"Martin Rep" <mrep RemoveThis @mahjongnews.com> wrote in message
news:430b66f5$0$11070$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> I just don't know how this copy was qualified as "formal translation" -
>> Was this copy from the owner of the original work (i.e., General
>> Administration of Sport of the Chinese government) or their authorized
>> agent? Or, does the copy provide any information about its "formality"?
>
> The translation is done by the Organizing Committee of the Open
> Competition of Chinese MaJiang. In the meaning you are talking about, is
> is not formal nor done by the copyright holder. For the non-Chinese
> speaking it gives more insight in the rules, but it definitely is not the
> last word about it. As is stated in the introduction of the document.
Thanks to Martin for the clarification! The world (especially many years
from now) will appreciate this piece of fact about this new rule set. (In
the future, no one will say that all mahjong came from CO or COIR for that
matter, CMCR is a branch of CO - Just imagination!)
>> I heard (also from your mahjong forum) that the translation of this
>> "2nd copy" was "much worse". How do you rate its quality?
>
> It is another attempt to make friendship and clairity between mahjong
> players who are longing, and looking for, a real international standard.
> Every mahjong player should welcome this standard, which is the most
> important step forward in mahjong since the days of Babcock.
A real international standard for mahjong is good. I am among the first who
created this very idea - Remember our discussions in this ng on "world
unified rules for mahjong" some years ago? Almost all participants didn't
think it was even possible!
I care about the terms how the rule sets are called, and about how the rules
are being used and understood. I see that the way most organizers of mahjong
events are now doing don't seem to be any different from what those
marketers of mahjong products did in the days of Babcock. Quick, poor
translations of the original work (let's call it CMCR) into languages other
than Chinese and call their translated versions "official", "chinese
official", "international official", etc., etc. For example, eighty-eight
points for score element #1 in CMCR became 1 point in some English version
and it became a new, "international", standard! No care about the quality of
the standards. No respect to the original work and its author. Change of
meaning of the original rules at will. In my opinion, the situations about
CMCR (a work protected by international copyright treaties) today are even
worse than that about mahjong (a work in the public domain) in the Babcock
era!
Is this the type or quality of standards you talk about that every mahjong
player should welcome? I doubt that EVERYONE thinks it that way! I don't.
My suggestion: For those who really care about developing a real
international standard for mahjong out of the CMCR, stick strictly with the
original contents of CMCR! If in doubt, contact the owner of the original
work! (Chinese Mahjong Competition Rules ("CMCR") was authorized by the
General Administration of Sport of the Chinese government. Website:
http://www.sport.gov.cn/)
My truthful, sincere, comments.
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Hot
Bloated Email? DetachPipe for Outlook
Mac
Linux
Games
PDA
Mobile
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Game Forums
RSS