<p>Before we try to answer the question proper, we need to first clarify that there are many 'simplified versions' of characters throughout the course of history, happening in many different times and under multiple context. </p>

<p>The natural development of a character form would usually be from a simple to more complex structure to differentiate nuances in meaning. There are also various cases in which complex character structure need to be simplified for practical reasons. </p>

<p>Changes in form also result from the transitional history of the Chinese Script from Oracle Bone 甲骨 through the Bronze Script 金文, Seal Script 小篆, Scribe Script 隸書 and Standard Script 楷書 used today. The most significant changes are from Seal to Scribe, so a lot of 'simplification' would be happening at that time. </p>

<p>There is also the independent Cursive Script tradition. There were two, to be precise - the 章草 <em>Zhang1cao3</em> from the time of the Scribe Script to the 行草 <em>Xing2cao3</em> which is conventional shorthand for the Standard Script [SS]. These have their own rules for simplification that is to be reckoned with for its own sake. </p>

<p>If what you meant by 'simplified form' were all of the above, you might have to read several phD theses to get all the answers. So, I naturally assumed you were basically concerned with the rationale for creating the corpus of simplified script during the Simplification Movement in PRC in the 1950s. </p>

<p>As you would find out from the answer below, many historical instances have been incorporated into the corpus. Making Simplified Chinese [SC] characters a conglomerate of different principles used in different context at different times, some as recent as the Simplification Movement itself. </p>

<hr>

<p>The major corpus of the SC characters defined in the <em>Commonly Used Table of Standardized Chinese Characters</em> 《通用規範漢字表》 are actually historical forms of writing, known in Chinese as 傳承字 <em>chuan2 cheng2 zi4</em> or "passed-down characters". </p>

<p>These come in two categories. One is a historically different way of writing the same word in Standard (block) Script or 楷書 <em>kai3 shu1</em>. We shall call them <em>Standard Script Alt-Forms</em> [SSA]. The other is Cursive Script [CS], adopted in block form as the Simplified Character. </p>

<hr>

<p>Here's one interesting example for the former case: </p>

<h1>於－于　[SSA]</h1>

<p>While the two characters have different origins (於 is a bird and 于 is a musical instrument), in most of the early Chinese texts, 于 and 於 are found to be used interchangeably as a preposition with the sound of <em>yu2</em>. </p>

<p>This can be seen in the <em>Zhuangzi</em>, a Pre-Qin text: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>〈齊物論〉<em>Qi2wu4lun4</em>：是以聖人不由，而照之<strong>于</strong>天。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Translation:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Therefore the Sage does not abide by (worldly dualistic principles) but rather sheds light into (worldly feuds) <strong>from</strong> (the perspective of) heaven. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The same book contains prepositional usage of 於, in another of its seven inner chapters: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>〈大宗師〉<em>Da4zong1shi1</em>：夫藏舟<strong>於</strong>壑，藏山<strong>於</strong>澤，謂之固矣。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Translation: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If we were to hide a boat <strong>in</strong> the valleys, or a mountain <strong>in</strong> the marshes, it would have been secure enough. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Loan instances aside, the character 于 was actually more consistently used as preposition than 於, which was commonly used as an interjection ("Oh!"), with the sound of <em>wu1</em>. </p>

<p>There is textual evidence that 于 was preferred over 於 as preposition in very early Chinese texts (dating back to the Western Zhou dynasty): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>《詩·大雅·文王》：「文王在上、<strong>於</strong>昭<strong>于</strong>天。」</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Translation: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>King Wen is on high;
  <strong>Oh!</strong> bright is he <strong>in</strong> heaven.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the adoption of 于 as a simplified character was actually a return to an old form. </p>

<p>Traditional Chinese [TC] could use both interchangeably anyway (as evident from the Classical texts quoted above), so I highly suspect that 於 as the "standard" TC character for preposition was actually a ROC reaction to the Mainland "simplification" of 于. (That awaits further study to confirm.)</p>

