Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design

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

> As you said, "each of them is one ´Ê, made up of two ×Ö."
>
> one ´Ê, this mean a phrase'; two ×Ö, this means two words.
> A ´Ê is polysyllabic (because a phrase has two or more words), but a ×Ö
> is mono. That's my understanding.

The standard terminology these days is that one ´Ê is a word, made up
of two ×Ö, which are characters (or morphemes, linguistically).

> I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think meaningfulness
> is more of a criterion rather than movement that differentiate a word
> from a syllable.

That's not how the notion of word is usually defined. "Words" are
defined as syntactic entities, not minimum semantic units.

Chinese is notable because all its syllables have a meaning, or more
often several meanings, by themselves, and therefore every word (in my
sense) can be understood as a sequence of meanings - and most of the
native words do somehow relate to the meanings of their
components. (Obviously, things like the Sinicized versions of foreign
names don't - they're usually just a sequence of syllables that sounds
roughly like the foreign name, regardless of meaning.)

However, other languages also have words composed from semantic
units. If you look at all the English words I've written so far, the
following are all decomposable into parts (morphemes) which have a
meaning, though not all the parts can stand on their own:
termin-ology, morph-emes, linguist-ic-al-ly, usual-ly, not-able,
mean-ing, re-late, com-pon-ents, and so on.

Some of the words are, on the other hand, compounds of two full words,
but they have a specific meaning that is related to, but narrower
than, the combination of the meanings of the part. Examples from my
text above are:
them-selves, there-fore, under-stood, some-how.
Other examples are blackbird, shotgun, playing-card.

Chinese differs in that many more of its words fall into the second
category (technically, combinations of free morphemes) than into the
first category (one free morpheme combined with bound morphemes).
But there's no more reason to deny that "Á˽â" is a word than to deny
that "understand" is a word.

Anyway, this is well off-topic; I ask the group's indulgence, as I
suppose all of us would like to understand more about Chinese in order
to appreciate the original materials and arguments about language
change as related to mah-jong.

On Dec 6, 12:19 pm, "Tom Sloper" <tslo....RemoveThis@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
wrote:
> "al" <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> >I seem to recall reading tarot cards were the earliest. Is
> >that for sure?
>
> Tarot cards were not the first type of playing cards. You can read about
> tarot's predecessor games in
> - David Parlett's book "A History of Card Games" and in
> - my own book and in
> - FAQ 11h and in
> - the journal of the International Playing-Card Society and in
> - "Asian Games: The Art of Contest"
>
> If you're going to engage in a debate about matters of historical origins,
> you have to make a serious effort to educate yourself on the topic under
> debate.
> Chinese money-suited cards are older than tarot, and Persian mamluk cards
> are as well. As far as I know, it has not yet been established which of
> those is the earliest form of playing cards, having led to the other. I tend
> to think the Chinese cards were the first, but I'm not prepared to debate
> that notion with anyone.
>
> Tom Sloper
++++++++++

Well, i got to tell you. I had your book along with Millington's and
two others in my cart at Amazon. But when it came to pay for the
purchase, it was taking through so many hoops and loops, I gave it up.
May be that was where I read a brief mention of tarot cards in your
FAQ 11h. I will visit it again.
Thanks.
++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Dec 5, 5:21 pm, Julian Bradfield <j....RemoveThis@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Chinese words polysyllabic? I can not think of one, Julian. What would
> > be an example?
>
> To take a few examples from the 50000 polysyllabic words in my pocket
> Chinese dictionary:
>
> ½¾¹ß jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> ´ÖÂÔ cu1lue4 "superficial"
> Í㶹 wan1dou4 "pea"
> ÃäÄê wan3nian2 "old age"
>
> > But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
>
> The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
> are polysyllabic.

From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at ×Ö
zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books
on Chinese linguistics is ºûµû (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While µû
can be used independently to signify butterfly, ºû is never used
independently (from what I know).

Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
Traditionally, it has been ºÍ (he2), but in more modern times, there
are two other major ways of writing this: ºú (hu2; other meaning is
reckless, foolish); and ºþ (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
for the suit in mahjong: ͬ; ͭ (both tong2 in Mandarin); amd Ͳ (tong3
in Mandarin).

Additionally, I am most curious about Al's actual dialect/regional
language (·½ÑÔ). His romanisation of terms (for example, mhan, nghan,
huong, ghim) does not seem standardised, and I had a hard time trying
to figure out the possible pronunciation.

