Very annoying simplification

[Auberon]

I guess 龙 is a some sort of derivation from 草書 from something similar to examples 1,  2 and 3 here:

[Lu]

I see the traditional character next to the simplified character and it doesn't look any harder to read or write.

Thousands of people disagree. People simplify characters because they find it easier to write less strokes. Even Taiwanese people write simplified characters at times, because writing out all the strokes can feel like a waste of time sometimes.

[Demonic_Duck]

One simplification that's hardly ever used by mainlanders: 餐 -> 歺. Also worth noting that it just so happens to be a simplification which removes the meaning component .

 

But yeah, simplification certainly saves time when writing by hand, whether or not it's "easier" as such.

[imron]

One simplification that's hardly ever used by mainlanders: 餐 -> 歺

I seem to recall that was one of the simplifications in the second round of simplifications that was then later retracted.

[carlo]

 

One simplification that's hardly ever used by mainlanders: 餐 -> 歺

I'd expect hotel staff in the mainland to use this, ie. people who have to write 餐 several times a day. Eg. on handwritten 手据s. Again it's just a consequence of having too many strokes. Character variants have coexisted side by side for a very long time, indeed classical Chinese is full of connections, borrowings etc that are at least just as confusing as any modern simplification.

[tooironic]

Some good points have already been raised, but I thought I'd add something.

 

I imagine creating the simplified system would have been a mammoth task, but there are still more than a few inconsistencies that bug my perfectionist mind.

 

Two I thought of today:

 

履 - why not 尸 + 复?

 

冀 - why not 北 + 异?

 

Neither 復 nor 異 are supposed to be used in the simplified script.

 

I'd be curious to know if there are many of these kind of characters. I haven't done any real research on this before.

[Altair]

 

I imagine creating the simplified system would have been a mammoth task, but there are still more than a few inconsistencies that bug my perfectionist mind.

 

Two I thought of today:

 

履 - why not 尸 + 复?

 

冀 - why not 北 + 异?

 

Neither 復 nor 異 are supposed to be used in the simplified script.

 

I generally agree with your point; however there are possible explanations for these two characters.

 

I think that 履 does not break down as 尸 + 复, but rather as 屐 + 复 (clogs repeatedly stepping = "shoe" or "tread on" or "carry out").

 

I also think that 异 ("deliver a strange foetus") and  異 ("wear a mask to look strange") were originally different characters and so could support different fates. Literary characters, such as 冀 and 骥, also seem much less likely to have been simplified if the overall shape of any part would not maintain integrity.