On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27
pm, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > Cash" and why?
>
> The answer to this was given as Himly.
It had to be a foreigner other than a Chinese.
> Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" are not terms in
> common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
> those names at all.
We Chinese call them simpler names, although we didn't know what they
meant.
> The average Chinese native would have a totally different image of the
> "string of cash" and what it looks like (definitely NOT in a roll that
> looks like a sausage or bamboo rod);
Coins can not stay in a roll like that threaded by a string. Paper was
a scarce commodity. The picture is unreal.
> as for "myriad of cash", it is unheard of. Yet these have become
standard terms in Western mahjong
> history. Furthermore, Westerners concluded that Cash was the base for
> the mahjong game. As I found out recently, the Chinese official
> version of the mahjong game history has not been directly examined,
> translated or referenced.
> [..]
But I would not be surprised to see Western influence even in the
Chinese language. Look at what happened to hemp-bird; it changed to
hemp-general.
> [..]
>
> Here is the ROOT of the problem of forever confusion in the game's
> terminology. The CORE IDEA of the game had been lost for hundreds or
> more years. Regional slang terms added as the game migrated from place
> to place. When the natives of a region did not know why they called
> the symbols, how and why Westerners think and believe Culin, Himly or
> Wilkinson had all the correct and definitive terms by just talking to
> those people? It boggles my mind!
Why Chinese scholars who are still accepting Cash and Strings of Cash
is a puzzle to me.[..]
> [..]
Early coins had no square holes. they were for divination use.
Mahjong circles have no square holes and they never had square holes.
>
> > Then it's obvious that the whole mahjong terminology was based on
> > slang. And the so called Cash-base or money-suited cards is incorrect.
I am convinced Mahjong is not "money-based".
Here is why. Without going into details, I will just state it simply.
Ancient games were concept-based and not object-based.
Example 1. Dou-Hu (Fighting a Tiger). It relates to a story of a
king's daughter became a man instantly after an offering of a gift of
pearls.
Conceptually, a woman is not that much different from a man. That was
why women like that particular game. There was also a story of a woman
tamed a loose tiger when no one dared. Feminine power and gender
equality had been a desire of women for a long time. But the game was
concept-based. That is the point.
Example 2. Tien-Jiu, Heaven-Nine is another old game. What do people
call those pips or pot-holes? They are supposed to be related to the
constellation in the sky. Obviously they are not holes as objects,
They symbolize a concept whatever that might be. Again, the game was
concept-based, not object-based.
So when I hear people say that mahjong is money-based or Cash-suited,
I can see that is a mistake. Mahjong was said to be a relative of
Heaven-Nine. How can a game changed its character from a related
species like that? No way.
Mahjong is also concept-based, and not object-based. That is my point.
> [..]
++++++++++
Cheers....al
|
