Talk:Card game: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Hans Adler (reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Main source: David Parlett, ''Oxford Guide to Card Games''. The only history of card games (as distinct from playing cards), as far as I know. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 10:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) | Main source: David Parlett, ''Oxford Guide to Card Games''. The only history of card games (as distinct from playing cards), as far as I know. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 10:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) | ||
:That is my understanding, too. There is also ''A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack'' by Dummett and McLeod (which I couldn't get hold of yet) and presumably numerous little articles about other special topics in card game history, but David Parlett seems to be the first scholar who does serious work on getting an overview. | |||
:This is a very sad state of affairs. I have the impression that card games should really be studied like languages because their evolution follows very similar rules. (And so did historical weights and measurements, by the way.) But nobody seems to notice because it's not considered a serious object of study. | |||
:(By the way, I was very pleasantly surprised to get a Citizendium watchlist email today. For some reason, almost 10 years ago I got the impression that the site were about to close down and made off-line copies of my articles. This was my first Citizendium-related email since November 2012.) [[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 06:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:55, 7 July 2019
Main source: David Parlett, Oxford Guide to Card Games. The only history of card games (as distinct from playing cards), as far as I know. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is my understanding, too. There is also A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack by Dummett and McLeod (which I couldn't get hold of yet) and presumably numerous little articles about other special topics in card game history, but David Parlett seems to be the first scholar who does serious work on getting an overview.
- This is a very sad state of affairs. I have the impression that card games should really be studied like languages because their evolution follows very similar rules. (And so did historical weights and measurements, by the way.) But nobody seems to notice because it's not considered a serious object of study.
- (By the way, I was very pleasantly surprised to get a Citizendium watchlist email today. For some reason, almost 10 years ago I got the impression that the site were about to close down and made off-line copies of my articles. This was my first Citizendium-related email since November 2012.) Hans Adler (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)