<hr>

<p>A lot of these pre-existing SSA characters are vulgar forms of a single character in history. Eg. 體－体、塵－尘、無－无、靈－灵 (asked above) . </p>

<p>Others are earlier forms of the same character, which often means the simplified character has a more pictographic quality: 采－採 (hand plucking fruit from a tree)、从－從 (one man following another)、网－網 (a net). </p>

<p>A significant number of SSAs come from loan forms: 后－後、里－裏/裡、余－餘. These are often sound loans which may or may not be related in meaning. </p>

<p>For example, 后 means Empress, while 後 is behind. The meanings are related because a good Empress should leave many offspring <em>behind</em>. 《禮．曲禮》：「天子有后。」〔疏〕后，後也，言其後于天子，亦以廣後胤也。</p>

<p>Many traditionalists would criticize these cases as a corruption of the original meaning of words. </p>

<hr>

<p>As for the latter, 舊－旧 in question would be one of them. </p>

<h1>舊－旧 [CS]</h1>

<p>As can be seen in the calligraphy below: </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/hdTP7.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/hdTP7.png" alt="origin of 旧"></a></p>

<p>The「日」is a shorthand for 「臼」 below, while「|」is an abbreviation of the shorthand for whatever else lies above the 「臼」. </p>

<p>It can be seen in this less cursive script that the「|」lies just to the left of the 「臼」. </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/teZfU.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/teZfU.png" alt="demo of 「|臼」"></a></p>

<p>Other cursive forms of the same character are: </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WNqu5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WNqu5.png" alt="other 舊"></a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/susmW.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/susmW.png" alt="Wang Xizhi 舊"></a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/HMLE0.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/HMLE0.png" alt="Cai Xiang 舊"></a></p>

<p>Other examples of the CS class of simplification are: 車－车、杨－楊、專－专 etc. Most of these are highly recognized, legitimate forms of simplification, crafted by the literati. (As opposed to the vulgar form introduced above.)</p>

<hr>

<h1>Newly-Created Characters</h1>

<p>The remaining (the <em>real</em> simplified characters) would be characters with arbitrarily simplified (or, some would say, <em>corrupted</em>) radicals, the 半記號字 <em>Ban4ji4hao4zi4</em>: 对－對、观－觀、鸡－鷄、 聂－聶、轰－轟、区－區、冈－岡. </p>

<p>Characters of abbreviated form, in which only the 'essential' radical(s) is(are) left behind: 开－開、关－關、医－醫、声－聲、時－时. </p>

<p>And characters simplified though the manipulation of its sound component. Many these are actually newly-created characters just for the sake of simplification. </p>

<p>We may swap one for another: 邻－鄰、艺－藝; or create entirely new-looking forms with little to no resemblance of one another: 惊－驚（京 and 敬 swap for sound, 忄 and 馬 for meaning; the traditional form has the specific meaning of startled steed）、护－護 (The 又 in 護 is also symbol for hand, which is swapped for 扌; 戶 is the new sound component that's been created). </p>

<hr>

<h1>Answer to the "How" Question:</h1>

<p>For those of you who can read Chinese, a comprehensive account can be found <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97#cite_note-48" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. </p>

