<p>From</p>
<h1>Second Stage Simplification Tables</h1>
<h1>Table 2 Subtable 9 : Generic Simplifications of Component Elements (16 entries)</h1>
<blockquote>
<p>Where the second stage simplified form of an example character is
already encoded it is put in parentheses after the corresponding
example character, but these parenthesized forms are not given in the
actual second stage simplification tables.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FGnaN.png" alt="prop" /></p>
<p>We can see that a simplification for 熊 was actually proposed before.</p>
<p>Wikipedia cites the following as:</p>
<h1>Reason For Failure</h1>
<blockquote>
<p>The Second Scheme broke with a millennia-long cycle of variant forms
coming into unofficial use and eventually being accepted (90 percent
of the changes made in the First Scheme existed in mass use, many for
centuries[13]) in that it introduced new, unfamiliar character
forms.[14][15] The sheer number of characters it changed — the
distinction between simplifications intended for immediate use and
those for review was not maintained in practice — and its release in
the shadow of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1978) have been cited
among the chief reasons for its failure.[9][16][17][18] As a result of
the Cultural Revolution, trained experts were expelled and the Second
Scheme was compiled by the Committee and its staffers without outside
consultation, which may also have been a factor.[13]</p>
<p>The exact circumstances surrounding the creation and release of the
Second Scheme remain shrouded in mystery due to the still-classified
nature of many documents and the politically sensitive nature of the
issue. However, the Second Scheme is known to have encompassed only
about 100 characters before its expansion to over 850.[19] A two-year
delay from 1975 to 1977 was officially blamed on Zhang Chunqiao, a
member of the Gang of Four; however, there is little historical
evidence to support this.[20] Against the political backdrop of the
Cultural Revolution, a special section known as the &quot;748 Project&quot; was
formed with an emphasis on non-experts, under whose supervision the
lists grew significantly. The bulk of the work is believed to have
been performed by staffers without proper oversight.[18][21]</p>
<p>The Second Scheme's subsequent rejection by the public has been cited
as a case study in a failed attempt to artificially control the
direction of a language's evolution.[22] Indeed, it was not embraced
by the linguistic community in China upon its release;[23] despite
heavy promotion by official publications, Rohsenow observes that &quot;in
the case of some of the character forms constructed by the staff
members themselves&quot; the public at large found proposed changes
&quot;laughable.&quot;[24]</p>
<p>Political issues aside, Chen objects to the notion that all characters
should be reduced to ten or fewer strokes. He argues that a technical
shortcoming of the Second Scheme was that the characters it reformed
occur less often in writing than those of the First Scheme. As such it
provided less benefit to writers while putting an unnecessary burden
on readers in making the characters more difficult to distinguish.[25]
Citing several studies, Hannas similarly argues against the lack of
differentiation and utility: &quot;it was meaningless to lower the stroke
count for its own sake.&quot; Thus, he believes simplification and
character limitation (reduction of the number of characters)[26] both
amount to a &quot;zero-sum game&quot; — simplification in one area of use
causing complication in another — and concludes that &quot;the 'complex'
characters in Japanese and Chinese, with their greater redundancy and
internal consistency, may have been the better bargain.&quot;[27]</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-30T17:30:42.240Z
oh, I see. But when we native speakers talk about "simplification", we don't include the second stage. Because it's invalid now, and it actually broke many rules that many experts consider important (or we can say it brutally made a very simple new rule), as you know. Yes, the current version of simplification can't be perfect, but it would be a good compromise.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-31T04:17:06.000Z
Just trying to add another perspective on the subject.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-29T14:50:02.937Z
2014-05-29T14:50:02.937Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Mou某
<h1>態 to 态</h1>

<p>态 is a "new" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Phono-semantic_compound_characters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Phono-semantic compound character</a>. 態 sounds <code>tài</code>, so a simple character 太 with the same pronunciation is chosen for the phonetic part. Then it becomes 态.</p>

<p>This character was simplified by the people who lived in places governed by the CCP during 1940s.</p>

<blockquote>
  <h3>Why not simplify 灬 to 一 for 熊, but for 魚</h3>
  
  <p><strong><em>Answer</em></strong>: 灬 came from 火 (fire) in the seal script. For 灬 under 熊, it has the meaning of fire. But for the character 魚:</p>
  
  <p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/csB4D.gif" alt="鱼"> <img src="https://i.sstatic.net/K52Gk.jpg" alt="goldfish"></p>
  
  <p>though the bottom is written like 火, it is not really 火. Duan Yucai's <em>Annotation to Shuowen</em> said: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"非从火也 the semantic part is not 火 (fire)"</p>
    
