Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)
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.
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
±N °¨
AS PLAYED IN
CHINA
The Chinese is hand-written; °¨ [ma3] with the traditional character,
and ±N [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?)
This is doubly interesting: it is the earliest use I've seen of ±N [jiang4]
`general' rather than ³¶ [que4] `sparrow' as the second word in the
name, and the only use I know of °¨ [ma3] `horse' rather than ³Â [ma2]
`hemp' as the first. More on this at the end when I describe the
Appendix.
After the title and contents, the book starts with Preface to the
second edition. This is dated 1st May 1925. It says that since the 1st
edition was published, the author has found that many foreigners need
more explicit guidance on the ways of going out (i.e. different types
of waiting), so he has added this; and he says "The rules of the game
have also undergone many material changes in the last year or so, and
a number of paragraphs have consequently had to be rewritten to cover
all the new rules to date." Unfortunately, these changes are not
flagged in the text (pity there were no change bars then!); maybe
somebody will find a first edition one day to compare.
At this point, I will note that the English is perfect educated
English in the formal idiom of the time; the author must, not
surprisingly, have been of the social class that would have an English
formal education and move often in the English-speaking
circles. Possibly he was a civil servant, but that would be a mere
guess. The style sometimes has a slightly older and more formal feel
to it than 1920s writing of England, but that could as well be the
author's age or the difference between England and the colonies.
The Introductory page to the first edition is dated 1st December 1922,
and reads thus:
The place of origin of the Game of Sparrow or Maa Jerg or Maa Jong
is Ning-po, where the game made its first appearance some fifty
years ago.
During the later years of the last Dynasty, when China was under
the Manchus, the game was practically confined to the Mandarin
circle, and it was not until the formation of the Chinese Republic
when it became a national game, inasmuch as it is played by people
of all ages, sexes and ranks.
In recent years, it has become popular among the foreign residents
in China and its popularity has even extended to Europe, American
and Australia.
It has been a matter of frequent occurrence that disputes have
arisen between foreign players over the rules of scoring, owing to
the fact that different rules are represented by the English books
on the subject as are written by different authors.
The sole object of this booklet is to represent to the foreign
players the rules of scoring which are invariably accepted and
observed by the players in most of the Chinese clubs in Hongkong,
and the author sincerely believes that his work will fill a long
felt want in the respect that it reduces disputes to a minimum.
While apologizing for having introduced quite a number of new
terms which foreign players may not have been accustomed to, the
author acknowledges his indebtedness to the authors of the published
English and Chinese books on the subject he has consulted during the
compilation of this work.
The book proper starts:
The Game of Sparrow or Maa Jerg ³Â³¶ [ma2que4], or Maa Jong °¨±N
[ma3jiang4], is played ...
In this printed text, ±N [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 ±N [jiang4] is written "Jong" -
and given the author's transcription "Jerg" for ³¶ [que4], I would
have expected "Jerng". Can a Cantonese speaker help me here?
The description of the tiles is mostly as usual, with the normal
Chinese names; in the author's transcription the suits become
Maan (character), Sog (string/bamboo) and Toeng (circle), and he uses
these terms throughout, rather than translating. In the description of
bamboos, he says "From the figure of a sparrow, by which the 1 sog was
original [sic] represented, and from which the name "Maa Jerg" (³Â³¶
[ma2que4], meaning sparrow) has been derived, the figure of a stork,
peacock or phoenix, or sometimes even that of a bamboo shoot, is often
substituted."
The dragons he calls Faan Dzee (½¤l [fan1zi]) and translates
"doublers". Notably, he says that the Às [long2] Loeng `dragon' and »ñ
[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 ¤¤
[zhong1] Joeng and µo [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 "µf¤l
[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?
The description of the preliminaries of the game follows some of the
standard variations. At this point, the author emphasizes that the
"cardinals are not properly located inasmuch as North and South are
transposed", but does not offer any explanation.
The terminology used for tile sets is a bit confusing. He says that a
set of three is called a "¨è [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?
In the rules for Washouts, he says that the deal does not pass for the
case of nine different terminals and honours, but does pass for the
case of reaching the dead wall, unless it is East who drew the last
tile, in which case the deal does not pass.
