My new website on Japanese mahjong

On May 13, 11:42 am, d_....DeleteThis@my-deja.com wrote:
> MuTsun Tsai wrote:
> > Hi everyone. I just made a website about Japanese mahjong. It's a Chinese
> > website, thought, but in case there's any one of you who reads Chinese,
> > here's the address:
>
> >http://www.abstreamace.com/mahjong/
> [..]
> I don't know anything about Japanese MJ, but your Chinese name for MJ
> is different from anything I've read (in Chinese) before. Is this the
> way the Japanese call MJ? It would be great if there is an English
> translation for "ching ming mah jong" (where "jong" is different).
> Thanks.
++++++++
I took a look at the name in Chinese writing. It does say "Ching Ming
mah jong".

The Chinese name for the link could be translated as "Ching Ming Bird
Shop" or "Ching Ming Bird Set".

Ching-Ming is typical name meaning pure-bright.
Bird is pronounced "deck" in my dialect; cheuck of jeuck or some other
ways. It implied to mean the sparrow.

The site name is "Ching Ming Deck Juong", not 'Ching Ming mah jong'.
Perhaps that is the confusing difference.

"Deck Juong" could mean a mah jong shop or Mah Jong set.
++++++++++++++
Typical Chinese phrases in 4 words are ambiguous.
++++++++++
Cheers....al

On May 13, 5:08 am, "MuTsun Tsai" <don.t... RemoveThis @ms5.url.com.tw> wrote:
> Hi everyone. I just made a website about Japanese mahjong. It's a Chinese
> website, thought, but in case there's any one of you who reads Chinese,
> here's the address:
>
> http://www.abstreamace.com/mahjong/
>
> Enjoy!

Hello, I have been reading in your website. Since you invite readers'
feedback and you said: "Èç¹û¸÷λÓаl¬FÈκΞgÓ[Éϳö¬FµÄ†–î}£¬šgÓ­ëS•r¸æÔVÎÒ", I should point out
one thing.
The tiles arranged 1 to 9 from left to right. Text says from right to
left. It's minor detail, but I thought you might want to know.

I noticed the suit name "tong" spelled "Ͳ = bamboo TUBE" or "¹Ü =
bamboo Pipe" associates with its use as a container instead of "tong =
copper Í­" or Cash which is copper coin, Í­Ç®.

I did not notice any mention of Mah-Jong history in Japan. When was
the game first introduced into the country? Is there reference link I
can look up?
++++++++++++++
Cheers....al

MuTsun Tsai wrote:

> Hi everyone. I just made a website about Japanese mahjong. It's a Chinese
> website, thought, but in case there's any one of you who reads Chinese,
> here's the address:
>
> http://www.abstreamace.com/mahjong/

Good website on Modern Japanese. A lot more detailed than some websites
(such as mine) which only lists the patterns.

But, sorry to be saying this, your website also serves as an eye-opener
for those Chinese players who don't understand how *complicated* the
Modern Japanese rules really are. (It's not a problem of your site, in
fact you have done it excellently; it's a problem of Modern Japanese itself.)

One point: even though everybody in Japan writes it that way, the characters
for 一盃� are not correct. Historically, the Japanese have lost the correct
characters for the name, so they make up the characters 一盃� based on the
pronunciation. The original Chinese name of the pattern is 一般高 ;
as a Chinese person, you should not propogate the Japanese error, and should
at least indicate this fact on your site.

Reference:
http://www.asamiryo.jp/ippan15.html


--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能�在�牌之�和牌。強加「起和��定，
�牌�准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
�求大牌�能�在�牌之��能和，這�是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / tarot.TakeThisOut@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/

On Aug 21, 3:16 am, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> MuTsun Tsai wrote:
> > Hi everyone. I just made a website about Japanese mahjong. It's a Chinese
> > website, thought, but in case there's any one of you who reads Chinese,
> > here's the address:
>
> >http://www.abstreamace.com/mahjong/
>
> Good website on Modern Japanese. A lot more detailed than some websites
> (such as mine) which only lists the patterns.
>
> [..]
> One point: even though everybody in Japan writes it that way, the characters
> for $B0lGV8}(B are not correct. Historically, the Japanese have lost the correct
> characters for the name, so they make up the characters $B0lGV8}(B based on the
> pronunciation. The original Chinese name of the pattern is $B0lHL9b(B ;
[..]
What is the meaning of this term?
$B0lHLLr!&0lHL9b(B
>
> Reference:http://www.asamiryo.jp/ippan15.html
>
This reference ascertains the origin of the name in Chinese?
Are the two names

$B0lHL9b(B and $B0lGV8}(B

meaning the same now or differently?

