Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.

On Apr 13, 6:07 am, mstanw...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:43 am, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 9, 1:59 pm, mstanw...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Apr 9, 2:54 am, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, thank you. I looked it up when I came across it together with
other numismatics terms used before the Song, in a reference I had
acquired.
The other terms were guan, suo.
Were they in English and Chinese?
I have never seen min in Chinese nor in English before. I found it
accidently among words of threads.

**NOTE: I will be away until Friday 17th April.**
(That should give you some time to read these posts - there are 4
replies in all)

Guan ?and suo 索were in English and Chinese.

The reference says that Cash were reckoned in wen 文and in short, full
and standard strings of 1000 Cash. The strings were called normally
guan ?, suo 索 and min ? before the Song and diao 吊 or chuan 串in the
Ming and Qing.

They were defined differently at different times according to how many
cash were in the string.

But YOU think you know the 'wording and meaning' of rope that was
ACTUALLY USED during pre and Late Ming times, don't you??
No. I am not that foolish to claim that. I have no evidence of its
use.
The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not
get used in the game tells me something.
No it does not.
It tells you nothing.
Nothing at all except your own ignorance about it (I don't mean this
as an insult. It means how much you don't know about it).
Hey, how do you know what it tells me. You cannot read my mind, as
you reminded me sometimes.

I KNOW from what you SAID above. YOU said "the fact such a word with
its full meaning as a string of coins DID NOT GET USED in the game
tells me something" did you not?
YOU also said "I have no evidence of its use."
YOU and I were talking about min ?. 'It' refers to min ?.

So, all you know from contemporary reference sources is that it was a
term used as far back as before the Song for a string of coins.
You don't know what amount of coins was on the string at any point in
time or locale and you don't know whether it was a term used or not
used in 'the game'.

If you do know, then please let me have your reasoning and evidence?

You have no idea whether the term min got used in a card game or not.
I spoke as I know. I stand corrected if you show me mistaken.

I am sorry? You know? You know it was not used? How do you know that?
Please give me your reasons and evidence that show how you know that?

I learned from you. No support shown does not mean no support ever. If
my hypot is valid, the support will be there soon or later.

No support means no support.
No support = no support.
No support does NOT mean I have faith there will be support sooner or
later.

That is why I asked you for your evidence below...
Please give me your evidence that supports your knowledge of that
time.

I am not sure what you refer to, my knowledge of that time on what?

On the use of the term min ?.

From your modern acquaintance of the word plus my mention of the word
above, you have some knowledge about the word.
Now, please show me the evidence you have from the Song - Ming that
gives you the justification for claiming (apart from guessing) whether
the term was used in the game or was not used in the game.

Please show me, I am very interested in what you may have.

My point is that people used the wrong term even in those old Ming
days.
That is your guess or opinion.
That was my opinion formed from knowing there was a more appropriate
term for a 'string of coin' than suo3.

But a string of how many coins??
How do you know it was "a more appropriate" term for use in the game
when you do not know how many coins were on the string?

Please give me your reasons and evidence for your claim.

I said that to you before. The mere possibility of error is no reason
for doubt.
Your claim is only a possibility because everything you offer as
reasons for your claim are from your own time and experience.
Projecting one's own experience to different time and different
situation. Yes. Don't you think using [your] own experience?

NOT outside of my own time or place. And even within my own time or
place I use my experience to guide only some of my actions. I try to
not use it to claim I know something about somebody else.

Let's see an example of what I mean.
Let's assume 150 years ago Charles Darwin ate breakfast.
I have buttered toast for breakfast.
I butter my toast with my left hand.
That is my experience.
Therefore, I claim Charles Darwin had buttered toast for breakfast and
he buttered it with his left hand.

But my experience tells me nothing about what he has for breakfast 150
years ago, does it?
Similarly, your experience tells us nothing either.

Please do not give me some modern dictionary definition as if that
tells us what the meaning was some 300 years ago.
I cannot accept your word on an act of faith.
Which specific items in question? Let me see if I correct them for
you. List them.

Ok. Min ?. You say it "did not get used" in the game.
How do you know?
The only thing you know is that it did not get used in the game
described by Pan and Lu and Feng.
Maybe it was used in other Ma Diao games - who knows?
Or maybe it was not used in other Ma Diao games - who knows?

I found the Chinese writing in CEDICT
when I was looking to see why words start with the radical on the left
side while other words end with the radical at the bottom. I am glad
to have found it.

I am glad you have found it as well.

Did you know what min means before now?

Yes, a String of Coins.
I am still researching what amount of wen were on the string at
specific times and place.

Why didn't you question?

I did. Please do not start making assumptions about what you do not
know about me.

In CEDICT Suo3 can be just a string or rope. Min is a cord or a
'string of coin'.

It is a string or rope etc., etc., etc., NOW.

