > hand." (I'm just throwing out ideas here, not presenting a fully-formed > theory, don't anybody shoot me for any inconsistencies that may exist in > this idea.) > Let's get back to the Asian order. Asian mahjong consists of numerous > variants, which we can call "families." Chinese Classical, Hong Kong Old > Style, Japanese Riichi/Dora, British Empire (Western), etc. Under each > family there can be subvariants. The one we're discussing here is Chinese > Classical (CC). > 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand, and now > Millington, would be different genuses (geni? Microsoft's spellchecker seems > to dislike either word) under the family "CC." And table rules people might > use under each of those genuses could be "species," if one wishes to > continue classifying that far down. The established plural for genus is genera. I think it is more appropriate and accurate to think of various major forms of mahjong as different species, and table/house rules as the subspecies. In biology, a basic (although problematic) definition of species identity is the inability to breed outside itself. Hence, taking our problem at hand, table rule variants (subspecies) are recognisably categorised within, say, Millington (the species). Players using different table/house variant rules (the subspecies) can play comfortably with each other, since the major details remain the same (thus, able to breed within itself, within the species). Taking the analogy further, different major forms can also interbreed, to form hybrids (which are usually classified at the genus+species level). This can happen within the genus, family or even order. So, for example, if HKOS is considered one genus, and CC another, a hybrid version combining features of the two parents can be created, resulting in a new genus (let's say, a hypothetical HK Modern), with a single species (the new hybrid, perhaps named after the creator, Mr. X). Then, there can be variant table rules, where the accumulated differences in one variant may lead to a new distinct species (again named after the creator, Mr. Y). There is evolution! A proposed (modified) taxonomy would be: Order: Asian mahjong forms Family: Mahjong forms of Chinese origin (as opposed to Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese etc.) Genus: Chinese Classical (CC) Species: 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand, Millington Subspecies: table or house variant rules > This is just a thought I'm throwing out there - you analyzers can run with > it. Taxonomic words may be useful in discussing variants in detail, but I'm > not about to drop the words "form" or "variant" in favor of the words > "genus," "species," or "phylum" for general mahjong discussions. (^_^) Cheers! Edwin Phua Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 69 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 4:24 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Edwin Phua wrote: > Tom Sloper wrote: > > Taxonomy (how mahjong variations might be classified/categorized) > > ==================== > > The lowest (most narrowly specific) category on a taxonomy chart might be > > "species." The next higher (less narrowly specific) category might be > > "genus," and the next higher one than that might be "family." One higher > > than that would be "order." > > If we taxonomize mahjong, we might say that there are two orders: Asian > > forms, and NMJL (Modern American). Both belong to the class of games called > > "mahjong." Mahjong, rummy, and Rummikub could be said to be members of a > > phylum "games for multiple players in which sets are collected to form a > > hand." (I'm just throwing out ideas here, not presenting a fully-formed > > theory, don't anybody shoot me for any inconsistencies that may exist in > > this idea.) > > Let's get back to the Asian order. Asian mahjong consists of numerous > > variants, which we can call "families." Chinese Classical, Hong Kong Old > > Style, Japanese Riichi/Dora, British Empire (Western), etc. Under each > > family there can be subvariants. The one we're discussing here is Chinese > > Classical (CC). > > 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand, and now > > Millington, would be different genuses (geni? Microsoft's spellchecker seems > > to dislike either word) under the family "CC." And table rules people might > > use under each of those genuses could be "species," if one wishes to > > continue classifying that far down. > The established plural for genus is genera. > I think it is more appropriate and accurate to think of various major > forms of mahjong as different species, and table/house rules as the > subspecies. In biology, a basic (although problematic) definition of > species identity is the inability to breed outside itself. > Hence, taking our problem at hand, table rule variants (subspecies) are > recognisably categorised within, say, Millington (the species). Players > using different table/house variant rules (the subspecies) can play > comfortably with each other, since the major details remain the same > (thus, able to breed within itself, within the species). > Taking the analogy further, different major forms can also interbreed, > to form hybrids (which are usually classified at the genus+species > level). This can happen within the genus, family or even order. So, for > example, if HKOS is considered one genus, and CC another, a hybrid > version combining features of the two parents can be created, resulting > in a new genus (let's say, a hypothetical HK Modern), with a single > species (the new hybrid, perhaps named after the creator, Mr. X). Then, > there can be variant table rules, where the accumulated differences in > one variant may lead to a new distinct species (again named after the > creator, Mr. Y). There is evolution! > A proposed (modified) taxonomy would be: > Order: Asian mahjong forms > Family: Mahjong forms of Chinese origin (as opposed to Japanese, > Korean, Vietnamese etc.) > Genus: Chinese Classical (CC) > Species: 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared > Hand, Millington > Subspecies: table or house variant rules Not bad at all! I like it! (But I would leave out Millington ^_^)). I'll have to go and find my taxonomy notes from my undergrad days and brush up on this! Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 70 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 21 2006 9:16 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Edwin Phua" <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote > A proposed (modified) taxonomy would be: > Order: Asian mahjong forms > Family: Mahjong forms of Chinese origin (as opposed to Japanese, > Korean, Vietnamese etc.) > Genus: Chinese Classical (CC) > Species: 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared > Hand, Millington > Subspecies: table or house variant rules Nice! Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 71 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 1 2006 10:53 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Edwin Phua wrote: > Tom Sloper wrote: > > Taxonomy (how mahjong variations might be classified/categorized) > > ==================== > > The lowest (most narrowly specific) category on a taxonomy chart might be > > "species." The next higher (less narrowly specific) category might be > > "genus," and the next higher one than that might be "family." One higher > > than that would be "order." > > If we taxonomize mahjong, we might say that there are two orders: Asian > > forms, and NMJL (Modern American). Both belong to the class of games called > > "mahjong." Mahjong, rummy, and Rummikub could be said to be members of a > > phylum "games for multiple players in which sets are collected to form a > > hand." (I'm just throwing out ideas here, not presenting a fully-formed > > theory, don't anybody shoot me for any inconsistencies that may exist in > > this idea.) > > Let's get back to the Asian order. Asian mahjong consists of numerous > > variants, which we can call "families." Chinese Classical, Hong Kong Old > > Style, Japanese Riichi/Dora, British Empire (Western), etc. Under each > > family there can be subvariants. The one we're discussing here is Chinese > > Classical (CC). > > 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared Hand, and now > > Millington, would be different genuses (geni? Microsoft's spellchecker seems > > to dislike either word) under the family "CC." And table rules people might > > use under each of those genuses could be "species," if one wishes to > > continue classifying that far down. > The established plural for genus is genera. > I think it is more appropriate and accurate to think of various major > forms of mahjong as different species, and table/house rules as the > subspecies. In biology, a basic (although problematic) definition of > species identity is the inability to breed outside itself. > Hence, taking our problem at hand, table rule variants (subspecies) are > recognisably categorised within, say, Millington (the species). Players > using different table/house variant rules (the subspecies) can play > comfortably with each other, since the major details remain the same > (thus, able to breed within itself, within the species). > Taking the analogy further, different major forms can also interbreed, > to form hybrids (which are usually classified at the genus+species > level). This can happen within the genus, family or even order. So, for > example, if HKOS is considered one genus, and CC another, a hybrid > version combining features of the two parents can be created, resulting > in a new genus (let's say, a hypothetical HK Modern), with a single > species (the new hybrid, perhaps named after the creator, Mr. X). Then, > there can be variant table rules, where the accumulated differences in > one variant may lead to a new distinct species (again named after the > creator, Mr. Y). There is evolution! > A proposed (modified) taxonomy would be: > Order: Asian mahjong forms > Family: Mahjong forms of Chinese origin (as opposed to Japanese, > Korean, Vietnamese etc.) > Genus: Chinese Classical (CC) > Species: 1920s Hong Kong 10-point, Early Babcock, One Double, Cleared > Hand, Millington > Subspecies: table or house variant rules In my opinion, the good thing of this chart is that one can reasonably add variants to the chart, at the genus level parallel to "CC", although those "variants" are not named or documented, but no one could definitely reject their existence. -------- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 72 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Sat, Nov 18 2006 8:36 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Michael wrote on 11/16/06: > Interesting Tom. Oddly enough, it was partly because I noticed the use > of the term 'classical' on this group, in relation to 1920's rules, > that I began to wonder about the term's origin. Maybe Millington originated it and we adopted it. I don't recall. > But why is the term > being used for 1920's rules? Why is it reasonable, Why is it *not* reasonable? > and why not some > other term? Because that's the term we've been using. What, for