    <p>"象形。魚尾與燕尾相佀。 (this character) is a pictogram character. The fishtail is just like the swallow tail."</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Thus, when simplifying 魚, they made 灬 (fishtail) as 一; while for 熊, they kept 灬.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-28T17:41:20.743Z
Good Answer! 灬 is always one of the most confusing ones in either learning or teaching Chinese!
ChineseHulu.com
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-29T00:25:06.417Z
@ChineseHulu.com thanks! But maybe it's not a good idea to explain too many details to students, they would ask "why does the bear (熊) have anything to do with fire?" (because *Shuowen* said "炎省聲", the 炎 is the phonetic part of 熊 but it's simplified in the bottom). Anyway, don't try to consider the logic of a character too much and stick to one of the traditional or simplified Chinese as a beginner :) or it will make your head ache.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-29T03:59:54.583Z
Thorough and spot-on as always!
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-29T04:01:16.537Z
The information you have provided while very interesting is unable to explain *why* there isn't a simplified version though. A lot of simplifications are very arbitrary - 熊 could have been simplified to anything and people would have just accepted it. Like my comment said above our best guess can only be that 熊 contains 能 which, supposedly, is supposed to be 'bear' but again this doesn't explain why it wasn't simplified.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-29T10:32:15.963Z
@user3306356 you have a point. My answer just explained why it can't be "太+灬" for 熊, but lacked a reason for why it wasn't simplified. If we want to summarize all rules for simplification, it would be a voluminous doctoral dissertation :) But your 能 theory won't be the **only** thing, because many characters were simplified just by "convention" (like 凤, the "bird" part of the character was completely simplified). How did conventions form? We can guess many reasons.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-28T17:19:46.660Z
2014-07-08T07:22:01.727Z
2014-07-08T07:22:01.727Z
Stan
<p>I ask because I'm curious as to what's the reasoning behind simplification. It would look something like:</p>

<p>太</p>

<p>灬</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-28T15:53:39.860Z
Simplification is a bit of a joke to be honest. I wouldn't expect much of a "real" explanation as to why one is simplified and the other is not. The only hint is that apparently 能 was originally supposed to be (read:represent) a bear - thus no simplification...
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-28T16:15:24.480Z
Shouldn't the simplification be 太 一 with the 'heng' underneath any way? (Think 魚->鱼 the 'huo' becomes 'heng' right?)
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-28T17:23:35.520Z
@user3306356 most simplification has their reasons :) not all of them is a joke.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-08T08:45:08.957Z
I wouldn't say simplification is a joke, but I would say it's a lot less consistent than most people imagine.
hippietrail
<traditional-vs-simplified>
If the simplified version of 態 is 态 is why isn't there one for 熊?
# If the simplified version of 態 is 态 is why isn't there one for 熊?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-28)

I ask because I'm curious as to what's the reasoning behind simplification. It would look something like:

太

灬

**Tags:** traditional-vs-simplified

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Simplification is a bit of a joke to be honest. I wouldn't expect much of a "real" explanation as to why one is simplified and the other is not. The only hint is that apparently 能 was originally supposed to be (read:represent) a bear - thus no simplification...  
> **username_1**: Shouldn't the simplification be 太 一 with the 'heng' underneath any way? (Think 魚->鱼 the 'huo' becomes 'heng' right?)  
> **username_2**: @user3306356 most simplification has their reasons :) not all of them is a joke.  
> **username_3**: I wouldn't say simplification is a joke, but I would say it's a lot less consistent than most people imagine.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-05-28. Score: 11 | Accepted answer

# 態 to 态

态 is a "new" [Phono-semantic compound character](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Phono-semantic_compound_characters). 態 sounds `tài`, so a simple character 太 with the same pronunciation is chosen for the phonetic part. Then it becomes 态.

This character was simplified by the people who lived in places governed by the CCP during 1940s.