Cheers!
Edwin Phua

On Dec 6, 7:41 am, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:26 am, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > But I do not think it can be stated with certainty that tong with the
> > > bamboo radical was used as slang involving mis-communication.
> > You are quite right, Michael. So far what is there for certain?
>
> Describe what you mean by 'certain'.
>
"Certain" means 'for sure', 'no doubt', 'fixed' etc.
[..]
>
> > > Himly's relatively early report observes tong2, which he says is an
> > > abbreviation for tong2 'copper'. He does not report tong with a
> > > 'bamboo' radical nor does he report tong with a 'metal' radical. In my
>
> > That was most likely taken by its sound;
>
> No. It was inscribed on one of the ma que tiles as 'tong hua'. Himly
> is very thorough in his reporting. he gives the two characters for
> 'tong hu' and even gives the colours they were painted in. The others
> were 'suo hua' and 'wan hua'.
>
Copper automatically has the radical (metal) attached; the 'tong' part
gives the phonic feature to the word as well as the meaning.
'Tong hua' is (I think we discussed it before) was a wild-card for
that suit. 'hua' is not flower, but it means 'changeable' (the word,
flower, without the radical '++' on top).

> > but then there were more than
> > one thing that sounds close to it. We never know which is the right
> > one, because we cannot relate to a reference like a theme or central
> > idea of the game.
>
> Yes we do. Otherwise why would I claim it? My statements are
> supported, where necessary, by evidence. In other circumstances I use
> words that denote uncertainty or a degree of probability, where
> necessary.
>
Tong means one thing to you and Himly. I have heard it meant something
else to David Li (author). I have seen and read in Chinese book on
mahjong that has the term as a 'tube'.
You can claim you are right because you believed Himly was right. I
would say Himly got it from the people who might not have had the
correct name in the first place. That is why the uncertainty is always
there. So I thought.

> > This goes back to my estimation or contention that old card symbols
> > were arbitrarily transferred to ma que mostly by the old Chinese who
> > might not have had any clues about the new symbols and partly by
> > translators who didn't know much better.
>
> This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
> with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
>
It's human nature. Parallel situations are common.

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

On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant... DeleteThis @pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 5:21 pm, Julian Bradfield <j... DeleteThis @inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > >[..]
>
> > [..]
>
> > ½¾¹ß jiao1guan4 "pamper, coddle, spoil"
> > ´ÖÂÔ cu1lue4 "superficial"
> > Í㶹 wan1dou4 "pea"
> > ÃäÄê wan3nian2 "old age"
>
> > > But still every Chinese word is monosyllabic, as far as I know.
>
> > The Hanyu Da Cidian defines 370000 words, the vast majority of which
> > are polysyllabic.
>
> From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
> more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at ×Ö
> zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books

×Ö (zi4) has no semantic meaning? What do you mean, Edwin?

> [The example I always see in books] on Chinese linguistics is ºûµû (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While µû
> can be used independently to signify butterfly, ºû is never used
> independently (from what I know).
>
I was curious. I looked up ºû in my dictionary. It says ºû = ºû µû. Then I
tried to find µû. It is not there. How strange?
I can see why µû can be used by itself, because it tells me it's an
insect like a leaf. The meaning of ºû is unclear other than it's insect
related.

> Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> Traditionally, it has been ºÍ (he2), but in more modern times, there
> are two other major ways of writing this: ºú (hu2; other meaning is
> reckless, foolish); and ºþ (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> for the suit in mahjong: ͬ; ͭ (both tong2 in Mandarin); amd Ͳ (tong3
> in Mandarin).
>
Well, It's about time some one gets to appreciate the skepticism about
the naming of all the symbols in mahjong.
Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
of reference.

> Additionally, I am most curious about Al's actual dialect/regional
> language (·½ÑÔ). His romanisation of terms (for example, mhan, nghan,
> huong, ghim) does not seem standardised, and I had a hard time trying
> to figure out the possible pronunciation.
>
I am from Huoy Suun (I don't know how to indicate tone), very south of
Gongtong. I call mahjong as "mha deck". There is my accent. And as you
know, there are many accents in china. That is why I have doubts now
about every game name including Sparrow.
++++++++
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
++++++
heers......al

On Dec 7, 4:42 am, al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant....DeleteThis@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > From my understanding of the linguistic point about Mandarin being
> > more polysyllabic than other Chinese languages, we have to look at ×Ö
> > zi4 which have no semantic meaning. The example I always see in books
>
> ×Ö (zi4) has no semantic meaning? What do you mean, Edwin?
>
> > [The example I always see in books] on Chinese linguistics is ºûµû (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While µû
> > can be used independently to signify butterfly, ºû is never used
> > independently (from what I know).
>
> I was curious. I looked up ºû in my dictionary. It says ºû = ºû µû. Then I
> tried to find µû. It is not there. How strange?
> I can see why µû can be used by itself, because it tells me it's an
> insect like a leaf. The meaning of ºû is unclear other than it's insect
> related.