The rules for Kongs ("§þ [gang4] Gong") are interesting. He says that
when a Kong is declared, a replacement tile is taken from the dead
wall, and columns moved from the live wall to the dead wall so that if
there are n kongs declared, the dead wall has (7+n) columns -- so the
dead wall *grows* as people make kongs! (He is unfortunately not
perfectly clear about the half columns.) Then he says that in the
latest rules (presumably this is a 2nd edition addition) the rule is
simply that each time a kong is declared, one column is moved on to
the dead wall. Finally he remarks that some players still follow the
rule that the dead wall should always be 7 columns or 14 tiles.
I don't remember seeing such a growing dead wall rule elsewhere - does
it occur in other books?
For claiming discards, he has the following terminology: to claim a
pung, one calls "Paag ©ç [pai1]" or "Poeng «÷ [pin1] (meaning strike
or collison)". Strange: is «÷ [pin1] (which is not quite clearly printed,
and could possibly be §Ü [kang4], but I don't think so) a misprint for
the expected ¸I [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 ¦¬ [shou1]; for the
set itself, he uses only the English term "consecutives".
The author then lists all the ways in which one can be waiting for the
last tile. The list is too long to repeat, and I think the terminology
is normal.
Then we come to the scoring. In this book, the base points are 10.
The scoring table is confusing, because he conflates the 2 or 4 points
for fishing the eyes with the 2 or 4 points for dragons and own/round
wind pairs, and gives the score separately for each of the possible
types of open or closed pairs. But if I follow it correctly, it is the
standard (e.g. Millington) scoring for pairs.
He does not have a "filling the only place" score, but he does give 2
points for completing the last sequence (either in the middle or at
the side) with the final tile. Now this means that any hand will score
at least 10+2 points...but since he does list the no point hand as a
one-double hand, there is an inconsistency. My guess is that he means
to give the 2 points for completing a sequence only when the sequence
is the only possible set to complete - unfortunately the worked
examples do not include this case, so I can't confirm this.
He does have a 2 point self-draw score.
The doubles are a pretty standard set, including things like gathering
plum blossom from the roof, snatching the moon from the bottom of the
sea, and so on. He has "all green". Notably, he does not give any
double for all concealed.
The terminology is sometimes interesting: his English names for the
Little/Big Three Dragons is the Lesser/Greater Tri-Optimus - the
latter presumably being intended to translate directly ¤T¤¸
[san1yuan2], though surely Tri-Optimi would be better!
He has the strict interpretation of Nine Gates, which he calls "Nine
Links of Precious Lamps ¤E³sÄ_¿O [jiu3 lian2 bao3 deng1] Gou Lin Bo
Dung".
He has the usual CC penalties, including letting off cannons.
The rest of the book proper is the usual collection of bits of advice
on strategy and tactics; nothing noteworthy, I think.
Appendix A concerns the flowers.
Tam lists four examples of the inscriptions that appear on flower
tiles, without translations (all in traditional forms, of course):
¬K [chun1] Chuin ®L [xia4] Haa ¬î [qiu1] Tsou ¥V [dong1] Doeng
(spring, summer, autumn, winter)
±ö [mei2] Mooi Äõ [lan2] Laan µâ [ju2] Goeg ¦Ë [zhu2] Joeg
(plum, orchid, chrysanthemum, bamboo)
º® [yu2] Y"u ¼¬ [qiao2] Tsiu ¯Ñ [geng1] Gung Ū [du2] Doeg
(fisherman, woodman, ploughman, scholar)
µ^ [qin2] Kum ´Ñ [qi2] Kei ®Ñ [shu1] Sh"u µe [hua4] Waa
(lute/stringed instrument, chess, book, painting)
Tam's description of the use of flowers mentions only the 4 points per
flower and double for own flower; no bouquets. As usual, he says that
flowers had fallen out of use.
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 (°¨ [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 (°¨¦Q
[ma3diao4])". Now I quote again:
In the Ming Dynasty (©ú´Â [ming2chao2]), the game developed to what
was then called Muoh Hwo cards (©Ù©MµP [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 (ªáµP
[hua1pai2], Flower cards), and others added four more kinds "Teens,
Deis, Yuns and Hwos" called Jongs (±N [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.
Finally, he says that the game was confined to the nobility until the
fall of the Ming dynasty, when the Royal family fled to the South, and
the game spread from Ningpo. He says that it remained a Mandarin game
until shortly before the Republic.
He doesn't here say when recognizable Mah-Jong emerged, but in the
introduction he said "about fifty years ago" in Ningpo.
That concludes these notes on the book. If there are points I haven't
mentioned that you are curious about, please ask. If you can help me
with any of the questions, please do! And if I've made any mistakes in
the Chinese, please tell me!
