Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design

On Oct 12, 8:45 am, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:41?am, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Sep 27, 11:33 pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Mahjong and Hu-Pai Designs
> > > (Relate to I-Ching & Taoism)
> [snip]
> > > To show how Mahjong and other Hu Pai game design could be based on
> > > concepts and principles in I-Ching,
> [snip]
> > > Conclusion:
> > > Mahjong and other Hu-game designs relates directly to I-Ching, .
> > > A coherent explanation is now possible for the symbols, structure and
> > > rules of the game.
>
> [snip]
>
> Your correspondences are interesting as correspondences. Very similar
> thinking is found in the Wu Xing. But correspondence does not imply
> cause. So now comes the pain... to show that such relationships were
> actual, rather than just possible.
>
Interesting correspondences? Yes.
Similar thinking found in Wu Xing? No.

What is an actual relationship/ Can you illustrate what you mean by
using the well-known moey-based hypothesis? Give an example of Cash
relationship.

> > > A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> > > Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
>
> You have to show with some documentation that, 1stly, there is your
> design in Mahjong and 2ndly, that the design came about in the way you
> think rather than in any other way and 3rdly, that the design is
> directly based on your concepts from the I-Ching. For example,

Being a Discussion Group, I would have expected an assisting approach
rather than a resistive response from you. I have cited different
examples in my posts. In time I will have answers for all the
questions you mentioned above.

Again, does your "money-based" meet all those conditions? My taiji (I-
Ching) related design concept, as I see it, reflects in the basic
pattern of mahjong game-play. That unique pattern is 2-3-3, then
2-3-3-3-3 where the 2 is a pair and the 3's are runs (and pengs,
later). In simplest terms, the 2 represent yin and yang; the 3's are
trigrams in I-Ching (Book of Changes).
Furthermore, only with such philosophical base for its design was
mahjong a game fit for the elite class of scholars of olden day China.

Let me repeat. In China where I played mahjong and in Chinatowns
outside China, mahjong players do not call the circles "cash". The
"cash" image was seized and propagated by foreigners who learned
mahjong from people who had little or only 'word of mouth' knowledge
of mahjong history.
Proof of that is the so called "variants" in nearly every thing
mahjong.

> there a Dragon and Phoenix relationship in Maque that was
> intentionally meant to reflect the yin and yang relationship?

You should know the answer to this. A ma que set had Dragon and
Phoenix tiles as real as ESWN winds tiles.
Do they intentionally reflect yin and yang? I would say more than
likely they do, as yin and yang are female and male symbols. So are
phoenix and dragon.

> Mentioning some written record where it states that the Dragon and
> Phoenix relationship in Maque actually represented the yin and yang
> realtionship would be a big plus. The same would need to be done for
> the other correspondences.
>
There was no original manuscript or authentic historical record, as
you well know. Any written record is acceptable?
I see a problem with your "money-base" hypot. Just because there had
been mention of it in written and translated literature, there is
hardly any need for further questions.

> I hope these suggestions are a help.
>
Your suggestions sound more like road-blocks.

> Cheers
> Michael
+++++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Nov 15, 11:35�am, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

Refer to my post of Nov 5th 1.42.

On Nov 1, 2:01 pm, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:27?pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the word for the "relationship" is "correspondence". I saw
> > it used. That is a feature in mahjong has a similar feature in madiao
> > or ma daio or mataio.
>
> But not in this case. Context is everything. Both maque and madiao are
> card games (the context). However, the relevant context is the three
> suited cards games (probably derived from four suited ones) that sport
> so-called money suits.
>
"Probably" is warning word. "Probably derived from four-suited ones"
is the "relevant context"?
What critical thinking is this?
Maque and Ma Diao are miles apart in every way.Ma Diao according to
Lo's translation had Zero Cash, Half Cash and taiji diagram for 1-
Cash. Maque has none of that.
Maque is pattern formation as objective (2-3-3-3-3. Ma Diao was trick
taking.
Maque has a pair of eyes and subsets of 3's. Ma Diao had tricks of 4
cards.
Maque and Ma Diao are two different animals, so to speak. Furthermore,
your extrapolation of '4 suits reduced to 3' is more unlikely than
probable. You know maque has 4 suits. The 4th suit of words
distinguishes maque from the rest.
Ma Diao's suit-reduction probably had no relevance in maque's origin
or eventual develoment. Maque has no "Zero Cash " or " Half Cash".

