A Hypothesis of the Name of the Game Mahjong.

External Since: May 30, 2008 Posts: 31

On Nov 25, 3:56�am, Cofa Tsui <cofat....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:45�pm, mstanw....RemoveThis@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:01�am, Cofa Tsui <cofat....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Cofa.

[snip]
> > The earliest documented evidence only tells us the earliest date of
> > the game's existence. Pure and simple.
>
> But then, it may be not just that *completely* pure and simple after
> all. *When a date of origin is missing*, "an evidence of earliest date
> of existence" can always imply that "an earlier date of existence
> (i.e., the actual earliest date of existence) is possible." Yours is a
> statement of fact; mine is a hypothesis based on fact(s) and logic.

Well.......... Yes and no ^_^. My statement says nothing at all about
origins. Nothing. So no, it is pure and simple.
However, when you add *your* statement to mine then yes, you can infer
that *an even earlier date* of existence is possible.

> > This is *completely different* to the question of the date of when the
> > game came into existence (the game's origin.)
>
> I know. An earlier date (a possible one) than the earliest date of
> evidence is not necessary the date of the origin. ^_^

Er no. The earliest date of evidence is not necessarily the date of
the origin. Perhaps you meant that?

> Probably not this time. I don't even see the "origin" is an issue
> here.

I agree.

> > The way you wrote your statement meant you had actual evidence of the
> > name existing before Westerners came to know the game. Hence why I
> > started asking questions.

> I use the term "Westerners" - I presume this is a term used by native
> Chinese when the two conditions below existed or became prominent:
> 1) to describe those white foreign visitors in China, and
> 2) when the population of this group of visitors become massive
> enough.
>
> I presume this term became used and popular only in the early years of
> the Republic. With this assumption, I am not convinced my statement
> "The name [ma que] (literally means sparrow in English) existed much
> longer than that (westerners coming to know the game)" could be wrong.

Well, with your definition of 'Westerners', no, I don't think your
statement is wrong. ^_^

> You have every reason to be pedantic, and demanding things to be more
> detailed and precise is perfectly fine with me. Perhaps with more
> detailed explanations, people may also know that existing evidences we
> have may not just be conclusions about things that we know, but are
> also evidences that could provide possibilities about things that we
> don't know.

This is true. But the fault is not with the evidence. It is with the
people who assume that when a statement or claim is made about
evidence, the statement says more than it does. For further claims of
possibility to be made you need extra or additional statements to be
made. Like what I commented upon above.

> > > As to Glover (~1872) writing about the name, I wonder how his "record"
> > > was distributed and how many Westerners were suposed to have read it
> > > back at his time? In other word, was his record ever published?
>
> > I don't think so. It was 'buried' in the AMNH archives. It arrived at
> > the Museum with his collection. It only came to light during my
> > research of the archives.
>
> If this is the case, I would not consider this piece of information is
> known to the world until the time you published it. Would you agree?

Based on what the Museum told me, I would agree.

> I tried to get a common understanding of the term "Westerners" from
> you as I thought it was readily available. I also could not find a
> result from a brief Internet search. So I have given my assumption
> here (see few paragraphs above).

Yes, thanks for that.

> I can hardly imagine an individual (a
> visitor from a foreign country) could be described as an Westerner in
> a wide and common way, unless this individual or the visit is by
> itself very popular.

By Westerner I think you mean in the collective sense.

Regards
Michael

External Since: May 30, 2008 Posts: 31

On Nov 25, 4:54�am, Cofa Tsui <cofat....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:19�am, mstanw....TakeThisOut@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 12:19 am, Cofa Tsui <cofat....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello Cofa.

> > I did wonder whether he had heard something like 'tsong'. Is it at
> > least possible he tried to replicate the sound by using 'zhong'?
>
> Or perhaps he *read* someone wrote him like "tsong" instead? Many
> English speaking people here in Vancouver call my name as "sui" and
> ignore the letter "t". Pronouncing "TS" together probably won't sound
> like "SI-ong" (more like "CH" like in "CHina" I assume), but ignoring
> the letter "T" would.

Ok. But in your experience, do you think he was trying to replicate
the sound of the word 'tsong', that he possibly heard in some dialect,
by using the word 'zhong?

> > > Another question: Would the term MAHJONG already exist at that time?
>
> > Babcock said he "applied the word 'Mah-Jongg' " to designate the the
> > game he evolved from the original core Chinese game.
> > I don't think the term 'Mah-Jongg' as seen here, existed prior to
> > Babcock.[...]
>
> Do you mean "Mah-Jong" instead? ("Mah-Jongg" certainly didn't exist at
> that time.)

Sorry, no. I only meant the term 'mah-jongg'. I don't know about term
'mah-jong' in this context.

Regards
Michael