Could they be both wrong like Tsian and tong?
++++++++++++++
> --

On Aug 28, 2:46 am, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> Sorry, this is an even better reference for this topic:
>
> http://www.asamiryo.jp/km13.html
>
> al wrote:

> > What is the meaning of this term?
> > $B0lHLLr!&0lHL9b(B
>
> Common patterns: Two Identical Sequences
>
> > This reference ascertains the origin of the name in Chinese?
>
> km13.html explains it better.
>
> The way I explain it, in the book I'm writing:
>
> $B!z(B $B!V0lHL9b!WgP!V0lGV8}!W(B
>
> $B4aF|K\GWE*?M!$Pr>o>o8+!V0lGV8}!WGgL>cJ!#(B
>
> $BB6Ui!V0lGV8}!WB(@'!V0lHL9b!W!$Gg8DOB<oQ#F~F|K\8e!$!V0lHL9b!W(B
> $BE*4A;zE*UmK!<:Q#N;!$1w@'F|K\?MJXXal&2;:n4v8D;zE6F~5n!$="@.0Y(B
> $BN;!V0lGV8}!W!#(B
It seems obvious that one term is different from the other, unless $B!V0lGV(B
$B8}!W(Bis metaphor in Japanese culture. It$B!G(Bs unlikely. So $B!V0lGV8}!W(Bis not $B!V0lHL9b(B.
>
> $B:#F|4{A3??AjBgGr!$CNF;@53NL>cJ@'!V0lHL9b!W!$="]sM-M}M3:Feket(B
> $BMQ!V0lGV8}!WGg8D;lITC#0UE*2xL>!#(B
>
When one is different from the other, it$B!G(Bs not necessarily one must be
right or wrong. But the term [$B0lGV8}!W(Bdoes seem meaningless.

> > Could they be both wrong like Tsian and tong?
>
> km13.html has explained it very well. $B0lHL9b(B is only 95% correct,
> but it is 90% more correct than $B0lGV8}(B.

It is difficult to grasp the calculation of percentages. But I can
appreciate the possibility of the same inconsistency in the Chinese
use of names for the mahjong symbols. Similar mistakes made because
the same word in northern China is pronounced differently in south
China. The same reason for regional variation of names for the symbol
suits. There were strings of fish and strings of cash, as well coins
and cookies.

We have the very same meaningless terms in use in mahjong. And we are
perpetuating them just the same.
>
> [..]
++++++++
Cheers$B!D(B.al
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On Aug 21, 3:16 am, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> MuTsun Tsai wrote:
> > Hi everyone. I just made a website about Japanese mahjong. It's a Chinese
> > website, thought, but in case there's any one of you who reads Chinese,
> > here's the address:
>
> >http://www.abstreamace.com/mahjong/
>
> Good website on Modern Japanese. A lot more detailed than some websites
> (such as mine) which only lists the patterns.
>
> [..]
>
> One point: even though everybody in Japan writes it that way, the characters
> for Ò»° ¿Ú are not correct. Historically, the Japanese have lost the correct
> characters for the name, so they make up the characters Ò»° ¿Ú based on the
> pronunciation. The original Chinese name of the pattern is Ò»°ã¸ß ;

First, the term Ò»°ã¸ß is meaningful to me. It's something like "all one
height" or "same one rank" which conveys the idea of "identical
sequence". "Ò»° ¿Ú" in Japanese means what? A cup of something?

The situation is familiar! The same has been done in China in the
history of mahjong. The very name mahjong is incorrect. It's for the
same reason Ò»° ¿Ú is used and continue in use.

> as a Chinese person, you should not propogate the Japanese error, and should
> at least indicate this fact on your site.
>
> Reference:http://www.asamiryo.jp/ippan15.html
>
Talking about error, as I had mentioned in an earlier post, I noticed
the suit name "tong" spelled "Ͳ = bamboo TUBE" associated with its use
as a container instead of "tong = copper Í­" or Cash which is copper
coin, Í­Ç®.