example, do you suggest would be more "reasonable"? > I cant find any link between the word 'classical' and these > 1920's rules - unless the actual term is 'classic'? You've lost me. I'd written: >> Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be >> confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical >> philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose >> thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? > How would it do that? On one hand, you've said Millington's thesis is flawed. On the other hand, you're saying the term Millington used for one thing (which may not even have actually existed) is being used inappropriately for some other thing. It's a nonsequitur that a term used in a flawed thesis could be used inappropriately. Or so it seems to me (you're much more a thinker than I). Michael wrote on 11/17/06: > So in the light of the absence of any evidence to support his claims, I > cannot accept Millington's claim that his 'classical form', which he > names 'classical Mah-Jong', existed between 1910 and 1920, and neither > can I accept his notion that some 'derivative forms' in turn evolved > from **his** so-called 'classical game'(Page 8). By the time Millington wrote his book, derivative forms did exist (they had evolved from what we've been calling CC, the 1920s rules). > Even though it is the case that rule books from the 1920s illustrate > rules that are similar to Millington's rules (with only minor > differences), and hence are similar to his 'classical Mah-Jong' rules > in this respect, it cannot be the case that we can say these rules can > be called 'classical Mah-Jong' rules, because that implies that these > rules (in the 1920's rulebooks) are the culmination of the process of > development as put forward by Millington. That's not what it implies to me. To me it implies age. > And as I (and others I think) > contend, Millington's hypothesis is not supported by any credible > evidence. I don't disagree that this "culmination of a process" thesis is unsupported. > We have to be careful here. Millington's game is called 'classical > Mah-Jong' NOT 'Chinese Classical'. I know that this name appears with > Millington's name elsewhere, but I think that connection is > inappropriate for the reason above and because Millington is quite > specific about what his rules are called (but if he does use the term > 'Chinese Classical' I would like to be corrected, so please let me > know). Millington also repeatedly refers to "the classical game" as > well (see pages 120 and 121) but not to the name 'Chinese Classical'. Since Millington's thesis is flawed, we needn't be constrained to the name Millington used. Since these are the rules in use in China at the time (since the game came from China and spread worldwide in the 1920s) it's not inappropriate to call them Chinese. > Hmm. Can you tell me where the 'classical' form is called the 'origin' > Cofa? And the origin of what? It's the earliest *documented* form, and all other forms evolved from that nexus point (if we don't call it a starting point). We don't know how the game was played prior to the end of the Qing Dynasty. We might call that prior game proto-mahjong, but Millington may be right insofar as the likelihood that there were numerous variants prior to 1910, since sets differed in makeup (meaning there may be more than one proto-mahjong). Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 73 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 5:02 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper wrote: > Michael wrote on 11/16/06: > > Interesting Tom. Oddly enough, it was partly because I noticed the use > > of the term 'classical' on this group, in relation to 1920's rules, > > that I began to wonder about the term's origin. > Maybe Millington originated it and we adopted it. I don't recall. > > But why is the term > > being used for 1920's rules? Why is it reasonable, > Why is it *not* reasonable? Hello Tom. My question relates to your possible decision to adopt Millington's term. You see, you said before in an earlier post "We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized those rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been calling it that because those are the earliest well-documented rules. It's reasonable to continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." " Since you made the claim of resonableness, I was hoping you could give me an answer since I don't know why you consider it "reasonable to continue calling the 1920's rules "classical"". Because I don't understand why you consider it reasonable *to continue* I think it would be unfair of you to expect me to provide an answer to a question I didn't ask. I am interested in your considerations, that's all (perhaps I was not clear enough as I was really after the continuation aspect). > > and why not some > > other term? > Because that's the term we've been using. What, for example, do you suggest > would be more "reasonable"? Now this is a good question. You see, I think you have made an important observation from your study of all the 1920's instruction books and booklets that you have. My area of study is elsewhere so I have relied on your testimony and your observations. Your observation of the type of rule set that was in use during the 1920's is important because in sheds light on the prevailing game-play at the time and provides a basis for possible explanations for why such a rule set was so prevalent and hence where did it come from. Obviously, if new observations come to light then they may modify that