<p>The radical of many simplified characters has nothing to do with the character itself; the only reason for this is just to simplify characters. I have some examples (found on the web):</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/MNOwz.png" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>1) Without the <strong>heart</strong>, how can one <em>love</em></p>
  
  <p>2) Looking back at the <em>hometown</em>, the <strong>man</strong> has already left</p>
  
  <p>3) No <em>morals</em>, because it is none of <strong>my</strong> business</p>
  
  <p>4) The <em>leader</em> has lost his/her <strong>path</strong></p>
  
  <p>5) Unable to <strong>see</strong> each other, how can the two <em>be close(intimate)</em>?</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-17T15:55:40.680Z
Can someone translate the comments below the characters on the image for us noobs?
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-25T16:53:52.720Z
God... this picture reminds me of some stupid conversations I've had with Taiwanese people. I'm not a great fan of the way Character simplification turned out, but it's **not** because ``爱`` doesn't have a heart (or, worse yet, 义 no longer depicts [the sacrifice of a sheep](http://chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E4%B9%89). the horror!)
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T14:26:34.740Z
I edited your image because it was too big. This fits better. If you think the quality is too poor (it was before too for the small characters), you can make a simple table in some program like I structured it (more horizontal than vertical) and post it here as an image. :)
Alenanno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T13:47:56.737Z
2015-05-08T06:58:35.230Z
2015-05-08T06:58:35.230Z
macskuz
<p>Having read this question: <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/215/how-can-one-determine-the-radical-for-a-given-character">How can one determine the radical for a given character?</a>,
it gave me another question.</p>
<p>Since many simplified characters lost their original form (compared to traditional ones), how do I actually look up their radicals? A classical example would be &quot;leaf&quot;. In traditional form, it's 葉 whereas it's 叶 in simplified form. The traditional form preserved the 艹 (艸) radical (which means grass), but simplified form does not have it at all. Just by looking at 叶, you'd think it has 口 as radical, but 口 (mouth) has nothing to do with leaf...</p>
<p>If anyone can think of examples similar to this, please share.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T11:33:42.067Z
You can determine its radical as you determine the radical of other character.The radical of “叶" is “口". I think you really concern "why 口 is used for 叶,while 口 has nothing to do with the leaf？", if so, you may propose a new question.
Huang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T12:00:19.390Z
There's also traditional 話 and simplified 话. The radical changes.
Alenanno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T14:54:22.170Z
may I start a new thread to explain how some characters are simplified and why there are criticisms on the simplification.
Huang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-16T15:56:34.960Z
@Huang Thanks for your comment, and I guess you're probably right - I was puzzled by the fact that 叶 has no association with 葉 and tree leaves. I'll start a new question and you can answer it. I look forward to your explanation :)
Georgeee
<radicals><simplified-characters><traditional-characters>
Determine radicals for simplifed characters that lost their traditional form completely
# Determine radicals for simplifed characters that lost their traditional form completely

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-12-16)

Having read this question: [How can one determine the radical for a given character?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/215/how-can-one-determine-the-radical-for-a-given-character),
it gave me another question.

Since many simplified characters lost their original form (compared to traditional ones), how do I actually look up their radicals? A classical example would be "leaf". In traditional form, it's 葉 whereas it's 叶 in simplified form. The traditional form preserved the 艹 (艸) radical (which means grass), but simplified form does not have it at all. Just by looking at 叶, you'd think it has 口 as radical, but 口 (mouth) has nothing to do with leaf...

If anyone can think of examples similar to this, please share.

**Tags:** radicals, simplified-characters, traditional-characters
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You can determine its radical as you determine the radical of other character.The radical of “叶" is “口". I think you really concern "why 口 is used for 叶,while 口 has nothing to do with the leaf？", if so, you may propose a new question.  
> **username_2**: There's also traditional 話 and simplified 话. The radical changes.  
> **username_1**: may I start a new thread to explain how some characters are simplified and why there are criticisms on the simplification.  
> **username_0**: @Huang Thanks for your comment, and I guess you're probably right - I was puzzled by the fact that 叶 has no association with 葉 and tree leaves. I'll start a new question and you can answer it. I look forward to your explanation :)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2011-12-16. Score: 10

The radical of many simplified characters has nothing to do with the character itself; the only reason for this is just to simplify characters. I have some examples (found on the web):

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/MNOwz.png)

> 1) Without the **heart**, how can one *love*
>
> 2) Looking back at the *hometown*, the **man** has already left
>
> 3) No *morals*, because it is none of **my** business
>
> 4) The *leader* has lost his/her **path**
>
> 5) Unable to **see** each other, how can the two *be close(intimate)*?

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I edited your image because it was too big. This fits better. If you think the quality is too poor (it was before too for the small characters), you can make a simple table in some program like I structured it (more horizontal than vertical) and post it here as an image. :)  
> **username_4**: Can someone translate the comments below the characters on the image for us noobs?  
> **username_5**: God... this picture reminds me of some stupid conversations I've had with Taiwanese people. I'm not a great fan of the way Character simplification turned out, but it's **not** because ``爱`` doesn't have a heart (or, worse yet, 义 no longer depicts [the sacrifice of a sheep](http://chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E4%B9%89). the horror!)  

---