> So, a feature in mahjong has a similarity to another feature in a
> three suited money pack of cards. It is those card packs of three
> suits, that are hypothesised to derive from four suited card packs of
> the type used in ma diao.
>
Now I see the reduction to 3 suits from 4 was hypothesized. That is,
there was no proof. Whole suit of taiji symbols turned up in some game
for the circular shape and whole suit of fish in some other game for
the 'string' suit. That shows "money pack" is also hypothesized and
unproven; more than ever, unlikely.

> > What else is there to justify that "important progenitor" claim?
>
> I am not making the claim, as you describe it.
>
I was quoting from Tom's FAQ #11.
Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is $B>r(B.
This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
a "string" of anything.

By the way, where was the "string" first appeared in writing? Was it
Culin's or Wilkinson's interpretation?
++++++++++
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers......al

al <alee.RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:

> Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is 条.
> This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
> wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
> a "string" of anything.

Yes, it does seem to be in the wrong column. Prunner's catalogue
(p. 44) shows a deck of cards where the "strings" suit is marked with
the 条 character. (Except the 1! The 2-9 are marked with the numeral
and 条, and bear a picture of a female character; but the 1 bears the
characters 大鱼 (da2 yu2, big fish), illustrated with a fish saying
something I can't read but which the catalogue says means "copying
forbidden".)

You say that 条 can never be a "string" of anything.
At least the Unicode database lists "string" as one of its possible
meanings, though my paper dictionaries don't - but it seems it can
mean pretty much anything long and thin, so why not "string"?
Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word 厂条 for a
silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
century.

On Dec 1, 10:30 am, Julian Bradfield <j....DeleteThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Anyways, did you see that symbol in Andy's web page? The symbol is ��.
> > This symbol is different and important to note. Although placed in the
> > wrong column but it is supposed to be suo or soc. And it can never be
> > a "string" of anything.
>
> Yes, it does seem to be in the wrong column. Prunner's catalogue
> (p. 44) shows a deck of cards where the "strings" suit is marked with
> the �� character. (Except the 1! The 2-9 are marked with the numeral
> and ��, and bear a picture of a female character; but the 1 bears the
> characters ���� (da2 yu2, big fish), illustrated with a fish saying
> something I can't read but which the catalogue says means "copying
> forbidden".)
>
Very interesting...sure would like to see the image of that page (p.
44). I can not comment until I have a better picture of it.

> You say that �� can never be a "string" of anything.
> At least the Unicode database lists "string" as one of its possible
> meanings, though my paper dictionaries don't - but it seems it can
> mean pretty much anything long and thin, so why not "string"?

First I meant by the shape of that �� in Andy's page, no string looks
like that.
How can an odd shape object as such string together anything?

Next, something that can "mean pretty much anything", then it hardly
mens anything, because you would never be sure of what it really
means.

In one or more of earlier posts on the suits of mahjong and the games
origin with I-Ching, I did mention the fact that features of I-Ching
concepts being reflected in mahjong. Here is what I recall.
Simplicity, Variability and Persistency....

Simplicity in design symbols (obvious, compared to old paper cards
with pictorials).

Variability in results of game-play, like the outcome of yin/yang
interactions and hexagrams. After all, Book of Changes was all about
changes and changeability. Perhaps variability of symbol
interpretation should be included as well. I did say that circular
shape could represent everything circular and stick or string shape
could represent everything elongated. Then "ten-thousand things" as a
figure of speech collectively represents everything else in the
universe.

Persistency manifests and is maintained in the rules of play. A pair
of "eyes" is a requisite for a winning hand in mahjong. The completion
of 3-card runs is the necessary condition. The 3's are trigrams and
the the pair is Yin and Yang. These concepts do not change.

> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word ���� for a
> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
> century.

Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
mean the word �� or money base, or both as a connection?
+++++++++
Cheers....al

al <alee RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:

>> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word ���� for a
>> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
>> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
>> century.
>
> Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
> mean the word �� or money base, or both as a connection?

Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
"strings" suit marked with ��, and not the �� that is supposed to be
the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
The "circles" suit in that deck is marked with ��, a colloquial word
for "coin", so the money base seems likely. Then why ��? I can think
of some possible reasons:
(a) �� is being used to mean "string (of cash)" directly.
(b) �� is the measure word for ��, and �� is just short for ����. I
guess this is not very plausible!
(c) �� is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot ����, the modern version
of a string of cash.
(d) (a) and (c) together!

On Dec 2, 6:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j....DeleteThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> Possibly also relevant here is the rather obscure word ���� for a
> >> silver ingot, worth 1000 silver coins, produced in the early
> >> republic. The cards are not dated, but appear to be early 20th
> >> century.
>
> > Perhaps you would explain the relevance here for me, Julian. Do you
> > mean the word �� or money base, or both as a connection?
>
> Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> "strings" suit marked with ��, and not the �� that is supposed to be
> the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?

I MUST ADMIT I DID NOT KNOW HOW "SUO" SPELLED IN CHINESE UNTIL AFTER
JOINING THE DISCUSSION GROUP AND STARTED READING ABOUT THE GAME'S
HISTORY. THAT IS WHY I HAD NO PRE-CONDITIONING BY FOREIGNERS'
INTERPRETATION AND MISINTERPRETATION. AND THAT IS WHY THE IDEA OF
"CASH BASE" NEVER MADE SENSE TO ME.

In the back of my mind though, from common expressions, "suo' or ��
used to mean something like a knot.
according to some dictionary, �� = .�ߣ��������� = thread; belt; rope.

It's true. �� can be a string. Then it should be more of an object on
it's own, like a thread, a belt or a rope; a string should not be used
necessarily as a string of something else. I mean a C is a ��, not a ��
of ��.

A �� is a �� of �� only because �� was assumed as coins in the first suit
of cards.

A string is an improper term for naming an object. It acts as a
modifier or an indefinite object. I suspect �� was mistaken by one of
th early foreigners whose writing was copied and spread and now stuck.
The source of the error is from the assumption and concept of "money
base" when the �� from paper cards was transposed to mahjong.

> The "circles" suit in that deck is marked with ��, a colloquial word
> for "coin", so the money base seems likely. Then why ��? I can think
> of some possible reasons:

To my mind, "money base and string (��) don't mix or match. Normal
common handling of money is put the coins in a bag, not on a string.
�� as a symbol from way back, before matiao's "Zero-Cash". A new round
shape that looked like a coin was then coined as Cash, like a computer
mouse looks like a house mouse with a long tail gets to be called a
mouse ever since.

"Money-base" is not a given. Who can confirm the first �� was a proper
term? Do you recall what is in the Ma Diao suits? Start in 1-9 Cash
and end in 100 million Cash! That was in the late Ming dynasty.
Figures like millions and 100 million were just simply unreal. Then
was Cash itself for real or mistaken?

> (a) �� is being used to mean "string (of cash)" directly.

Would that be indirectly? A string is a string, directly.

> (b) �� is the measure word for ��, and �� is just short for ����. I
> guess this is not very plausible! LINE=1.�ߣ�����

My dictionary has a definition for LINE = ���� or �� (�� = rope; �� =
thread).
Along my line of thinking, LINE is most reasonable. The "suo" is a
line. Why? Lines refer to the trigrams in I-Ching. Then the circular
shapes represent King Wen circles of cyclical changes. "Wan" refers to
"ten-thousand thing" as a figure of speech in I-Ching.

The fourth suit in mhjong relates to CHANGES as well. Cash-base cannot
explain anything about the winds, the seasons etc.

Remember how the �� looks in Andy's page? That �� has two stripes bent
in opposite directions like yin and yang. Another definition for �� is
a STRIPE.

> (c) ��is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot ����, the modern version
> of a string of cash.

How does the timing for ��? Did it not appear long before the silver
ingot?

> (d) (a) and (c) together!