observation. But for now that is what we have to go on. As to a term to call this prevalent rule set, well, for example what about '1920's Chinese' or '1920's Chinese variant P' (P for prevalent)? Obviously the term needs to tell us exactly what relationship the rule set has to its environment and time etc. (My examples might be totally inappropriate but they are only suggestions). > > I cant find any link between the word 'classical' and these > > 1920's rules - unless the actual term is 'classic'? > You've lost me. Sorry. What meant to ask is where did you get the idea to call them 'classical'? I notice on your web site you call the game 'the classic game' and it "...was the only game played in China during the 1920s." A meaning of 'classic' is 'remarkably typical' and I though this is what you meant by 'classic'. On the other hand, you might have been using the terms 'classic' and 'classical' interchangeably. I don't know. (I know you said below that 'classical' implies age). > I'd written: > >> Besides, changing what we call the 1920s rules just so nobody will be > >> confused that we might have been talking about Millington's hypothetical > >> philosophically-informed rules puts too much weight on Millington, whose > >> thesis you've expressed doubt about. Doesn't it? > > How would it do that? > On one hand, you've said Millington's thesis is flawed. > On the other hand, you're saying the term Millington used for one thing > (which may not even have actually existed) is being used inappropriately for > some other thing. It's a nonsequitur that a term used in a flawed thesis > could be used inappropriately. Or so it seems to me (you're much more a > thinker than I). Nonsense. You are just as much a thinker as I. ^_^ We just have different ideas about certain things, that's all. Now I don't think (^_^) its not a non sequitur. In this case the same term, 'classical', appears on your web site in... "1. Chinese Classical (something the same or very similar to the form described in Millington) was the original form of mahjong. It was the predominant form of mahjong played all over China (including Canton and Hong Kong) in the 20's." ...and of course in Millington's book. The term on your web site appears alongside Millington's name as a direct reference to the 'classical' rule set described in his book. Since I contend that Millington's use of the term 'classical' is a direct reference to his unsubstantiated claim that his rule set was developed via principles from certain Chinese 'classical' texts, then I contend that the rule set you call 'Chinese Classical' - mentioned alongside the name of Millington - could also be construed as having been developed the same way Millington has described. Whether Millington's thesis is flawed or not is irrelevant in this case IMO. > Michael wrote on 11/17/06: > > So in the light of the absence of any evidence to support his claims, I > > cannot accept Millington's claim that his 'classical form', which he > > names 'classical Mah-Jong', existed between 1910 and 1920, and neither > > can I accept his notion that some 'derivative forms' in turn evolved > > from **his** so-called 'classical game'(Page 8). > By the time Millington wrote his book, derivative forms did exist (they had > evolved from what we've been calling CC, the 1920s rules). Yes. Their existence is not the issue. Don't forget the whole baggage attached to Millington's term. You accept his 'classical Mah-Jong' you accept where it came from, because where it came from forms what it is (ie., a Confucian construction that displays certain Confucian principles or ideals). But if where it came from is in question, then the existence of his 'classical Mah-Jong' - that is everything to do with it - is also in question. That doesn't mean that there was no 'game' like it around in the 1920's though. > > Even though it is the case that rule books from the 1920s illustrate > > rules that are similar to Millington's rules (with only minor > > differences), and hence are similar to his 'classical Mah-Jong' rules > > in this respect, it cannot be the case that we can say these rules can > > be called 'classical Mah-Jong' rules, because that implies that these > > rules (in the 1920's rulebooks) are the culmination of the process of > > development as put forward by Millington. > That's not what it implies to me. To me it implies age. Sure. But as I have said above, to me saying the terms 'classical' (as in 'Chinese classical' and 'same' and 'similar' and 'Millington' in the same breath could lead to confusion. [snip] > > We have to be careful here. Millington's game is called 'classical > > Mah-Jong' NOT 'Chinese Classical'. I know that this name appears with > > Millington's name elsewhere, but I think that connection is > > inappropriate for the reason above and because Millington is quite > > specific about what his rules are called (but if he does use the term > > 'Chinese Classical' I would like to be corrected, so please let me > > know). Millington also repeatedly refers to "the classical game" as > > well (see pages 120 and 121) but not to the name 'Chinese Classical'. > Since Millington's thesis is flawed, we needn't be constrained to the name > Millington used. Since these are the rules in use in China at the time > (since the game came from China and spread worldwide in the 1920s) it's not > inappropriate to call them Chinese. No its not. But in my view, using the term 'classical' is. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 74 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 6:14 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author mstanw...