Since "Ͳ = bamboo TUBE" was not pointed out as in error, (even though
it is in error also) I assume it is then the correct term in your
book. Yet the western version of tong is "cash". Western history has
the game as "money-based". That is logically obvious that "cash" is
incorrect unless Ͳ is wrong. If Ͳ is not wrong in Chinese and
Japanese, why Chinese historians and scholars do not defend the
integrity of their own game and that of the Japanese? Instead a
foreign version of the terms have been and continue to be
"propagated".
--
++++++++++
Cheers....al

On Aug 30, 12:59 am, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > Sorry but I am confused. Is the above Chinese writing translation of
> > km13.html? Or is it part of "the book" you are writing - What book?
>
> The latter. The quotation is a very brief and liberal paraphrasing of
> km13.html .

Thanks for the clarifications. But then, there are more questions if
you don't mind (^_^). When was km13.html ("km13") written? Is it
merely talking about Japanese rules (e.g., the game development from
and after it first landed in Japan), or is it trying to connect the
Japanese development to its predecesor in China? When was "¤@¬×¤f" first
seen in written records and what does it mean (if it is meaningful at
all)? Is the term "¤@¬×¤f" the *only* term used universally in all
Japanese writing? Sorry for all the questions (I don't read Japanese
but I am interested in the topic). I am just trying to be convinced by
your statement, or by your translation of km13 for that matter.

> I'm writing my book, titled "¤¤±e³Â³¶¥vÆ[". It'll tell people both things
> they don't know about mahjong rules, and things they don't want to know
> about mahjong rules.

Good to be known ahead of time - thanks for the reveal!

> > [...]
>
> >>Symbolism history is another thing, but if one wants to research
> >>rules history, it's difficult for him to do much unless
> >>he is fluent in Chinese, English, *and* Japanese.
>
> > Could you explain why one must also know Japanese (your "*and*
> > Japanese") in order to research rules history (of mahjong) well?
>
> Because written documentation in Chinese are scarce, so we need to
> add in Japanese and English ones. The Chinese like to play the game,
> but we didn't write much about it - and in cases where we wrote,
> we didn't keep the books well.

Thanks for the explanation - it sounds reasonable about your
statement. My opinion is that one must also be careful about their
sources, and not to make conclusions about the missing past simply
based on those available non-Chinese sources.

> "Collective forgetting" about mahjong is so severe that here in Hong Kong,
> most people are not even aware that "New Style" (as documented by
> Perlman & Chan and Amy Lo) ever existed, and they believe that the New Style
> patterns originated in Taiwan. And not only do rarely few know about the
> classical "East double" payoff (mentioned in P&C), many don't even know about
> the original Old Style "discarder double" payoff.

Players don't normally care about the history of a game; if they do,
they are not an ordinary player any more. I believe it's ok for the
ordinary players to know only what they are normally in touch with, as
long as they don't conclude anything in the past based on what seems
to be the only information currently available to them.

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

al wrote:

> On Aug 28, 2:46 am, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, this is an even better reference for this topic:
>>
>>http://www.asamiryo.jp/km13.html
>>

>>其實「一盃���是「一般高�，這個和種傳入日本後，「一般高�
>>的漢字的寫法失傳了，於是日本人便憑讀音作幾個字填入去，就�為
>>了「一盃��。
>
> It seems obvious that one term is different from the other, unless 「一盃
> ��is metaphor in Japanese culture. It's unlikely. So 「一盃��is not 「一般高.

The "pronunciation" was neither Mandarin nor Cantonese, so the two
terms did sound alike. And Asano provided a clear source of who
coined 「一盃��, so there is no doubt.


>>今日既然真相大白，知�正確�稱是「一般高�，就沒有�由�繼續
>>用「一盃��這個詞���的怪�。
>>
>
> When one is different from the other, it's not necessarily one must be
> right or wrong. But the term [一盃��does seem meaningless.

When the historical source has been revealed, it can be said that 「一般高�
is the original and 「一盃��is a term made up from the pronunciation
when the original was lost. That is very close to saying that the former
is the correct term.

>>km13.html has explained it very well. 一般高 is only 95% correct,
>>but it is 90% more correct than 一盃�.
>
> It is difficult to grasp the calculation of percentages.