It looks like all the suits of mahjong have the wrong names from the
time it left the author's circle of players.The simplicity of symbols
subject to many different interpretations and the absence of a known
theme or core idea left the game to guess. Even if the game was based
on I-Ching concepts (which I truly believe), it still is a game beyond
comprehension of most people then and now. Hence the confusion and
uncertainty about mahjong was and is inevitable.

On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j....DeleteThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> "strings" suit marked with $B>r(B, and not the $B:w(B that is supposed to be
> the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?

Regional variations?

I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
suits.

Suo3 was, and is, more often used in the South of China.

Bing3 is more often used in the North of China whereas tong3 is used
in the South of China.

> (c) $B>r(B is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot $BRL>r(B, the modern version
> of a string of cash.

Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.

Regards

On Dec 2, 3:54 pm, mstanwick <mstanw....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j....TakeThisOut@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Both. The deck of cards on p. 44 of Prunner has, as I said, the
> > "strings" suit marked with $B>r(B, and not the $B:w(B that is supposed to be
> > the usual name of the suit, so one must ask why?
>
> Regional variations?
>
> I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> suits.
>
So 'tiao' is also $B>r(B, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
ma tiao/diao.
Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
i.e ''word of mouth' communication.

I don't know what "authority" you have for reference. $B>r(B and $B:w(B are
different in basic structure components in terms of etymology.

$B:w(B has a thread as a radical in its lower section under the hood.
$B>r(B has 'wood' as its corresponding lower part.
This mean $B>r(B and $B:w(B are made of different material; they are different
things.
Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations", Michael.
I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
local people.

> Suo3 was, and is, more often used in the South of China.
>
In my dialect, I call it soc, suo3 is close enough for $B:w(B.

> Bing3 is more often used in the North of China whereas tong3 is used
> in the South of China.
>
Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
Thus money-base is gone.

Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
wrong.

> > [..]
>
> [..]
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers.....al

mstanwick <mstanwick.DeleteThis@aol.com> writes:

> On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j....DeleteThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>[...]
> I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> suits.


I think you should hold yourself to the same standards you require of
al. The phrase "on good authority" is no authority!
Not that I doubt the statements, but it would be nice to have them
sourced for future reference.

>> (c) $B>r(B is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot $BRL>r(B, the modern version
>> of a string of cash.
>
> Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.

I don't understand your point in this remark.

On Dec 2, 9:43 pm, Julian Bradfield <j....RemoveThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> writes:
> > On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Julian Bradfield <j....RemoveThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>[...]
> > I have it on good authority that tiao2 is the name that was, and is,
> > more often used in the North of China for one of the three money
> > suits.
>
> I think you should hold yourself to the same standards you require of
> al. The phrase "on good authority" is no authority!

It is authority for me. That is as far as I could go.

My original remarks, before I posted because my pc crashed, contained
a reference to why I put 'on good authority' rather than an explicit
reference. The points I noted were taken from email correspondence I
have had with a person in China who is researching ma que development
and Chinese Playing cards.

Since it was in private correspondence I was unable to give the
person's name. I have tried to contact them but they have moved.

The person has provided me with references of old Chinese novels from
which some of this info appears plus from his own experience.

> Not that I doubt the statements, but it would be nice to have them
> sourced for future reference.

I am sure it would. At this point I cannot offer any more. But when I
contact him again, I will attempt to get the source of the info
released.

> >> (c) $B>r(B is referring to the silver 1000-cash ingot $BRL>r(B, the modern version
> >> of a string of cash.
>
> > Silver and Gold were cast into metal 'cakes'.
>
> I don't understand your point in this remark.

I should have put 'also' (as in 'also cast') in there. It was meant to
relate a possible connection of silver money to 'bing3'.

On Dec 3, 2:22 am, al <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> So 'tiao' is also $B>r(B, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> ma tiao/diao.

Yes.

> Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> i.e ''word of mouth' communication.

Where is your evidence for 'word of mouth' as the only explanation?
And why 'confusion'? Explain.

> I don't know what "authority" you have for reference.

See my previous reply.

> Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations",

I said 'regional variations'. I was only commenting on a 1st possible
explanation for why the names were different for the one money card
suit. The 1st step might be that they are regional variations. 2ndly,
these variations might be due to a particular way these earlier money
cards were interpreted. This is a prediction that can be tested.

> I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
> results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
> local people.

The earliest symbol of the money suit was named for what it looked
like to local people. The earliest symbol is the one that there is the
earliest evidence for.

> Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> Thus money-base is gone.

Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
directly reflects money, I agree.

> Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
> wrong.

What does 'totally wrong' mean?

On Dec 3, 4:17 am, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:22 am, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > So 'tiao' is also $B>r(B, in addition to mean 'loosing' or 'hanging' as in
> > ma tiao/diao.
>
> Yes.
>
I am glad to hear that, Michael. I had suspected. That was why I said
earlier that both names, Matiao and maque, could be wrong because 'ma'
was misinterpreted long, long long long ago.

Remember what I said? This was what I showed in a sketch: ma could
be : (1) a horse as in matiao; (2) hemp as in maque; and (3) twins or
a pair for two LINES or a pair of stipes (i.e. tiaos). That would be
the I-Ching lines of yin and yang.

Neither 'horse' nor 'hemp' makes any sense in the games. My "horse
sense" tells me. However, a pair of LINES can explain the symbols, the
game-play and the rules of mahjong.

> > Here is another glaring example of what I called homonymic confusion,
> > i.e ''word of mouth' communication.
>
> Where is your evidence for 'word of mouth' as the only explanation?
> And why 'confusion'? Explain.
>
If you cannot see the "evidence" when the word 'ma' can be horse, hemp
and pair, then try visualize it. One word can be interpreted by its
sound to mean many things. Is that not homonmic confusion? Let me add
'mother' to the list.

> > I don't know what "authority" you have for reference.
>
> See my previous reply.
>
I guess email service is not yet as widely available as Europe and
America.

> > Therefore I think it's more than just "local variations",
>
> I said 'regional variations'. I was only commenting on a 1st possible
> explanation for why the names were different for the one money card
> suit. The 1st step might be that they are regional variations. 2ndly,
> these variations might be due to a particular way these earlier money
> cards were interpreted. This is a prediction that can be tested.
>
Predictions don't prove one or the other.
Cookie or cake refer to food stuff. Pipe or tube refer to utensil made
of bamboo. How much regional or local variation can account for the
unbelievable difference? What prediction can be made? Something like
the "myriad"?

> > I mean variation for a reason. My guess is that they both were the
> > results of guess-work. The symbol was named for what it looked like to
> > local people.
>
> The earliest symbol of the money suit was named for what it looked
> like to local people. The earliest symbol is the one that there is the
> earliest evidence for.
>
And where is the earliest symbol? Prunner's 360/??
If "Cash" was the true symbol, it would have been the standard
throughout, because it was so recognizable and unmistakably obvious
with a square hole.
BTW, a White guy asked me about Chinese women on that (only once long
ago).
> > Again Bing3 = big cookie or cake, but tong3 is pipe or tubing made of
> > bamboo. Bing3 and tong3 are entirely different things. This time, it
> > is the round shape that gave the names. No "money" symbol present.
> > Thus money-base is gone.
>
Talking about homonymic confusion, I can give you evidence of that.
There are bing1, bing2 and bing3 or more. Likewise, there are tong1,
tong2 and tong3 at least. Have you ever spoken to or heard from some
one saying those words?

> Bing3 - hence my previous comment about silver 'cakes'. No name that
> directly reflects money, I agree.
>
That is because "Cash" was only one interpretation in one locality or
region.
I even raised suspicion if it was the Chinese who used that in
translation first or a westerner's term. Do you have evidence where
and when the term first appeared?

> > Again, both names were and still are inaccurate and probably totally
> > wrong.
>
> What does 'totally wrong' mean?

I mean bing3 and tong3 could be (and I think they are) the wrong names
assigned to the circular symbol in mahjong, just as wrong as "Cash".
In fact, I I will go as far as saying just as wrong as "mahjong".
++++++++++++
Cheers.....al