Have you attempted to research whether suo3 had any other meanings/
uses before your own time and place??

Thank you for your kind remarks. However, you have not said anything
credible that allows me to consider your advice as worth taking.
That is because you have too much faith in history documented by
Himly, Culin and Wilkinson et al. and as I explained to you before.
You have too little faith in your own limited knowledge of the Chinese
language.

But here you go again. Please tell me how you know what my reasons are
for not considering your remarks/advice credible?
You just assumed you know and then you go and try and insult me on the
back of it.

I was hoping you would stop doing that.

For your own information, it has nothing to do with my knowledge of
Chinese language.
It has everything to do with what I regard as your very bad use of
logic.
I cannot accept your advice when I genuinely consider your claims to
contain very flawed logic.
They also show me that you do not understand what relevant evidence
is.
They also show me you do not understand how evidence is used.
They also show me that when you try and use data as evidence you make
totally flawed inferences from it.

Please do not get upset at these remarks. I am trying to tell you why
I consider 'you have not said anything credible'.
I am trying to tell you why I think your response above was wrong.
You did not know why I said your remarks were not credible. You
illogically inferred some reasons from your own mind and assumed they
were my reasons.
Why did you do that?

But I can accept both (as well as guan) as terms for reckoning
quantities of Cash.
Both wen qian and guan - mentioned in Lu and Pan's accounts - were
used in the numismatics context outside of playing cards. The
reference I have also places suo3 in that context as well as another
term min ?.
Why are you hanging on to the money denominations?

I am afraid you do not understand my reasons.
Both Lu and Pan used terms that, in the context of the game and
according to them, meant denominations of cash.
Were those terms actually used as monetary terms outside of the game?
My ongoing research has uncovered references to their use as monetary
terms outside of the game before Lu and Pan's descriptions.
This is confirming evidence for a prediction from the MDH.
It does not confirm any of your suspicions of error or doubt or
possibility of doubt.
It is disconfirming evidence of your claims.
Further evidence is being sought.

The symbols are not cash money. They are symbols of concepts. Like the fruits in Garden of
Eden, they are not apples of different shapes and size.

Well, by all means please continue with your protestations.
But please do not expect me to accept them on faith, or your hope that
they may yet be true.
They may yet be.
If they happen to be be then I will discard any other hypotheses and
use yours.
But good reliable evidence and logical inferences are the key.

So there is no 'tough decision' to be had. It does not exist.
If there were no mention of suo3 as a monetary term whatsoever, then
yes, that term would be questionable as a term for a particular string
of cash.
What if that term is a mistaken term made up by mistake?

Then that would be disconfirming evidence for one of the MDH
predictions wouldn't it?

But it is only, at this point, a WHAT IF.

'Min' is defined as 'string of coins' as per CEDICT
Suo3 is only a rope or a string. Pan wrote 'take suo3 as' such to
include quantity of Cash. It had other meaning. Even though the 3
scholars used suo3 the same way, it does not mean they must be right.
But it doesn't mean they must be wrong either!
In your logical reasoning, what does that show?
Why did you choose the latter?

The latter, what?

I meant that if you want to show they were wrong in their use then put
up some contradictory evidence from that time - for example, some
record that says the suo3 as used was wrong or that suo3 was never a
monetary term etc etc.

Well, since you asked, I am afraid it shows that;
(1) you have taken two meanings of suo3 that exist today.
(2) you have claimed they were the only meanings of that word 300
years ago.
(3)you have not investigated the possibility that there were other
meanings in use some 300 years ago.
(4)you have not investigated that possibility even though the word
suo3 was used to mean something else by a person who existed in the
Late Ming.
(5)You have failed to remain impartial and hence failed investigate
all avenues or lines of inquiry thrown up by new evidence.
No use argue further. I can say even if I failed in my investigation
so far, it is better than accepting everything without good reasons.

But you have not answered my observations about you not having
investigated suo3 properly.
You have not investigated the word suo3 to see if it was a monetary
term, have you??
YOU are making the claim that it is not, aren't you??
So please do some work and find evidence to back up your claim.
I can wait to see what you find out.

The evidence is there. ? = min is defined as a string of coins in
dictionary.
Why was suo3 used in place of ??

Ok. A good question.
(1) Why are you assuming suo3 was not a term used for a specific
number of coins on a string?
(2) Why are you assuming ? has the same number of coins as suo3 =
string of 100 coins.
(2) Why are you assuming ?was not used? Absence of evidence is NOT
evidence of absence.

However, there is no evidence as to what value the string of coins
had.
Almost the same as suo3, 100 or 1000?

I do not know at this point.

It may have been inappropriate as a term for a string of 100 cash
coins. Who knows?
So Pan, Feng and Rong could have all wrong in their use of suo3 in
place of min.