> ### Why not simplify 灬 to 一 for 熊, but for 魚
>
> ***Answer***: 灬 came from 火 (fire) in the seal script. For 灬 under 熊, it has the meaning of fire. But for the character 魚:
>
> ![鱼](https://i.sstatic.net/csB4D.gif) ![goldfish](https://i.sstatic.net/K52Gk.jpg)
>
> though the bottom is written like 火, it is not really 火. Duan Yucai's *Annotation to Shuowen* said:
>
> > "非从火也 the semantic part is not 火 (fire)"
> >
> > "象形。魚尾與燕尾相佀。 (this character) is a pictogram character. The fishtail is just like the swallow tail."
>
> Thus, when simplifying 魚, they made 灬 (fishtail) as 一; while for 熊, they kept 灬.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Good Answer! 灬 is always one of the most confusing ones in either learning or teaching Chinese!  
> **username_2**: @username_4 thanks! But maybe it's not a good idea to explain too many details to students, they would ask "why does the bear (熊) have anything to do with fire?" (because *Shuowen* said "炎省聲", the 炎 is the phonetic part of 熊 but it's simplified in the bottom). Anyway, don't try to consider the logic of a character too much and stick to one of the traditional or simplified Chinese as a beginner :) or it will make your head ache.  
> **username_5**: Thorough and spot-on as always!  
> **username_1**: The information you have provided while very interesting is unable to explain *why* there isn't a simplified version though. A lot of simplifications are very arbitrary - 熊 could have been simplified to anything and people would have just accepted it. Like my comment said above our best guess can only be that 熊 contains 能 which, supposedly, is supposed to be 'bear' but again this doesn't explain why it wasn't simplified.  
> **username_2**: @user3306356 you have a point. My answer just explained why it can't be "太+灬" for 熊, but lacked a reason for why it wasn't simplified. If we want to summarize all rules for simplification, it would be a voluminous doctoral dissertation :) But your 能 theory won't be the **only** thing, because many characters were simplified just by "convention" (like 凤, the "bird" part of the character was completely simplified). How did conventions form? We can guess many reasons.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-05-29. Score: 1

From

# Second Stage Simplification Tables

# Table 2 Subtable 9 : Generic Simplifications of Component Elements (16 entries)

> Where the second stage simplified form of an example character is
> already encoded it is put in parentheses after the corresponding
> example character, but these parenthesized forms are not given in the
> actual second stage simplification tables.

![prop](https://i.sstatic.net/FGnaN.png)

We can see that a simplification for 熊 was actually proposed before.

Wikipedia cites the following as:

# Reason For Failure

> The Second Scheme broke with a millennia-long cycle of variant forms
> coming into unofficial use and eventually being accepted (90 percent
> of the changes made in the First Scheme existed in mass use, many for
> centuries[13]) in that it introduced new, unfamiliar character
> forms.[14][15] The sheer number of characters it changed — the
> distinction between simplifications intended for immediate use and
> those for review was not maintained in practice — and its release in
> the shadow of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1978) have been cited
> among the chief reasons for its failure.[9][16][17][18] As a result of
> the Cultural Revolution, trained experts were expelled and the Second
> Scheme was compiled by the Committee and its staffers without outside
> consultation, which may also have been a factor.[13]
>
> The exact circumstances surrounding the creation and release of the
> Second Scheme remain shrouded in mystery due to the still-classified
> nature of many documents and the politically sensitive nature of the
> issue. However, the Second Scheme is known to have encompassed only
> about 100 characters before its expansion to over 850.[19] A two-year
> delay from 1975 to 1977 was officially blamed on Zhang Chunqiao, a
> member of the Gang of Four; however, there is little historical
> evidence to support this.[20] Against the political backdrop of the
> Cultural Revolution, a special section known as the "748 Project" was
> formed with an emphasis on non-experts, under whose supervision the
> lists grew significantly. The bulk of the work is believed to have
> been performed by staffers without proper oversight.[18][21]
>
> The Second Scheme's subsequent rejection by the public has been cited
> as a case study in a failed attempt to artificially control the
> direction of a language's evolution.[22] Indeed, it was not embraced
> by the linguistic community in China upon its release;[23] despite
> heavy promotion by official publications, Rohsenow observes that "in
> the case of some of the character forms constructed by the staff
> members themselves" the public at large found proposed changes
> "laughable."[24]
>
> Political issues aside, Chen objects to the notion that all characters
> should be reduced to ten or fewer strokes. He argues that a technical
> shortcoming of the Second Scheme was that the characters it reformed
> occur less often in writing than those of the First Scheme. As such it
> provided less benefit to writers while putting an unnecessary burden
> on readers in making the characters more difficult to distinguish.[25]
> Citing several studies, Hannas similarly argues against the lack of
> differentiation and utility: "it was meaningless to lower the stroke
> count for its own sake." Thus, he believes simplification and
> character limitation (reduction of the number of characters)[26] both
> amount to a "zero-sum game" — simplification in one area of use
> causing complication in another — and concludes that "the 'complex'
> characters in Japanese and Chinese, with their greater redundancy and
> internal consistency, may have been the better bargain."[27]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: oh, I see. But when we native speakers talk about "simplification", we don't include the second stage. Because it's invalid now, and it actually broke many rules that many experts consider important (or we can say it brutally made a very simple new rule), as you know. Yes, the current version of simplification can't be perfect, but it would be a good compromise.  
> **username_1**: Just trying to add another perspective on the subject.  

---