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.
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
±N °¨
AS PLAYED IN
CHINA
The Chinese is hand-written; °¨ [ma3] with the traditional character,
and ±N [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?)
This is doubly interesting: it is the earliest use I've seen of ±N [jiang4]
`general' rather than ³¶ [que4] `sparrow' as the second word in the
name, and the only use I know of °¨ [ma3] `horse' rather than ³Â [ma2]
`hemp' as the first. More on this at the end when I describe the
Appendix.
After the title and contents, the book starts with Preface to the
second edition. This is dated 1st May 1925. It says that since the 1st
edition was published, the author has found that many foreigners need
more explicit guidance on the ways of going out (i.e. different types
of waiting), so he has added this; and he says "The rules of the game
have also undergone many material changes in the last year or so, and
a number of paragraphs have consequently had to be rewritten to cover
all the new rules to date." Unfortunately, these changes are not
flagged in the text (pity there were no change bars then!); maybe
somebody will find a first edition one day to compare.
At this point, I will note that the English is perfect educated
English in the formal idiom of the time; the author must, not
surprisingly, have been of the social class that would have an English
formal education and move often in the English-speaking
circles. Possibly he was a civil servant, but that would be a mere
guess. The style sometimes has a slightly older and more formal feel
to it than 1920s writing of England, but that could as well be the
author's age or the difference between England and the colonies.
The Introductory page to the first edition is dated 1st December 1922,
and reads thus:
The place of origin of the Game of Sparrow or Maa Jerg or Maa Jong
is Ning-po, where the game made its first appearance some fifty
years ago.
During the later years of the last Dynasty, when China was under
the Manchus, the game was practically confined to the Mandarin
circle, and it was not until the formation of the Chinese Republic
when it became a national game, inasmuch as it is played by people
of all ages, sexes and ranks.
In recent years, it has become popular among the foreign residents
in China and its popularity has even extended to Europe, American
and Australia.
It has been a matter of frequent occurrence that disputes have
arisen between foreign players over the rules of scoring, owing to
the fact that different rules are represented by the English books
on the subject as are written by different authors.
The sole object of this booklet is to represent to the foreign
players the rules of scoring which are invariably accepted and
observed by the players in most of the Chinese clubs in Hongkong,
and the author sincerely believes that his work will fill a long
felt want in the respect that it reduces disputes to a minimum.
While apologizing for having introduced quite a number of new
terms which foreign players may not have been accustomed to, the
author acknowledges his indebtedness to the authors of the published
English and Chinese books on the subject he has consulted during the
compilation of this work.
The book proper starts:
The Game of Sparrow or Maa Jerg ³Â³¶ [ma2que4], or Maa Jong °¨±N
[ma3jiang4], is played ...
In this printed text, ±N [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 ±N [jiang4] is written "Jong" -
and given the author's transcription "Jerg" for ³¶ [que4], I would
have expected "Jerng". Can a Cantonese speaker help me here?
The description of the tiles is mostly as usual, with the normal
Chinese names; in the author's transcription the suits become
Maan (character), Sog (string/bamboo) and Toeng (circle), and he uses
these terms throughout, rather than translating. In the description of
bamboos, he says "From the figure of a sparrow, by which the 1 sog was
original [sic] represented, and from which the name "Maa Jerg" (³Â³¶
[ma2que4], meaning sparrow) has been derived, the figure of a stork,
peacock or phoenix, or sometimes even that of a bamboo shoot, is often
substituted."
The dragons he calls Faan Dzee (½¤l [fan1zi]) and translates
"doublers". Notably, he says that the Às [long2] Loeng `dragon' and »ñ
[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 ¤¤
[zhong1] Joeng and µo [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 "µf¤l
[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?
The description of the preliminaries of the game follows some of the
standard variations. At this point, the author emphasizes that the
"cardinals are not properly located inasmuch as North and South are
transposed", but does not offer any explanation.
The terminology used for tile sets is a bit confusing. He says that a
set of three is called a "¨è [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?
In the rules for Washouts, he says that the deal does not pass for the
case of nine different terminals and honours, but does pass for the
case of reaching the dead wall, unless it is East who drew the last
tile, in which case the deal does not pass.
