On Apr 17, 9:10 am, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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?
>
This terminology in the early days of modern mahjong is much liken to
the days of Genesis. Cash, String of Cash and Myriad of Cash are
comparable to the "fruits". And the fruits are apples, pears and
plums.
Round coin are recognizable, tangible and usable. Fruits are visible,
touchable and edible. Their existence is undeniable.
Now look back and ask ourselves. Was the Book of Genesis about fruits
or was there more to the story?
Likewise, was Mahjong a story all about Cash or was there more to the
game?
Think about it.
+++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
> > The [name Cash] was given as Himly.
> > 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.[..]
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > > [..]
>
> > > > +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++
> > > > January 7, 2008
>
> > > > Would this be a correct interpretation then?
>
> > > > Pan used "suo", according to Lo.
> > > > Lo's translation was "suo" for =CB=F7.
> > > > Lo's translation was published in the 20th century, The
Playing-Card=
> > > > Vol. xxix Number 3.
> > > > Himly wrote it as "So" when he described =CB=F7 in the 19th
century=
..
> > > > Wilkinson referred to =CB=F7 as a "string of Cash", after Himly,
lik=
ewise
> > > > did Culin.
> > > > Himly referred to =CB=F7 "suo" as "string of Cash" before
Wilkinson,=
Culin
> > > > and Lo.
+++++++++++
It is obvious that Chinese had not made the distinction between coins
and concept or objects from symbols since way back. When early
Westerner came along, they could not tell the difference either
because they were strangers in foreign land.
However, it's about time for people today to differentiate objects
from symbols. In olden days people used objects in place words to
express abstract ideas. We have more words at my command now. We need
to look behind an object used in writings of days of old.
Himly and others failed to that.
+++++++++++
>
> > > > Himly was the first to call =CB=F7 as a "string of Cash". Is that
co=
rrect?
> > > > I wonder if Lo had gotten the "string" from Himly but only =CB=F7
wi=
thout
> > > > the specific "string" from Pan.
>
> String was mis-interpreted. Since then scholars, historians and
> authors follow suit.
>
> > > > The mahjong set of Himly had =CB=F7 looking like bamboo sticks (?)
a=
nd
> > > > circles without square holes, looking unlike Cash. Himly's =CB=F7
in=
> > > > reality at the time of discovery and his writing could not have
been=
a
> > > > "string of cash" when Cash was not copper coins as those circles
had=
> > > > no holes. Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole
in=
> > > > the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It's simple
logi=
c.
> > > > In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination
us=
e,
> > > > shown in a link at the end of this post.
>
> Coins without holes in roll is called a "string of cash". Can you
> believe that?
First, those were not coins. Second, there was symbolic meaning
behind.
> [..]
> > > > The square hole was missing in all the circle symbols of all
mahjong=
> > > > sets shown in M. Stanwick's mahjong(g), a 4-part series of The
Playi=
ng-
> > > > Card, Volume 32 Number 4 and 5, Volume 34 Number 4 and Volume 35
> > > > Number 1. Then how did Himly get the idea of "Cash" and "String of
> > > > Cash"?
>
That ought to serve as a strong signal that there was miscommunication
somewhere. But when so few people ever wrote about it, readers believe
anything said. Parsimony carries on.
> > > >[..]
>
> > > > So "Cash" by Himly was taken incorrectly from the start. The
mistake=
> > > > was in the interpretation that "tong" was "tong chein",
=CD=AD=C7=AE=
, instead
> > > > of "tong", =CD=B2, bamboo cylinder; compounded by the assumption
of=
> > > > "string" as monetary denomination and multiplied by (=CD=F2)
ten-th=
ousand
> > > > times!
His interpretor did not know better. He was partly at fault.
> > [..]
>
> By the way, Dau Nu (Fighting Tiger) had written record as a game of
> Late Ming, why there is nothing found written on mahjong? What about
> Ma Daio? Pan and Feng wrote ...
>
Pan nd Feng wrote game manuals on paper. Yet there is no trace of a
mahjong manual like that for ma daio. Does that not indicate,
possibly, mahjong was long in existence before ma daio? Bones and wood
and knife were made before paper. A majong tile is but a deformed
large dice.
Anybody who thinks mahjong is only about 150 years old needs to think
again.
Diamond was found 5000 years ago in India, but the stone is probably
as old as the earth itself. Mahjong was found by Westerners less than
200 years ago, but the game could have been 2000 years old.
> read more >>
++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
|
