"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e6cvfdkncoo.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Notes on Tam Wing Kwong, "The Game of Sparrow as played in China".
>
> [ This note is in the Big5 encoding. For those reading without
> Chinese fonts, the hanyu pinyin readings are given in square
> brackets. Readings outside square brackets are from the book, using
> the author's transcription of Cantonese.
> I can also post a GB version if desired. ]
>
> Bibliographic information:
> Author: Tam Wing Kwong.
> (Unfortunately, there is no evidence to say whether this is Chinese or
> English name order, except that possibly the spacing on the cover might
> indicate Chinese order. On the basis that Tam Wing-Kwong appears several
> times on the Hong Kong Web, and Kwong Tam-Wing does not appear on
> the Web, I assume it must be Chinese order - can Cantonese speakers
> confirm?)
> Title: The Game of Sparrow as played in China, with the History of Maa
> Jong Appendixed.
> Edition: Revised second edition.
> Publisher: none given. Sole distributor: Ip Tak & Company.
> Year: 1925. (First edition 1922.)
> Pages: title-page + 71pp.
Hi Julian, thanks for sharing this very detailed piece of information.
Here
I'll try to add something to your questions as a Cantonese speaker.
It appears to me that Tam Wing Kwong seems to be the correct name in
Chinese
order. If in English order, it would have to be, when converted back to
Chinese order, KWONG, Tam Wing. This doesn't sound to be "smooth".
>
> The first surprise in this book is on the front cover. The cover shows
> a sketch of a tile, on the face of which is written the title and
> author, with at the bottom the three old dragon tiles, in the order
> green phoenix, white, red dragon. The title is written thus:
>
> THE GAME OF
>
> SPARROW
>
> 將 馬
The Chinese words here is understood (at least for the Chinese readers,
given the time of the publication) to be read from right to left.
>
> AS PLAYED IN
>
> CHINA
>
> The Chinese is hand-written; 馬 [ma3] with the traditional character,
> and 將 [jiang4] written not with the usual Chinese shape, but with
> the shape now standard in Japan, with the "paw" radical in the top
> right. (Is/was this shape also common in Hong Kong?)
Don't quite understand the question - Have to see the image. Do you have
the
scan? One thing though, I am quite surprised this term is used. In
particular, the word 將 [jiang4] could be the earliest usage in the game
name mahjong.
> This is doubly interesting: it is the earliest use I've seen of 將
> [jiang4]
> `general' rather than 雀 [que4] `sparrow' as the second word in the
> name, and the only use I know of 馬 [ma3] `horse' rather than 麻 [ma2]
> `hemp' as the first. More on this at the end when I describe the
> Appendix.
[...]
>
>
> The book proper starts:
>
> The Game of Sparrow or Maa Jerg 麻雀 [ma2que4], or Maa Jong 馬將
> [ma3jiang4], is played ...
>
> In this printed text, 將 [jiang4] appears in the usual shape. Here we
> see the usual name of the game, with the front cover version as an
> alternative. I don't know the author's Cantonese romanization system,
> but I don't know any system in which 將 [jiang4] is written "Jong" -
> and given the author's transcription "Jerg" for 雀 [que4], I would
> have expected "Jerng". Can a Cantonese speaker help me here?
The author is obviously Cantonese speaking, therefore "Jerg" for 雀 [que4]
is correct. "Jerng" (or "Jeung") for 將 is more correct in Cantonese.
"Jong"
is an phonetic transcription that does not represent the correct sound of
the word in Cantonese.
[...]
>
> The dragons he calls Faan Dzee (翻子 [fan1zi]) and translates
> "doublers". Notably, he says that the 龍 [long2] Loeng `dragon' and 鳳
> [feng4] Foeng `phoenix' (given of course in the traditional forms) are
> the usual markings, but owing to Republican objections to the use of the
> Imperial dragon sign, these are sometimes substituted by the 中
> [zhong1] Joeng and 發 [fa1] Faad characters. Since the last Emperor's
> own set used zhong and fa, this argument doesn't sound terribly
> convincing!
> A question for the Cantonese speakers: Amy Lo's book uses "番子
> [fan1zi] Fan Jee" for the Honour tiles (Winds and Dragons), also
> presumably meaning doublers. Are both the fan1 characters possible for
> faan in Cantonese, as far as you're concerned?
I guess, the use of 翻子 [fan1zi] could be a mistake. 翻子 ("turn over",
"piece") doesn't seem to have any proper meaning. In the term "番子
[fan1zi]", 番 means number, fold (used as noun). "番子 [fan1zi]" as used
in
mahjong means "score" "pieces".
>
> The terminology used for tile sets is a bit confusing. He says that a
> set of three is called a "刻 [ke4] KAAN", but immediately says that
> this means a concealed three. I believe this character is hak or haak
> in Cantonese (that's what Amy Lo writes as well), so where does "kaan"
> come from?
KAAN (Cantonese) doesn't have a corresponding Chinese word, therefore "刻
[ke4]" is used for convenience purposes. KAAN means a piece of cut (a kaan
of orange, a kaan of apple, etc.). In fact, the word "刻 [ke4]" also gives
the same meaning.
[...]
>
> For claiming discards, he has the following terminology: to claim a
> pung, one calls "Paag 拍 [pai1]" or "Poeng 拼 [pin1] (meaning strike
> or collison)". Strange: is 拼 [pin1] (which is not quite clearly
printed,
> and could possibly be 抗 [kang4], but I don't think so) a misprint for
> the expected 碰 [peng4] (which if I understand the author's
> romanization would indeed be "poeng")? He uses "paag" in the rest of
> the book for a pung. For making a chow, he uses 收 [shou1]; for the
> set itself, he uses only the English term "consecutives".
All are new to me. I have no idea why these Chinese words are used this
way.
>
> Appendix B is the promised history of maa jong, explaining his strange
> version of the name. He says his aim is to dispel the nonsense written
> by Americans claiming that Mah-Jong dates from Confucian times; en
> route, we get an explanation of his curious name of the game.
>
> At about the fall of the Tang Dynasty, gamblers used to settle up
> points won or lost between them by means of maas (馬 [ma3] meaning
> horses) which were of paper or wood made to represent the numbers 1
> to 9 and also 10 and multiples thereof, the last of which were
> indicated by pictures of horses, lions, elephants and rhinoceroses.
>
> This is new to me, but I don't know the prehistory of Mah-Jong at all
> well - is this part of the standard account? Anyway, he says that
> these cards combined with dominoes to produce "Maa Due (馬吊
> [ma3diao4])". Now I quote again:
>
> In the Ming Dynasty (明朝 [ming2chao2]), the game developed to what
> was then called Muoh Hwo cards (抹和牌 [mo4 huo2/he2 pai2 (*)]) which
> also
> had in the set maans, cashes and sogs. Players later added to the
> set 3 kinds of Aces on which were printed flowers called Hwas (花牌
> [hua1pai2], Flower cards), and others added four more kinds "Teens,
> Deis, Yuns and Hwos" called Jongs (將 [jiang4] Generals). At this
> stage, the game was given the name of Hwa Jong (flowers and
> generals).
>
> [ (*) I'm guessing the pinyin here - I have no idea which readings of
> these two characters are the correct ones. Help, anyone? ]
> He then asserts that Maa Jong is an amalgamation of Maa Due (ma-diao)
> and Hwa Jong.
"抹[mo4]" has the meaning of "touch" or extending to "draw" as used in
mahjong. "抹和[mo4 he2]" (or [mo hu]) (draw win) has the similar meaning
as
"silent win".
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
|
