"Nath Krishmaratala" <my@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0NGob.4485$G1.21506@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
>
> > Hello Nath, thanks for your comments. As far as I know, a formal
discussion
> > on the related topic has never established. It was raised but just could
not
> > proceed.
>
> Hello Cofa,
>
> The subject was discussed many times but each time somebody told you
> your idea wasn't so great you stopped at it.
>
> Some random feedbacks to your proposed terminology found with a simple
> Google Groups search:
>
> "Yes, it would [be nice if the vocabulary of mahjong would be the same
> all over the world.]  Which is exactly my point.  We need /less/ terms
> for things, not /more/. Since there are already several
> language-specific terminology systems in place, we ought to use those
> rather than create new ones. "- (3 Jul 1998, ACTSEARCH)
>
> "I entirely disagree that [a standardized set of English terms should be
> created in such a way that (a) each terms are pronounced as close to the
> corresponding Chinese term as possible; and (b) have similar meaning of
> the corresponding Chinese term.]"- (1 Apr 2003, Julian Bratfield)
>
> "Sure, as a mathematical teenager obsessed with consistency and
> order[...] I wanted to standardize Mah-Jong; but having grown up, I find
> the human aspects of Mah-Jong, in particular the way it varies and
> evolves, add greatly to the interest of the game."- (1 Apr 2003, Julian
> Bratfield)
>
> "The IMJ despite written good intentions, is a cultural bane to China
> and completely deromantasizes playing mahjong (if one plays by their
> system) through the incorporation of such a ridiculous naming scheme."-
> (22 May 2003, Jesse)
>
> "[...]imposing revised terms upon the English-speaking mah-jongg world
> as a whole is doomed to failure from the start, and would thus be a
> pointless exercise."- (4 Apr 2003, Tom Sloper)
>
> I cannot agree with everything said about your proposal. I surely agree
> a standardization of mahjong terms cannot hurt. But it is obvious you're
> the only one who thinks the World needs "unios", "pais", "jongas",
> "nextas", "opposas", etc. to improve the English terminology of mahjong.
>
> "Yes, a standardized lexicon will make communication between players
> easier, but inventing a new, unified, language will not cure incoherent
> rules of play and scoring. Using the name "pie" or "pai" instead of
> "tile" won't improve the inner working of the game. It's only a way of
> calling things differently only for the sake of making sure your variant
> of Mahjong is different enough to be eligible for a trademark patent."-
> (8 sept 2003, Nath)
>
> At least since 1998, you tried to sell IMJ to players and game
> manufacturers. Nobody bought it. No book presented IMJ as the way
> mahjong should be played. No international tournament considered using
> your system. No store sold IMJ sets. No player association uses your
> rules. IMJ is nothing but a failure of a world gathering mahjong.

Thanks Nath for the effort of researching those records. One will see
whether a formal discussion had ever been held, or a discussion of this
topic was just refused (claimed unnecessary) when it was raised.

>
>  > I don't know how large the "mahjong community" you are referring
> > to, or how large you expect it could actually be.
>
> For sure, it is larger than a single guy who represents nobody but
> himself and sells his stuff under the misleading name of
> "International(sic) Mahjong". On your own website *you* estimated that
> "the world's total population of mahjong players could
> be over 98 million players." (rec.games.mahjong, 17 Nov 2002) One could
> hope that an *international* set of rules could at least be use in
> several countries by millions of players. Never outside your little
> groups of friends has anybody adopted your terminology nor your game
> system. Maybe not even your friends... Your variant of mahjong should be
> called Cofa Tsui's Mahjong, not World Unified or International Mahjong.

[snipped]

Clear enough is the fact that International Mahjong is always emphasized as
a registered trademark. If you could point out any mistake that led you felt
you were misled please feel free to let me know, I'll definitely correct it!

As a matter of fact, I and the contents of my website have never meant to
mislead anyone. And, as far as I know I have never misled anyone - ANY
SAYING TO THIS CONTRARY IS IN FACT MISLEADING BY ITSELF!

My website is only selling my concepts about mahjong products and services
bearing the trademark INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG. If you consider it as a name
that concerns only one person, why are you bothered? Why do you attack this
name when there is no intention of bringing any harm to you?

>
> > If there were a formal conclusion, which I believe would be beneficial
to
> > all authors and developers of different brand names of mahjong games, I
> > would definitely consider to go with it!
>
> As you know, at least since 1999, in the FAQ there is an inventory of
> all the words used by authors and developers of different brand names of
> mahjong games. -> Rosetta stone, FAQ 6. "I Need A Unified Set of
> Mah-Jongg Terms!" http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/mjfaq06.htm
>
> Let see what English speaking authors have adopted to describe a tile
> since the early 1920's :
>
>       * Babcock......Tile (or piece)
>       * Bell.........Tile (or piece)
>       * BMJA.........Tile
>       * Carkner......Tile
>       * Constantino..Tile
>       * Glass........Tile
>       * Huang........Tile
>       * IMJ..........Pie (or pai)!!
>       * K & F........Tile
>       * Kohnen.......Tile
>       * Li...........Tile
>       * Lo...........Tile
>       * Millington...Tile
>       * MJM..........Tile
>       * NMJL.........Tile
>       * P & C........Tile
>       * Pritchard....Tile
>       * Robertson....Tile
>       * S & E........Tile
>       * Shanghai.....Tile
>       * T & M........Tile
>       * Tjoa.........Tile
>       * Whitney......Tile
>       * Willoughby...Tile
>       * WPAFB........Tile
>       * Wu...........Tile
>
> There is only one exception : you! You insist to use "Pai" or "pie"
> because they sound like the Chinese word for tiles.

Again thanks for your effort researching the records. If there were ever a
formal discussion, a question would have been asked: "Would TILE also cover
mahjong cards?" When the first author who translated the English term TILE,
the alternative of mahjong playing pieces other than tiles had certainly NOT
been aware of.

>
> >>If, at a date set by you, IMJ becomes the mahjong equivalent of the
> >>International Olympic Committee and you are acclaimed as the "Pierre de
> >>Coubertin" of mahjong, I will offer you the most luxurious mahjong
> >>*pais* ever build. But, if at the end of the term, you are still working
> >>on pathetic attempts to gain fame and fortune, you'll send me a regular
> >>set of *tiles*. Are you up to it?
> >
> >
> > Well, life is full of gambling, why don't you set the standards of all
the
> > aspects of your challenge, and I'll see if I could set a date for it ^_^
>
> When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
> majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980
> 000 (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold, I will consider you have won.
>    At what conditions will you consider yourself beaten?
>
> I wait anxiously for your answer

Could you show me more details how you compare and justify this challenge
("When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980000
(1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold") with your original quote ("the
mahjong equivalent of the International Olympic Committee and you are
acclaimed as the "Pierre de Coubertin" of mahjong")? Could you also point
out the real natures of these two quotes?

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com