<p>I also highly recommend the expert edition of the etymological dictionary developed by <a href="https://outlier-linguistics.thinkific.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Outlier Linguistics</a>. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T07:37:37.007Z
Minor correction: 隸書 is more naturally derived from Qin bamboo slip writing (秦簡). 小篆 remains a source of standardisation and correctness for *character structure*, but is not the origin of the stroke styles.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T08:33:56.503Z
@droooze Yes. But we _are_ talking principally about _character structure_ over here. Stroke style is more of a reflection of the _writing material_ in use (bamboo vs bronze vs bone),  and is insignificant in the simplification argument; because it is ultimately the _form_ that is simplified.
Sati
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T08:43:01.950Z
Cursive abbreviations, which make up a large proportion of Simplified Characters, are a result of "stroke style". Simplified Chinese was also not *systematically* derived from Traditional Chinese for character structure to be overwhelmingly relevant - many vulgar forms are a result of people ignoring character structure, achieved by various methods. // In any case, 秦簡 also had character structure, just not as clearly laid out. To be honest, 小篆 is what you would use to explain Ming print fonts rather than handwriting.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T09:18:39.847Z
I get your point - when I say "The most significant changes are from Seal to Scribe", I am referring to the general trend that took place between the Qin and Han dynasties, of altering the elongated and elegant form of the Seal Script to the square characters 方塊字 we see today. The process is better known as the 隸變, which does not differentiate between 秦隸 and 漢隸. I agree with you that the 漢隸 inherited its form from the 秦隸 rather than the 小篆.
Sati
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T09:23:33.073Z
@droooze I guess you would agree with me that the most significant _simplification_ processes happened in the 隸變 transition rather than the inheritance of form between the 秦隸 and 漢隸.
Sati
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T09:29:53.537Z
I'm not sure if there were any Simplification processes during 隸變. What do you mean by "Simplification"? To me, Simplification can only mean one of two things: (1) omitting components, and (2) reducing the number of strokes. (1) certainly did not happen on a system-level if you look at 小篆 to, say, 康熙 dictionary characters, and (2) doesn't apply to anything but 隸書 and 楷書 (so it can't apply to a process like 隸變). "Stroke counts" are undefined during the Qin-Han period and earlier, even if they did write using a brush and strokes, so it can't be measured at all.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T09:40:50.653Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/101012/discussion-between-sati-and-droooze).
Sati
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-21T01:28:35.523Z
I wish I had teachers like you guys... Thank you!
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-14T04:31:03.500Z
2019-11-15T22:25:21.853Z
2019-11-15T22:25:21.853Z
Sati
<p>OK, some of the characters we know come from the regularization of the cursive form, like the radical 言 became 讠, etc. But how do I find how some really weird characters came from, like 舊->旧, 靈->灵, 異->异 and so on?</p>

<p>EDIT:
To make it more clear, the above character are only examples. I'd like to know where they came up with the rules of EVERY AND EACH of the simplifications. Where do I find those rules?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T21:54:42.823Z
You have outlier? Check out their reference 邵源、邵冠勇，2010《簡化漢字解說》. Anyway 旧 is from regularisation of cursive. The original character is 臼, which is the phonetic of 舊.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T01:31:34.357Z
The simplified character is only for writing convenience(political & educational reasons by CPC), may not for the meaning.
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T08:55:14.200Z
Simplified glyph is still related to original glyph, some come from calligraphy (like Japanese, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B3%E5%81%87%E5%90%8D)  and some use existing variants as reference.
Daniel Yang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T11:26:27.133Z
@DanielYeung 异 and 灵 are not related to the original glyph. 异 is a new creation (only the bottom part of 共 remains), while 灵 was a character used for another word.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T14:49:24.067Z
Guys, those are only examples... I'd like to know where they came with the rules of EVERY AND EACH of the simplifications.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T17:23:18.470Z
@droooze Hasn't 异 existed long before the invention of Simplified Chinese? From the Kangxi Dictionary: `异… 退也。又與異通。`
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T23:33:56.973Z
@wang_xiao_ming sorry for the bad terminology. by new creation i mean it wasn’t simplified from 異, it was coined from something else. (at least i don’t think it was simplified from 異)
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-15T22:29:46.147Z
@EnricoBrasil Please let me know if I have answered your question, and further doubts/issues you may have, if any,
Sati
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-21T02:38:01.383Z
@Sati I'm reading the Wikipedia link and so far they said "把現有的行、草書楷化（占字最多，超过一半）", but even it surpassing half of it, they only gave 24 examples. And alas, it would be nice to see how the 行书 and 草书 work in there. Do you have any links/book recommendations for those? Thanks!
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-22T03:46:40.083Z
@EnricoBrasil I haven't come across a comprehensive list like this, but I you will see the link as you get familiar with some of the more common 行草書 structures. A good place to start could be the 《[標準草書](https://www.books.com.tw/products/CN11325601)》by 于右任. Because 草書 tends to lump different character components together, as can be seen from [here](http://www.mebag.com/download/cao.htm) , it is not advisable to learn the script before you are super familiar with the standard structures.
Sati
<etymology>
How do I find the rules used to create the simplified version of the characters?
# How do I find the rules used to create the simplified version of the characters?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-06)

OK, some of the characters we know come from the regularization of the cursive form, like the radical 言 became 讠, etc. But how do I find how some really weird characters came from, like 舊->旧, 靈->灵, 異->异 and so on?

EDIT:
To make it more clear, the above character are only examples. I'd like to know where they came up with the rules of EVERY AND EACH of the simplifications. Where do I find those rules?

Thanks!

**Tags:** etymology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You have outlier? Check out their reference 邵源、邵冠勇，2010《簡化漢字解說》. Anyway 旧 is from regularisation of cursive. The original character is 臼, which is the phonetic of 舊.  
> **username_2**: The simplified character is only for writing convenience(political & educational reasons by CPC), may not for the meaning.  
> **username_3**: Simplified glyph is still related to original glyph, some come from calligraphy (like Japanese, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B3%E5%81%87%E5%90%8D)  and some use existing variants as reference.  
> **username_1**: @DanielYeung 异 and 灵 are not related to the original glyph. 异 is a new creation (only the bottom part of 共 remains), while 灵 was a character used for another word.  
> **username_0**: Guys, those are only examples... I'd like to know where they came with the rules of EVERY AND EACH of the simplifications.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 Hasn't 异 existed long before the invention of Simplified Chinese? From the Kangxi Dictionary: `异… 退也。又與異通。`  
> **username_1**: @username_4 sorry for the bad terminology. by new creation i mean it wasn’t simplified from 異, it was coined from something else. (at least i don’t think it was simplified from 異)  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Please let me know if I have answered your question, and further doubts/issues you may have, if any,  
> **username_0**: @username_5 I'm reading the Wikipedia link and so far they said "把現有的行、草書楷化（占字最多，超过一半）", but even it surpassing half of it, they only gave 24 examples. And alas, it would be nice to see how the 行书 and 草书 work in there. Do you have any links/book recommendations for those? Thanks!  
> **username_5**: @username_0 I haven't come across a comprehensive list like this, but I you will see the link as you get familiar with some of the more common 行草書 structures. A good place to start could be the 《[標準草書](https://www.books.com.tw/products/CN11325601)》by 于右任. Because 草書 tends to lump different character components together, as can be seen from [here](http://www.mebag.com/download/cao.htm) , it is not advisable to learn the script before you are super familiar with the standard structures.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-11-14. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Before we try to answer the question proper, we need to first clarify that there are many 'simplified versions' of characters throughout the course of history, happening in many different times and under multiple context.

The natural development of a character form would usually be from a simple to more complex structure to differentiate nuances in meaning. There are also various cases in which complex character structure need to be simplified for practical reasons.

Changes in form also result from the transitional history of the Chinese Script from Oracle Bone 甲骨 through the Bronze Script 金文, Seal Script 小篆, Scribe Script 隸書 and Standard Script 楷書 used today. The most significant changes are from Seal to Scribe, so a lot of 'simplification' would be happening at that time.

There is also the independent Cursive Script tradition. There were two, to be precise - the 章草 *Zhang1cao3* from the time of the Scribe Script to the 行草 *Xing2cao3* which is conventional shorthand for the Standard Script [SS]. These have their own rules for simplification that is to be reckoned with for its own sake.