No. The other way round. ? may have been an inappropriate term for a
string of 100 coins. Maybe it was a string of 1000 coins. Who knows at
this point.

But I do know that suo3 was used to mean a string of 100 cash in the
card game.
I also have two references that cash were reckoned in wen qian and in
strings of cash. These strings were either short, full or standard
strings and were called various names at various times. One of these
was called suo3.
Where is logic? Gone with the Winds?

No. I am sorry you do not understand. That is because you refuse, by
your own admission, to do your own research into the use of these
terms in the monetary context.
I do not know why you refuse.
I did not refuse to research into the I Ching, the Lu Spring and
Autumn Annals and the Wu Xing etc., etc., etc., possible connections
as explanations for the extra groups as I have explained before.

Again the evidence is there. 索 = suo3 is defined simply as 'rope,
string' in dictionary.
But you have failed to follow up and investigate that there might have
been another meaning in use in the pre or Ming Dynasty.
Suo3 should not be. That is the point.

No. I am sorry, but it is NOT the point. 'Should not' is what you have
determined without fully investigating the term.
Please use your intelligence and savvy and language skills and
research the term in the money context.
The coins won't bite! ^-^

See above. You have failed to even consider that there might be
another meaning, now extinct in the modern usage.
Could you not see you have failed to support the use of suo3?

What support? It was used.
It was used and it was described how it was used and what it meant.
I do not have to support anything.

Now, its meaning is another matter.
You have tried to cast doubt on its meaning as Pan described it.
But you have offered no convincing evidence from that time to cast
doubt on its meaning.
You have tried to illogically connect a modern dictionary meaning to
its meaning in the Ming or pre Ming times.
But you have not described your linking principle - the reasoning for
why you think that all the meanings in the past were and always have
been the same as all the meanings in the present.
I do not mean to be insulting. I have tried to explain why I regard
your connections as 'illogical' above.

If there were no mention in Ming literature then I would say you had
no reason to investigate it.
But there is mention of that meaning and so you are obliged to follow
that up and investigate it.
I have already shown you that suo3 is not the proper term. I will have
additional support.

I am sorry, but no, you haven't. You have improperly (hence
illogically) used/linked a modern dictionary definition as being the
definition for the Ming and pre Ming times as well.
It is illogical because you have NOT established that link at all.

I am afraid your 1st point is wrong.
Money denominations do NOT IMPLY gambling.
Why is money there then?

As was explained to you before, one reason may have been that the
money denominations provided a useful means of establishing different
suits with their internal value systems and ranking hierarchies.

Do you think those money denominations on the cards were all
sanctioned by law?

I have no idea.
I am afraid that does not mean they were or they were not sanctioned
by law - unless you have evidence to establish one was the case?

Well. Have you? I mean which way?
You are defending the denominations of money, are you not?

I am sorry but you are wrong here as well. I am not defending
anything.
But I am trying to explain it though, and I am trying to explain why I
consider it the best explanation at the moment.

As I said in my previous post I am awaiting another text to see if it
is mentioned as well.
If not, then another text to come?

Gosh, I hope not. These books are very expensive! ^_^
Perhaps we could buy each other a book?
You buy me another text and I'll buy you another dictionary?
After all, you rely on texts as well, don't you?
How about another dictionary to come? ^_^
Or how about some shares in your CEDICT to come? ^_^
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your post is as meaningful as the title, "Number of Tiles in the Himly
and Glover Sets".

You wasted thousands of words on money denominations. You can not get
the idea and the reality that money denomination is not the central
issue. All the knowledge you have on history of Chinese coins does not
apply in your favor in mahjong suit development, IMO.

The game has been played all this time by the Chinese like me, myself,
who attach no moetary value to any symbol. Play a game with the real
players then you get the drift of what I am trying to tell you.

Money denominations don't matter, because the circles are not money.
The "string" or "rope" became "string of cash" or maybe "rope of
cash?" through "grammatical alteration".

I don't think I need to debate on words with you. You are too good
with words.
We would be repeating ourselves anyway. So I stop here. Me too...I
will be away for a few days.
++++++++
Cheers....
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... term used as far back as before the Song for a string of coins. ... then please let me have your reasoning and evidence? ... Have you attempted to research whether suo3 had any other meanings/ ... its meaning is another matter. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The problem I have with your language is that you claim Suo3 **should ... To me this demands that we accept your meaning and reject the other ... what evidence have you got that contradicts what we know was ... 'divination' besides string and rope in its definition. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not ... YOU also said “I have no evidence of its use.” ... Have you attempted to research whether suo3 had any other meanings/ ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... But I have not received any specific replies to my points. ... term used as far back as before the Song for a string of coins. ... then please let me have your reasoning and evidence? ... its meaning is another matter. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not ... YOU said you have no evidence of its use. ... If there were no mention of suo3 as a monetary term whatsoever, ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)