Ah, that is my fault. I made an error composing the sentence earlier.
It should read:"... look at zi4 *that* has no semantic *value*. ×Ö zi4
are the individual characters we are familiar with, and most of the
time, in all Chinese languages, each character has the equivalence of
a word, i.e. each zi4 has some meaning. However, a lot of new words
are created by compounding them, putting two zi4 together to form a ´Ê
ci2. There have already been some examples given. However, there are
some zi4 that have no meaning at all on their own, and are always
bound to other zi4 to form meaningful ci2.

I am not sure what dictionary you use, Al, but most ´Êµä ci2dian3 should
have entries on characters (since this is primarily the way to search)
but actual ci2 are sorted according to the head zi4. Hence, you will
find ºûµû hu2die3 and its meaning under the character ºû hu2, and not
under µû die2. However, under the µû die2 entry, the meaning (i.e.
butterfly) of the single character will/may be given, but not under ºû
hu2, since this character has no semantic value. This may depend on
the dictionary, some are better than others.

Apologies for furthering the digression.

Cheers!
Edwin Phua
who is not a Chinese language expert

On Dec 6, 7:30�pm, al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > > > So far what is there for certain?
> > Describe what you mean by 'certain'.
> "Certain" means 'for sure', 'no doubt', 'fixed' etc.

Then you know already. Certainty does not necessarily entail accuracy.
Therefore, we are after the best hypotheses or explanations, to
systematise and unify our disparate knowledge of a subject.

Not being certain is a major plus, since it means that any explanation
has an in-built capability of being modified or abandoned. Correcting
explaantions as new evidence comes along means that they may become
more accurate and more powerful at unifying our knowledge.

> Copper automatically has the radical (metal) attached; the 'tong' part
> gives the phonic feature to the word as well as the meaning.

My Chinese research colleague has commented to me some time ago that
Bing3 appears on old playing cards without the (food) radical. The
'radicalless' bing3 was and is used to denote the 'radicalled' bing3
'cake'. Similarly, he also informed me that it is not strange to find
'hua' without its radical. But the original hua did have the meaning
'flower'. It just so happens that the 'radicalless' hua serves to
denote the tile's function.

Similarly with Tong.

> 'Tong hua' is (I think we discussed it before) was a wild-card for
> that suit. 'hua' is not flower, but it means 'changeable' (the word,
> flower, without the radical '++' on top).

That is correct.

> Tong means one thing to you and Himly. I have heard it meant something
> else to David Li (author). I have seen and read in Chinese book on
> mahjong that has the term as a 'tube'.

Both are correct.

> You can claim you are right because you believed Himly was right.

Himly offers an analysis in which maque is placed within the context
of money suited playing cards. Stop using the word 'belief' when
referring to my ideas. I have asked you before.

> I would say Himly got it from the people who might not have had the
> correct name in the first place. That is why the uncertainty is always
> there. So I thought.

You need evidence to back up the 1st claim. But the 2nd is correct.

> > This 'contention' cannot be commented on as no reasoning or argument,
> > with support, has been given here to back up the 'contention'.
>
> It's human nature. Parallel situations are common.

Please give an example that is related to the thread.

On Dec 6, 8:42 pm, al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant....DeleteThis@pacific.net.sg> wrote:

> > Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> > correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> > Traditionally, it has been ºÍ (he2), but in more modern times, there
> > are two other major ways of writing this: ºú (hu2; other meaning is
> > reckless, foolish); and ºþ (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> > can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> > for the suit in mahjong: ͬ; ͭ (both tong2 in Mandarin); and Ͳ (tong3
> > in Mandarin).

I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.

In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
their use?

The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
dispute. Can you enlighten me?

Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
context.

> Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> of reference.

Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.
There is good evidence that ma que is firmly in the playing card camp.
Further, there are good reasons it is in the money suited playing card
camp. Within that context the early terms used for the suits can be
explained with reference to that context.