@aol.com writes: > Hello Tom. My question relates to your possible decision to adopt > Millington's term. You see, you said before in an earlier post > "We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized > those rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been > calling it that because those are the earliest well-documented rules. > It's reasonable to continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." " > Since you made the claim of resonableness, I was hoping you could give > me an answer since I don't know why you consider it "reasonable to > continue calling the 1920's rules "classical"". Because I don't > understand why you consider it reasonable *to continue* I think it Well, I think it's reasonable too. The rules we currently call CC are apparently Chinese, and they're also classical, since the 1920s is, in a reasonable sense of "classical", the classical period of mah-jong. >> [Tom: ]Since Millington's thesis is flawed, we needn't be constrained to the name >> Millington used. Since these are the rules in use in China at the time >> (since the game came from China and spread worldwide in the 1920s) it's not >> inappropriate to call them Chinese. > No its not. But in my view, using the term 'classical' is. Why? I can't think of a better contender than the 20s for mah-jong's classical era. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 75 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 8:05 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Julian Bradfield wrote: > mstanw...@aol.com writes: > > Hello Tom. My question relates to your possible decision to adopt > > Millington's term. You see, you said before in an earlier post > > "We haven't been calling it that just because Millington idealized > > those rules over some unknown rules he calls "popular," we've been > > calling it that because those are the earliest well-documented rules. > > It's reasonable to continue calling the 1920s rules "classical." " > > Since you made the claim of resonableness, I was hoping you could give > > me an answer since I don't know why you consider it "reasonable to > > continue calling the 1920's rules "classical"". Because I don't > > understand why you consider it reasonable *to continue* I think it > Well, I think it's reasonable too. The rules we currently call CC are > apparently Chinese, and they're also classical, since the 1920s is, in > a reasonable sense of "classical", the classical period of mah-jong. Hello Julian. Thanks for this added bit of information - that you consider the 1920's the classical period of mah-jong. I presume by the 'we' that Tom and others are in agreement on this? Also, can you tell me what 'sense' of "classical" is being employed here? Please note I am not querying the term 'Chinese' in this respect. > >> [Tom: ]Since Millington's thesis is flawed, we needn't be constrained to the name > >> Millington used. Since these are the rules in use in China at the time > >> (since the game came from China and spread worldwide in the 1920s) it's not > >> inappropriate to call them Chinese. > > No its not. But in my view, using the term 'classical' is. > Why? I can't think of a better contender than the 20s for mah-jong's > classical era. Well, I answered Tom's statement in the light of an absence of the meaning of "classical" he was employing. As I answered in my latest reply to Tom, in 'Argument 2, statement 1, from his web site, the meaning that could be gleaned for the term "classical" was the meaning assigned to it by Millington, since that statement said that CC was the same or very similar to the form described in Millington. So in the absence of any stipulated definition by Tom or Allan that is perfectly reasonable since, in my view, the meaning(s) of a word can only be gained from the meaning(s) of the sentence(s) in which that word is typically used. In this case, Millington was referenced throughout where this word appeared, and of course we are instructed that CC is the same or similar to the form in Millington, a form that also has the term 'classical' in its name. I could better understand your position when I know what sense of 'classical' you are invoking for the 1920's. Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 76 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 9:15 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author mstanw...@aol.com writes: >> Well, I think it's reasonable too. The rules we currently call CC are >> apparently Chinese, and they're also classical, since the 1920s is, in >> a reasonable sense of "classical", the classical period of mah-jong. > Hello Julian. Thanks for this added bit of information - that you > consider the 1920's the classical period of mah-jong. I presume by the > 'we' that Tom and others are in agreement on this? Also, can you tell > me what 'sense' of "classical" is being employed here? Please note I am > not querying the term 'Chinese' in this respect. Sense 6 in the OED entry (the sense in which it occurs in cl. music, cl. physics, etc.). Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 77 From: mstanw...@aol.com - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 9:26 am Email: mstanw...@aol.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Julian Bradfield wrote: > Sense 6 in the OED entry (the sense in which it occurs in cl. music, > cl. physics, etc.). Sorry. I have the pocket oxford and it doesn't go up to sense 6. Could write out what yours says? Cheers Michael Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |