Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design

External Since: Apr 16, 2007 Posts: 243

On Dec 8, 11:06 am, mstanwick <mstanw... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 4:56 am, al <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >[..]
>
> > > 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'.
>
Tong is not Cash.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
If I understand you right, when I say 'Cash is no cash' I put 'tong'
in context of matiao's Cash described as taiji diagram which was no
cash; then there were Zero Cash and Half Cash that were described as
Storage S[pace or Supreme Ultimate and Guest with missing teeth. The
round taiji circle was not 'tong'.

> > > > 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.
>
I misread your statement. But do you seriously think Himly had first-
hand historical data? What is your support for his 'claims' of
knowledge?
If what Himly got was not first-hand, then what is it? And if his
source did not get it first-hand, where was the information coming
from? Hearsay and half-truth or even total mistakes.

> 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.
>
I just cited examples of taiji-cash, Half-cash and meaningless cash
above.
How else can I tell you Cash is not cash? Himly's Cash was named for
the shape of a cash-coin, just as the GUI-device named mouse for its
shape.

> > (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.
>
But what does that mean then? Mahjong is same as or different from
Chinese card games? That I agree.

> > 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.
>
You are right. But you might not have considered "possible" could be
possibly better than the "money-base" which in itself is only
"possible and not actual".
I can tell you one thing though. The "money-base" explains nothing in
the game's rules of play. If symbol tong follows money-cards, why
mahjong doesn't follow their rules? It is sub-set forming to a fixed
pattern 2-3-3--3-3. instead trick-taking like the other card games?
(BTW rummy is not the same.)

> > 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

I have been talking about the fundamental structure of the game of
mahjong. I am beginning to doubt if you actually play the game.
Pattern 2--3-3-3-3 can not be explain by the "money-base" which is
void of a concept relevant to game-play.

> 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,

The only identical symbol is the "wan" because it is in Chinese
writing. But that word does not mean only "ten thousand" cash. I see
there is no use for me to repeat. Let some one else give you a
scholarly dissertation on it.

> 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.
>
Can you be specific on game-play consistency here? Consistent with
what and how?
"Being related to money" was only, again only " assumptions".
Pan and Peng...their work was based on hearsay. They did not have
written records (first-hand info) to go on;(so did Rong). They did not
have the same name meanings for the same game. (I can't prove it to
you. Sorry)

> Money suited system, four suits, three suits, quadruplication, mo he
> pai, peng he pai..... All discussed at length.
>
All that stuff is also only hypothetical. Mahjong can be and is quite
so different.
You have made the assumption mahjong totally evolved from card games.
What if that was not the case? (The earth was flat for a long time).
Why can mahjong has it's own symbols that are coherent to it's own
theme of a core concept from the Book of Changes?

As to you "money base" and denominations ( from a tenth of a cent to
string of 100 or 1000 up 10,000 and even 100 million then modified and
personified),
> > My simple answer is "no way". My simple refrain is " Cash is no cash;
> > Mouse is no mouse".
>
> [snip]
>
> > [..]
>
> [..]
> > Obviously, we disagree.
>
> I have serious objections to the reasons and evidence that support
> your claims.

Likewise, Michael.
++++++++
Cheers....al

External Since: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 37

On Dec 9, 1:55 pm, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> If I understand you right, when I say 'Cash is no cash' I put 'tong'
> in context of matiao's Cash described as taiji diagram which was no
> cash; then there were Zero Cash and Half Cash that were described as
> Storage Space or Supreme Ultimate and Guest with missing teeth. The
> round taiji circle was not 'tong'.

That is correct. It was not tong. The taiji diagram appeared on the 1
Cash card of the Cash (wen qian) suit.

> I misread your statement. But do you seriously think Himly had first-
> hand historical data?

Yes. Read his descriptions from observations from the early 1870's.

> What is your support for his 'claims' of knowledge?

What he wrote obviously.

> If what Himly got was not first-hand, then what is it?

I said that you were equating hearsay with unreliability. But you have
not demonstrated that at all. You have just assumed it.

Further, Himly's papers are discussions containing analyses and
descriptions of various playing card games. He analysed the various
games that he acquired 1st hand and related them to observations made
by other sinologists.

> And if his source did not get it first-hand, where was the information coming
> from? Hearsay and half-truth or even total mistakes.

Wrong. What source?? What are you talking about? This hearsay
accusation is another one of your baseless assumptions stated as an
accusation that has evidential support.

Now, define what you mean by hearsay.

> I just cited examples of taiji-cash, Half-cash and meaningless cash
> above.

I thought so. I have discussed this with you at length. Are willfully
ignoring what was said and discussed when it was pointed out to you
what the descriptions from Lo actually meant? If you are so that you
can claim that there is your interpretation, then I will not discuss
this with you any further.

> Himly's Cash was named for the shape of a cash-coin,

Which term are you taking about - bing3 or tong2??

> > > (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.
>
> But what does that mean then? Mahjong is same as or different from
> Chinese card games? That I agree.

Ma que is a Chinese card game. Since it is a Chinese card game then it
is right and proper to analyse other Chinese card games to see if it
shares any features with those games.

> You are right. But you might not have considered "possible" could be
> possibly better than the "money-base" which in itself is only
> "possible and not actual".

This too has been discussed before. Please reread my repies about
explanations and hypotheses.

> I can tell you one thing though. The "money-base" explains nothing in
> the game's rules of play.

For the last time STOP this rehashing and repackaging of your old
baseless assertions. Baseless, since the money hypothesis as I use it
does not say anything about rules of play.

> If symbol tong follows money-cards, why mahjong doesn't follow their rules?

Why should it??? I am not claiming it does or it doesn't. I just want
to know what is the basis for your expectation that it should????

> Pattern 2--3-3-3-3 can not be explain by the "money-base" which is
> void of a concept relevant to game-play.

Of course it is. This was explained many times before and above. This
is another evident rehashing of assertions about what was said, even
though it has been pointed out many times that it was never said or
claimed in the 1st place.

> The only identical symbol is the "wan" because it is in Chinese
> writing. But that word does not mean only "ten thousand" cash.

The other symbol is suo - on the suo hua tile.

Thank you for not repeating it again, after it was already discussed.

> > Money suited system, four suits, three suits, quadruplication, mo he
> > pai, peng he pai..... All discussed at length.
>
> All that stuff is also only hypothetical. Mahjong can be and is quite
> so different.

I have not answered your questions because of this response.

> You have made the assumption mahjong totally evolved from card games.
> What if that was not the case? (The earth was flat for a long time).

Wrong again. I have never made any such assumption that it 'totally'
evolved....

Again, do you not remember what I have discussed, at length, and
explained?

> Why can mahjong has it's own symbols that are coherent to it's own
> theme of a core concept from the Book of Changes?

Of course it can. But it has not been demonstrated to have been the
case. This was also discussed before.

> As to your "money base" and denominations ( from a tenth of a cent to
> string of 100 or 1000 up 10,000 and even 100 million then modified and
> personified),

That is not my 'money base'.