This is a metaphor, of course. However, it can be properly understood
only if one understands the content of km13.html .

> We have the very same meaningless terms in use in mahjong. And we are
> perpetuating them just the same.

We can try to improve by using the correct terms when we know.
And in this case of 一般高, the fact is very clear.

--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能�在�牌之�和牌。強加「起和��定，
�牌�准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
�求大牌�能�在�牌之��能和，這�是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / tarot.DeleteThis@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/

On Aug 30, 6:37 pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> ... as long as they don't conclude anything in [about?] the past based on what
> seems to be the only information currently available to them.


Oh Damn! So that rules out Cosmology, Astrophysics, most of Geology,
Paleontology, Paleobotany, Archeology ........ ?

On Aug 30, 1:34 pm, mstanw... DeleteThis @talktalk.net wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:37 pm, Cofa Tsui <cofat... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > ... as long as they don't conclude anything in [about?] the past based on what
> > seems to be the only information currently available to them.
>
> Oh Damn! So that rules out Cosmology, Astrophysics, most of Geology,
> Paleontology, Paleobotany, Archeology ........ ?

I have written:

For the rules researchers:
"... My opinion is that one must also be careful about their
sources, and not to make conclusions about the missing past simply
based on those available non-Chinese sources."

And for the game players:
"... I believe it's ok for the
ordinary players to know only what they are normally in touch with,
as
long as they don't conclude anything in the past based on what seems
to be the only information currently available to them."

So for the quote you have question on, it should better be understood
as:
"... as long as they don't conclude [about] anything in the *missing*
past based on what seems to be the only information currently
available to them."

In other word, one must not conclude about any *missing* thing in the
past based only on information currently available to them (the latter
part would certainly include Cosmology, Astrophysics, most of Geology,
Paleontology, Paleobotany, Archeology, McDonald's burgers, Chinese
wonton, etc., etc.).

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

Cofa Tsui wrote:

> Sorry but I am confused. Is the above Chinese writing translation of
> km13.html? Or is it part of "the book" you are writing - What book?

The latter. The quotation is a very brief and liberal paraphrasing of
km13.html .

I'm writing my book, titled "中庸麻雀�觀". It'll tell people both things
they don't know about mahjong rules, and things they don't want to know
about mahjong rules.

> [...]
>
>>Symbolism history is another thing, but if one wants to research
>>rules history, it's difficult for him to do much unless
>>he is fluent in Chinese, English, *and* Japanese.
>
>
> Could you explain why one must also know Japanese (your "*and*
> Japanese") in order to research rules history (of mahjong) well?

Because written documentation in Chinese are scarce, so we need to
add in Japanese and English ones. The Chinese like to play the game,
but we didn't write much about it - and in cases where we wrote,
we didn't keep the books well.

"Collective forgetting" about mahjong is so severe that here in Hong Kong,
most people are not even aware that "New Style" (as documented by
Perlman & Chan and Amy Lo) ever existed, and they believe that the New Style
patterns originated in Taiwan. And not only do rarely few know about the
classical "East double" payoff (mentioned in P&C), many don't even know about
the original Old Style "discarder double" payoff.

--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能�在�牌之�和牌。強加「起和��定，
�牌�准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
�求大牌�能�在�牌之��能和，這�是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / tarot DeleteThis @netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/

Cofa Tsui wrote:

> In other word, one must not conclude about any *missing* thing in the
> past based only on information currently available to them (the latter
> part would certainly include Cosmology, Astrophysics, most of Geology,
> Paleontology, Paleobotany, Archeology, McDonald's burgers, Chinese
> wonton, etc., etc.).

We should not "conclude", but we need to "conjecture" or the only things
we can usefully talk about would be M's burders and wonton. In the cases of
mahjong history, Cosmology, Astrophysics, most of Geology, Paleontology,
Paleobotany, Archeology, ... , we often don't have enough information to
draw solid conclusions, so we make a conjecture and believe that it's probably
correct unless we get information which indicates otherwise.

That's what my book will do: show information most people do not know, and offer
possible explanations which they haven't though of.

--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能�在�牌之�和牌。強加「起和��定，
�牌�准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
�求大牌�能�在�牌之��能和，這�是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / tarot.TakeThisOut@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/