On Dec 7, 5:07 pm, mstanwick <mstanw... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:42 pm, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant... DeleteThis @pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > > Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> > > correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> > > Traditionally, it has been ºÍ (he2), but in more modern times, there
> > > are two other major ways of writing this: ºú (hu2; other meaning is
> > > reckless, foolish); and ºþ (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> > > can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> > > for the suit in mahjong: ͬ; ͭ (both tong2 in Mandarin); and Ͳ (tong3
> > > in Mandarin).
>
> I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
>
I am sure Edwin will reply to you on this. That was his statement. I
understand what he was saying clearly.

> In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
> correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
> over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
> various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
> However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
> their use?
>
> The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
> this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
> dispute. Can you enlighten me?
>
Let me raise one question for you relating to the confusion of sound
and word (meaning). Is 'diao' dropping or hanging? How about ma? Is it
hemp or horse?

> Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
> do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
> is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
> context.
>
> > Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> > information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> > renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> > of reference.
>
> Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
> renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.

In this above statement, you have implied two points.
(1) the base for Himly's Cash-base hypothesis could be invalid and
unreliable.
(2) mahjong is based on and similar to all Chinese card games (which
constitute its frame of reference)

Point (1) weakens the Cash-base position.
Point (2) has claims that are contrary to factual situation. Symbols
different, formats different, rues different, set-up different,
counting system very different and more... Chinese card games can
hardly be frame of reference for mahjong.

> There is good evidence that ma que is firmly in the playing card camp.
> Further, there are good reasons it is in the money suited playing card
> camp. Within that context the early terms used for the suits can be
> explained with reference to that context.

My simple answer is "no way". My simple refrain is " Cash is no cash;
Mouse is no mouse".

There were strings of fish (not Cash) for an entire suit. There were
nothing but taiji circle diagrams in a whole suit (not Cash). There
were human faces on each card of the Myriad suit (not Cash).
How and why or what is the connection between ma que (mahjong) and the
paper card games? I may guess your answer to be likely : refer to post
xx.
Obviously, we disagree.
++++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Dec 8, 4:56 am, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
>
> I understand what he was saying clearly.
>
> > In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
> > correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
> > over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
> > various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
> > However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
> > their use?
>
> > The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
> > this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
> > dispute. Can you enlighten me?
>
> Let me raise one question for you relating to the confusion of sound
> and word (meaning). Is 'diao' dropping or hanging? How about ma? Is it
> hemp or horse?

You have missed the point of my questions. My questions relate to the
term 'dispute' and it seemingly relying on the idea of 'confusion'. I
want to know what are the claims being made about 'tong' that entail a
'dispute'.
>
> > Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
> > do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
> > is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
> > context.
>
> > > Himly was a diligent scholar, but his sources did not have first-hand
> > > information. Hearsay mixed with dialectic variation and colloquial
> > > renditions, any name is a suspect, particularly as there is no frame
> > > of reference.
>
> > Possible hearsay. Possible dialectic variation. Possible colloquial
> > renditions. The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games.
>
> In this above statement, you have implied two points.
> (1) the base for Himly's Cash-base hypothesis could be invalid and
> unreliable.

Wrong again. My statement was saying that you were claiming hearsay
(as in unreliable) actually was the case with Himly's observations, as
were the dialectic variations etc etc. I was pointing out that these
are unsupported claims.

Sure they may have been there at Himly's experiences. Sure, there may
be other possible explanations of that time for his observations, but
if there are, then they better have some support that makes them
strong enough to counter Himly's observations.

> (2) mahjong is based on and similar to all Chinese card games (which
> constitute its frame of reference)

This is a baseless (dare I say willful?) misrepresentation of what I
said. I said Chinese playing cards are the frame of reference.

> Point (1) weakens the Cash-base position.

Wrong. Only actual cases of evidential data that contradict key points
of the explaantion would weaken it. Possible alternative scenarios are
just that - possible. I have explained before about possible and
actual. Possible does not mean actual.

> Point (2) has claims that are contrary to factual situation. Symbols
> different, formats different, rules different, set-up different,
> counting system very different and more... Chinese card games can
> hardly be frame of reference for mahjong.

Superficial objections readily explained with reference to money cards
that had representations of money denominations that were modified
though abstraction etc, dependant on region. Similarly with maque -
three suits, with one suit represetation identical to money cards,
names of two suits identical to money cards and both referring to
denominations of money - see Pan. 3rd suit name explained with few
assumptions as being related to money. Rules slightly different to
peng he - consistent with a new game -play as are scoring etc etc.

Money suited system, four suits, three suits, quadruplication, mo he
pai, peng he pai..... All discussed at length.

> My simple answer is "no way". My simple refrain is " Cash is no cash;
> Mouse is no mouse".

[snip]
> How and why or what is the connection between ma que (mahjong) and the
> paper card games? I may guess your answer to be likely : refer to post
> xx.

Incredible. I am afraid I can do nothing for your bad memory. So I
will not refer you to look at past discussions on this very topic.

> Obviously, we disagree.

I have serious objections to the reasons and evidence that support
your claims.

On Dec 8, 6:07 am, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:42 pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant....RemoveThis@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > > Anyway, Al's posting made me think about the confusion over the
> > > correct way of writing hu2 ('to win in mahjong') in Chinese.
> > > Traditionally, it has been ºÍ (he2), but in more modern times, there
> > > are two other major ways of writing this: ºú (hu2; other meaning is
> > > reckless, foolish); and ºþ (also hu2; other meaning is lake). If there
> > > can be dispute over this commonly used word, why not the Chinese word
> > > for the suit in mahjong: ͬ; ͭ (both tong2 in Mandarin); and Ͳ (tong3
> > > in Mandarin).
>
> I am not sure of the point made in this paragraph.
>
> In the 1st half of the paragraph you discuss the confusion over the
> correct way of writing hu2. You then say that there can be dispute
> over this commonly used word. I can see from your illustration the
> various ways of writing hu2 and the different meanings they generate.
> However, I do not see where the confusion arises. Does it arise in
> their use?
>
> The last sentence in the paragraph then says there is dispute over
> this commonly used word. But in the discussion, there is no mention of
> dispute. Can you enlighten me?
>
> Now, with reference to tong2, and tong3, the issue is in what context
> do you frame a discussion about the use of these terms. If a context
> is put forward, then there must be evidential support for that
> context.

Note: all hanyu pinyin are for Mandarin/Putonghua, unless otherwise
indicated.

There is indeed disagreement (or, at the least, diversity) over which
character is the 'correct' one to represent the concept of winning in
mahjong. This arises because many players probably did not learn the
writing together with the pronunciation during the early spread of the
game. This accounts for the differences in the written character that
perhaps reflected the regional/local language. ºú, ºþ, and also ºý (I
missed this character out earlier), all pronounced hu2 in modern
Mandarin, are commonly used instead of ºÍ (pronounced hu2 for mahjong,
he2 in most other usages; this character is the 'official' one used by
the WMO for MCR). For example, the Wikipedia article on mahjong uses
the character ºú ("reckless") instead of ºÍ (hu2/he2; 'harmony/
together'). Is there dispute over the usage of this common 'word'?
Yes, I would say, in the written representation of the pronunciation
which in the first place is not even uniform across dialects.

I would also bring your attention back to the word Â齫 (ma2jiang4),
which is written as Âéȸ (ma2que4; 'sparrow') in many Southern languages
(Cantonese, Shanghainese, Hokkien etc.) and pronounced according to
their own sound systems. If we accept the theory that the Northern
Chinese (i.e. those speaking the Beijing language, ±±·½ÑÔ bei3fang1yan2)
used the characters that approximated the Shanghainese pronunciation
of Âéȸ¶ù (ma2que4er2, Shanghainese ma tsiong) (this was information
contributed by ithinc earlier in this newsgroup), then the Northern
Chinese way (of writing) is not the original one, and had in fact lost
the original meaning. Thus, the written representation is not always
faithful to the original meaning, particularly across the Chinese
languages.

Therefore, if we do look at ͬ; ͭ (both tong2); and Ͳ (tong3), we have
to ask ourselves: which is/are the earliest examples, and in which
language? I do not particularly agree or disagree with the
interpretation (such as that given by Michael), as I have not looked
closely at the evidence presented.

Yet, bearing in mind the comparisons with 'wordsets' such as hu2 (ºú,
ºþ, ºý, ºÍ) and ma2jiang4/ma2que4 (Â齫/Âéȸ), what is the most commonly used
terms in Putonghua/Mandarin may not always be faithful to the original
meaning. Moreover, the Northern Chinese seem to favour the use of Ìõ
tiao2 instead of Ë÷ suo3 for the bamboo suit and ±ý bing3 instead of Ͳ/Í­
tong3/tong2 for the circle suit. Are we even considering the relevant
evidence? That is to say, are the Putonghua pronunciations relevant?