If what you meant by 'simplified form' were all of the above, you might have to read several phD theses to get all the answers. So, I naturally assumed you were basically concerned with the rationale for creating the corpus of simplified script during the Simplification Movement in PRC in the 1950s.

As you would find out from the answer below, many historical instances have been incorporated into the corpus. Making Simplified Chinese [SC] characters a conglomerate of different principles used in different context at different times, some as recent as the Simplification Movement itself.

---

The major corpus of the SC characters defined in the *Commonly Used Table of Standardized Chinese Characters* 《通用規範漢字表》 are actually historical forms of writing, known in Chinese as 傳承字 *chuan2 cheng2 zi4* or "passed-down characters".

These come in two categories. One is a historically different way of writing the same word in Standard (block) Script or 楷書 *kai3 shu1*. We shall call them *Standard Script Alt-Forms* [SSA]. The other is Cursive Script [CS], adopted in block form as the Simplified Character.

---

Here's one interesting example for the former case:

# 於－于　[SSA]

While the two characters have different origins (於 is a bird and 于 is a musical instrument), in most of the early Chinese texts, 于 and 於 are found to be used interchangeably as a preposition with the sound of *yu2*.

This can be seen in the *Zhuangzi*, a Pre-Qin text:

> 〈齊物論〉*Qi2wu4lun4*：是以聖人不由，而照之**于**天。

Translation:

> Therefore the Sage does not abide by (worldly dualistic principles) but rather sheds light into (worldly feuds) **from** (the perspective of) heaven.

The same book contains prepositional usage of 於, in another of its seven inner chapters:

> 〈大宗師〉*Da4zong1shi1*：夫藏舟**於**壑，藏山**於**澤，謂之固矣。

Translation:

> If we were to hide a boat **in** the valleys, or a mountain **in** the marshes, it would have been secure enough.

Loan instances aside, the character 于 was actually more consistently used as preposition than 於, which was commonly used as an interjection ("Oh!"), with the sound of *wu1*.

There is textual evidence that 于 was preferred over 於 as preposition in very early Chinese texts (dating back to the Western Zhou dynasty):

> 《詩·大雅·文王》：「文王在上、**於**昭**于**天。」

Translation:

> King Wen is on high;
> **Oh!** bright is he **in** heaven.

So the adoption of 于 as a simplified character was actually a return to an old form.

Traditional Chinese [TC] could use both interchangeably anyway (as evident from the Classical texts quoted above), so I highly suspect that 於 as the "standard" TC character for preposition was actually a ROC reaction to the Mainland "simplification" of 于. (That awaits further study to confirm.)

---

A lot of these pre-existing SSA characters are vulgar forms of a single character in history. Eg. 體－体、塵－尘、無－无、靈－灵 (asked above) .

Others are earlier forms of the same character, which often means the simplified character has a more pictographic quality: 采－採 (hand plucking fruit from a tree)、从－從 (one man following another)、网－網 (a net).

A significant number of SSAs come from loan forms: 后－後、里－裏/裡、余－餘. These are often sound loans which may or may not be related in meaning.

For example, 后 means Empress, while 後 is behind. The meanings are related because a good Empress should leave many offspring *behind*. 《禮．曲禮》：「天子有后。」〔疏〕后，後也，言其後于天子，亦以廣後胤也。

Many traditionalists would criticize these cases as a corruption of the original meaning of words.

---

As for the latter, 舊－旧 in question would be one of them.

# 舊－旧 [CS]

As can be seen in the calligraphy below:

[![origin of 旧](https://i.sstatic.net/hdTP7.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/hdTP7.png)

The「日」is a shorthand for 「臼」 below, while「|」is an abbreviation of the shorthand for whatever else lies above the 「臼」.

It can be seen in this less cursive script that the「|」lies just to the left of the 「臼」.