The rules for Kongs ("§þ [gang4] Gong") are interesting. He says that
when a Kong is declared, a replacement tile is taken from the dead
wall, and columns moved from the live wall to the dead wall so that if
there are n kongs declared, the dead wall has (7+n) columns -- so the
dead wall *grows* as people make kongs! (He is unfortunately not
perfectly clear about the half columns.) Then he says that in the
latest rules (presumably this is a 2nd edition addition) the rule is
simply that each time a kong is declared, one column is moved on to
the dead wall. Finally he remarks that some players still follow the
rule that the dead wall should always be 7 columns or 14 tiles.
I don't remember seeing such a growing dead wall rule elsewhere - does
it occur in other books?
For claiming discards, he has the following terminology: to claim a
pung, one calls "Paag ©ç [pai1]" or "Poeng «÷ [pin1] (meaning strike
or collison)". Strange: is «÷ [pin1] (which is not quite clearly printed,
and could possibly be §Ü [kang4], but I don't think so) a misprint for
the expected ¸I [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 ¦¬ [shou1]; for the
set itself, he uses only the English term "consecutives".
The author then lists all the ways in which one can be waiting for the
last tile. The list is too long to repeat, and I think the terminology
is normal.
Then we come to the scoring. In this book, the base points are 10.
The scoring table is confusing, because he conflates the 2 or 4 points
for fishing the eyes with the 2 or 4 points for dragons and own/round
wind pairs, and gives the score separately for each of the possible
types of open or closed pairs. But if I follow it correctly, it is the
standard (e.g. Millington) scoring for pairs.
He does not have a "filling the only place" score, but he does give 2
points for completing the last sequence (either in the middle or at
the side) with the final tile. Now this means that any hand will score
at least 10+2 points...but since he does list the no point hand as a
one-double hand, there is an inconsistency. My guess is that he means
to give the 2 points for completing a sequence only when the sequence
is the only possible set to complete - unfortunately the worked
examples do not include this case, so I can't confirm this.
He does have a 2 point self-draw score.
The doubles are a pretty standard set, including things like gathering
plum blossom from the roof, snatching the moon from the bottom of the
sea, and so on. He has "all green". Notably, he does not give any
double for all concealed.
The terminology is sometimes interesting: his English names for the
Little/Big Three Dragons is the Lesser/Greater Tri-Optimus - the
latter presumably being intended to translate directly ¤T¤¸
[san1yuan2], though surely Tri-Optimi would be better!
He has the strict interpretation of Nine Gates, which he calls "Nine
Links of Precious Lamps ¤E³sÄ_¿O [jiu3 lian2 bao3 deng1] Gou Lin Bo
Dung".
He has the usual CC penalties, including letting off cannons.
The rest of the book proper is the usual collection of bits of advice
on strategy and tactics; nothing noteworthy, I think.
Appendix A concerns the flowers.
Tam lists four examples of the inscriptions that appear on flower
tiles, without translations (all in traditional forms, of course):
¬K [chun1] Chuin ®L [xia4] Haa ¬î [qiu1] Tsou ¥V [dong1] Doeng
(spring, summer, autumn, winter)
±ö [mei2] Mooi Äõ [lan2] Laan µâ [ju2] Goeg ¦Ë [zhu2] Joeg
(plum, orchid, chrysanthemum, bamboo)
º® [yu2] Y"u ¼¬ [qiao2] Tsiu ¯Ñ [geng1] Gung Ū [du2] Doeg
(fisherman, woodman, ploughman, scholar)
µ^ [qin2] Kum ´Ñ [qi2] Kei ®Ñ [shu1] Sh"u µe [hua4] Waa
(lute/stringed instrument, chess, book, painting)
Tam's description of the use of flowers mentions only the 4 points per
flower and double for own flower; no bouquets. As usual, he says that
flowers had fallen out of use.
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 (°¨ [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 (°¨¦Q
[ma3diao4])". Now I quote again:
In the Ming Dynasty (©ú´Â [ming2chao2]), the game developed to what
was then called Muoh Hwo cards (©Ù©MµP [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 (ªáµP
[hua1pai2], Flower cards), and others added four more kinds "Teens,
Deis, Yuns and Hwos" called Jongs (±N [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.
Finally, he says that the game was confined to the nobility until the
fall of the Ming dynasty, when the Royal family fled to the South, and
the game spread from Ningpo. He says that it remained a Mandarin game
until shortly before the Republic.
He doesn't here say when recognizable Mah-Jong emerged, but in the
introduction he said "about fifty years ago" in Ningpo.
That concludes these notes on the book. If there are points I haven't
mentioned that you are curious about, please ask. If you can help me
with any of the questions, please do! And if I've made any mistakes in
the Chinese, please tell me!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram