On Dec 27, 3:46 pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 7:42 am, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 2:23 am, Cofa Tsui <cofat... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:> News release - Dec 23, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia.
>
> Thanks for the interest in the "news" message.
>
> [...]
>
> > > [..]
>
> >[..]
>
> [..]
> I'll leave your other issues to readers who are interested.
>
>+++++++++++++++++++
I was disappointed to read your expression of disinterest on the
issues. Your addition of mado (mahjong dollar), in my view, tends to
reinforce the money-base notion which was introduced erroneously long
ago by foreigners. Your MADO may serve a useful purpose for you in
some way now, but it can distort the mahjong symbols even further.
They are unclear and unsubstantiated now.
Excerpt from Wilkinson¡¯s Chinese Origin of Playing cards (1895) page
61 - 78:
¡°The suit of ping, "cakes," was originally and properly that of ch'ien
"sapecks" or "cash;" the "strings" are strips of one thousand cash,
the "myriads" are myriads of cash.¡±
Improper interpretation by foreigners led to confusion and mistaken
notion of money-base in Chinese card games, especially for the mahjong
symbols. As an example in the quoted text above, ¡°ping¡± is not a
¡°cakes¡±. Ping was meant Ÿýïž which is a thin flat round sheet of crusty
but pliable dough, like that served with Peking-Duck in Chinese
restaurants; it is not a baked cake. A baked cake is more like ¸â. A
sponge cake for example, is ó Ü›µ°¸â.
The difference is subtle and significant. The two items Ÿýïž and ¸â are
different in many ways: appearance, method of production and purpose
of use. Foreigners just can not appreciate the finer points of native
culture.
So, whatever translation offered by a foreigner, we should take it
with a grain of salt.
Although Wilkinson claims ¡°The suit of ping, "cakes," was originally
and properly that of ch'ien "sapecks" or "cash;" the "strings" are
strips of one thousand cash, the "myriads" are myriads of cash¡±, but
beware.
First, the ping (Ÿýïž) is NOT chien or ¡°cash¡±other than the fact the
shape is round. A Ÿýïž does not even have a square hole in the middle.
It is obviously NOT cash.
Going from NOT-cash to ¡°string of cash¡± and ¡°myriad of cash¡± is a huge
stretch of imagination. Yet so many people accepted the notion for so
long is simply amazing. Why a stranger from the Western world can have
so much influence to even the Chinese minds of today just baffles me.
There are self-proclaimed scholars and people far more articulate than
I am remain silent or disinterested on the history of the game.
What is more? Some people say a string is 100 cash and others say it
is a 1000 cash. The dictionary says a string is 1000 chein. The true
value or denomination has been disregarded even though that affects
directly the validity of the concept of ¡°cash¡±.
Regardless whether a string is 1000 or 100 coins, chien was meant for
use as loose change to make up fractions of a cent. It makes no sense
to transport or store hundreds and thousands of chiens. The notion of
string and myriad can only come from foreigners who lack depth in
appreciation for Chinese history and culture. Simple words like (Ê®)
ten, (°Ù) hundred, (ǧ) thousand without the (Èf) ten thousand could have
done a better job of indicating quantities if chien was to denote cash
amounts. Nothing was gained by including a ¡°String¡± which carried with
it nothing but ambiguity and confusion. Chinese people called it just
suo (Ë÷), with no implication of monetary value. Money (cash) notion
came from a foreigner¡¯s conjecture when the Chinese people did not
know any better.
From etymology, the suo (Ë÷) is a word made up of three components,
upper, middle and lower are symbolized with a quantity (Ê®), a bundle
together and threads, respectively. Translation is more like a rope
than 'a string of cash'. A rope is only a rope.
Anyways it was supposed to be a decimal system of currency, but look
at what Wilkinson said. The chien is ¡°worth just now about1/15 of a
cent¡±. That to me is an indication of a serious lack of knowledge.
According to Wilkinson, ¡°Everyone knows the sapeck of China, a round
coin of brass and copper, with a square hole in its center. It is as a
rule very badly cast, and it is worth just now about 1/15th of a cent.
This coin, then is the unit of the kun p'ai.¡±
I have never seen a bad cast copper coin. How Wilkinson can justify
his claim that ¡°as a rule¡±, they were ¡°badly cast¡±, I don¡¯t know.
Could the chien be so badly cast to such extend that they did not have
square holes? If so, then they were not copper coins of cash and they
could have been coins for divination.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
++++++++++++++
Cheers¡.al
> --
> Cofa Tsui
> International Mahjong[r] Infowebwww.iMahjong.com
Hot
Bloated Email? DetachPipe for Outlook
Mac
Linux
Games
PDA
Mobile
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Game Forums
RSS