I apologise for the confusion and poor arguments presented, as well as
the original ambiguity in my earlier email.

Cheers!
Edwin Phua

On Dec 8, 5:57 pm, Edwin Phua <fant....DeleteThis@pacific.net.sg> wrote:

> There is indeed disagreement (or, at the least, diversity) over which
> character is the 'correct' one to represent the concept of winning in
> mahjong.[snip] Is there dispute over the usage of this common 'word'?
> Yes, I would say, in the written representation of the pronunciation
> which in the first place is not even uniform across dialects.

Thank you for the excellent information. But are you saying 'dispute'
is a euphemism for 'diversity'? Sorry for the confusion but I was just
interested in the fact that your discussion implied that there had
been disputes/diagreements among MJ players? I was not aware of this.

[snip]
> Thus, the written representation is not always
> faithful to the original meaning, particularly across the Chinese
> languages.

I agree with all the points. Of course, the assessment above can only
be made after considering and analysing all the salient evidence so
far known.

> Therefore, if we do look at ͬ; ͭ (both tong2); and Ͳ (tong3), we have
> to ask ourselves: which is/are the earliest examples, and in which
> language? I do not particularly agree or disagree with the
> interpretation (such as that given by Michael), as I have not looked
> closely at the evidence presented.

Himly was stationed in Shanghai around the 1870's. ͬ Tong2 was
inscribed on a ma que tile and was related to the 'cash' suit - since
wan hua and suo hua were related to the other two suits.

The earliest mention for the name of the 'cash' suit is bing3 'cake'.
It appears as early as1759 in the novel 'Dream of the Red Chamber'.
The next term is Tong2, as above and that is recorded around 1870
Ningbo (since the set was made there).

Interestingly, Himly says that the 120 pack called Tung Kuan P'ai that
are mentioned in Culin's 'Chess and Playing Cards (1898) are also
"found on Java, where the so [suo] is, however, denoted witrh the
synonymous name tiao [tiao2] = thiao [tiao2] (twig, stroke, string)."
But it is unclear to me whether Himly is quoting Culin or making his
own observation.
>
> Yet, bearing in mind the comparisons with 'wordsets' such as hu2 (ºú,
> ºþ, ºý, ºÍ) and ma2jiang4/ma2que4 (Â齫/Âéȸ), what is the most commonly
> used terms in Putonghua/Mandarin may not always be faithful to the original
> meaning. Moreover, the Northern Chinese seem to favour the use of Ìõ
> tiao2 instead of Ë÷ suo3 for the bamboo suit and ±ý bing3 instead of Ͳ/Í­
> tong3/tong2 for the circle suit. Are we even considering the relevant
> evidence? That is to say, are the Putonghua pronunciations relevant?

Yes. Every piece of information is relevant. What is important is the
analysis of the information and the importance in the analysis of the
date of the evidence as well as its location. Especially when
attempting to create a parsimonious explanation for the appearance of
these terms.

> I apologise for the confusion and poor arguments presented, as well as
> the original ambiguity in my earlier email.

No problem. I would agree about the confusion. But when t comes to
tong2 for example, if there is any dispute, it would be over the
analysis and reasons in the analysis.

Thanks for the extra information.

On Dec 6, 10:11 pm, Edwin Phua <fant... DeleteThis @pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 4:42 am, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:05 pm, Edwin Phua <fant... DeleteThis @pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> > > [..]
> > [..]
>
> > > [The example I always see in books] on Chinese linguistics is ºûµû (Mandarin hu2die2; butterfly). While µû
> > > can be used independently to signify butterfly, ºû is never used
> > > independently (from what I know).
>
> > I was curious. I looked up ºû in my dictionary. It says ºû = ºû µû. Then I
> > tried to find µû. It is not there. How strange?
> > I can see why µû can be used by itself, because it tells me it's an
> > insect like a leaf. The meaning of ºû is unclear other than it's insect
> > related.
>
> [..]
>
> I am not sure what dictionary you use, Al, but most ´Êµä ci2dian3 should
> have entries on characters (since this is primarily the way to search) [..]
>
My dictionary has a simple title: "A New Chinese - English Dictionary"
published by Hong Kong Youth Press. It does not sound like a scholarly
version.
>
>
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
> who is not a Chinese language expert
++++++++++++
Cheers.....al