[![demo of 「|臼」](https://i.sstatic.net/teZfU.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/teZfU.png)

Other cursive forms of the same character are:

[![other 舊](https://i.sstatic.net/WNqu5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/WNqu5.png)
[![Wang Xizhi 舊](https://i.sstatic.net/susmW.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/susmW.png)
[![Cai Xiang 舊](https://i.sstatic.net/HMLE0.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/HMLE0.png)

Other examples of the CS class of simplification are: 車－车、杨－楊、專－专 etc. Most of these are highly recognized, legitimate forms of simplification, crafted by the literati. (As opposed to the vulgar form introduced above.)

---

# Newly-Created Characters

The remaining (the *real* simplified characters) would be characters with arbitrarily simplified (or, some would say, *corrupted*) radicals, the 半記號字 *Ban4ji4hao4zi4*: 对－對、观－觀、鸡－鷄、 聂－聶、轰－轟、区－區、冈－岡.

Characters of abbreviated form, in which only the 'essential' radical(s) is(are) left behind: 开－開、关－關、医－醫、声－聲、時－时.

And characters simplified though the manipulation of its sound component. Many these are actually newly-created characters just for the sake of simplification.

We may swap one for another: 邻－鄰、艺－藝; or create entirely new-looking forms with little to no resemblance of one another: 惊－驚（京 and 敬 swap for sound, 忄 and 馬 for meaning; the traditional form has the specific meaning of startled steed）、护－護 (The 又 in 護 is also symbol for hand, which is swapped for 扌; 戶 is the new sound component that's been created).

---

# Answer to the "How" Question:

For those of you who can read Chinese, a comprehensive account can be found [here](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97#cite_note-48).

I also highly recommend the expert edition of the etymological dictionary developed by [Outlier Linguistics](https://outlier-linguistics.thinkific.com).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Minor correction: 隸書 is more naturally derived from Qin bamboo slip writing (秦簡). 小篆 remains a source of standardisation and correctness for *character structure*, but is not the origin of the stroke styles.  
> **username_5**: @username_1 Yes. But we _are_ talking principally about _character structure_ over here. Stroke style is more of a reflection of the _writing material_ in use (bamboo vs bronze vs bone),  and is insignificant in the simplification argument; because it is ultimately the _form_ that is simplified.  
> **username_1**: Cursive abbreviations, which make up a large proportion of Simplified Characters, are a result of "stroke style". Simplified Chinese was also not *systematically* derived from Traditional Chinese for character structure to be overwhelmingly relevant - many vulgar forms are a result of people ignoring character structure, achieved by various methods. // In any case, 秦簡 also had character structure, just not as clearly laid out. To be honest, 小篆 is what you would use to explain Ming print fonts rather than handwriting.  
> **username_5**: I get your point - when I say "The most significant changes are from Seal to Scribe", I am referring to the general trend that took place between the Qin and Han dynasties, of altering the elongated and elegant form of the Seal Script to the square characters 方塊字 we see today. The process is better known as the 隸變, which does not differentiate between 秦隸 and 漢隸. I agree with you that the 漢隸 inherited its form from the 秦隸 rather than the 小篆.  
> **username_5**: @username_1 I guess you would agree with me that the most significant _simplification_ processes happened in the 隸變 transition rather than the inheritance of form between the 秦隸 and 漢隸.  
> **username_1**: I'm not sure if there were any Simplification processes during 隸變. What do you mean by "Simplification"? To me, Simplification can only mean one of two things: (1) omitting components, and (2) reducing the number of strokes. (1) certainly did not happen on a system-level if you look at 小篆 to, say, 康熙 dictionary characters, and (2) doesn't apply to anything but 隸書 and 楷書 (so it can't apply to a process like 隸變). "Stroke counts" are undefined during the Qin-Han period and earlier, even if they did write using a brush and strokes, so it can't be measured at all.  
> **username_5**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/101012/discussion-between-username_5-and-username_1).  
> **username_0**: I wish I had teachers like you guys... Thank you!  

---

