<blockquote>
  <p>Can you even call this simplified?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, it's called 新字形 ('New character forms'). Check out wiki: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_Zixing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_Zixing</a>  <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E6%96%B0%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E6%96%B0%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-09T04:03:08.787Z
2020-02-09T04:03:08.787Z
Betty
<p>No that’s not even simplified. It has only improved the writing. It’s exactly the same character.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-24T02:32:51.693Z
2020-03-24T02:32:51.693Z
code2828
<p>&quot;Simplification&quot; is a process. If it's not reduced in stroke count, it's not actually &quot;Simplified&quot; - the mix-up in language is due to PRC's standard of Chinese being popularly known as &quot;Simplified Chinese&quot;, even though PRC Chinese may have <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/2820/simplification-of-%e5%a4%a0">the same number of</a> or even <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/10258/why-does-the-simplified-chinese-character-%e5%bc%ba-have-more-strokes-than-its-tradition">more strokes</a>.</p>
<p>「没」 came from a popular variant of 「沒」, because the right hand side of 「没」, 「殳」, occurs more frequently among characters, while the right hand side of 「沒」, 「」, occurs in...「沒」.</p>
<hr />
<p>It is important to look at a character's earliest traceable meaning before further analysing its components.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Some of the earliest traceable meanings of 「沒」 is <em>to be underwater / be submerged</em> (cf. 「沉沒」). This is the reason for its 「氵・水」.</p>
</li>
<li><p>「殳」, if it's a semantic component, is usually used as an active verb marker, cf. 「發」 (<em>to shoot arrows</em> &gt; <em>emit</em>), 「擊」 (<em>to attack</em>), 「殺」 (<em>to kill</em>), etc. 「殳」 is therefore not a semantic match for the meaning <em>submerge</em> (and is not a phonetic match for the sound of the word either).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>So, what exactly is 「沒」?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><kbd><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_dynasty" rel="noreferrer">秦</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_and_wooden_slips" rel="noreferrer">簡</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/zaCo6.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/zaCo6.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><a href="http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/QinwenziReference" rel="noreferrer">秦</a>103<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuihudi_Qin_bamboo_texts" rel="noreferrer">睡虎地秦簡</a></kbd><kbd><br><a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E9%9A%B6%E5%AE%9A" rel="noreferrer">隸定</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Xnh03.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Xnh03.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><br>　</kbd></p>
<p>「沒」 was originally a compound of a <em>hand</em> 「又」 under <em>deep waters</em> (represented by a <em>whirlpool</em> 「洄」). 「回」 was later gradually corrupted into the shape of 「勹」 or 「刀」.</p>
<p><kbd><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty#Western_Han" rel="noreferrer">西漢</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_script" rel="noreferrer">隸</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/bHbZn.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/bHbZn.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br>602<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinqueshan_Han_Slips" rel="noreferrer">銀雀山簡</a>編</kbd><kbd><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms" rel="noreferrer">三國</a>・<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Wei" rel="noreferrer">魏</a><br>隸<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Q8Lot.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Q8Lot.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br>孔羨碑<br>　</kbd><kbd>今<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_script" rel="noreferrer">楷</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/s6Zla.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/s6Zla.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><br>　</kbd></p>
<p>Note: as a consequence of this development, we can be certain that 「」 was not really a character before, but was made up to decompose 「沒」 into 「氵・水」 and something else.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>季旭昇《說文新證》</li>
<li>《王力古漢語字典》</li>
<li><a href="http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/" rel="noreferrer">小學堂</a></li>
<li><a href="http://chinese-linguipedia.org/search_source.html" rel="noreferrer">漢字源流</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-31T14:26:57.927Z
" the right hand side of 「没」, 「殳」, occurs more frequently among characters, while the right hand side of 「沒」, 「」, occurs in...「沒」." Suffice to say, the right hand side of 沒 doesnt render and is not a known character on android
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-31T14:28:37.833Z
@小奥利奥 ah, sorry. My answers will use alot of [CJK Unified Ideograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJK_Unified_Ideographs) extension characters. Actually, my own Iphone can't view the characters I type. Unfortunately, these characters are necessary to get the point across.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-31T11:49:35.253Z
2020-03-26T01:16:00.637Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
dROOOze
<p>I've just discovered that the simplified form of the character 没 is different from the traditional form (沒). With them both being nearly identical with exception of a single stroke, why was there a need to alter it at all? Does anyone here know the origin of the change?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-31T09:29:28.023Z
It’s important not to get too caught up in labels. “Simplification” is an umbrella term for a bunch of stroke-cutting procedures, rather than an actual writing standard. 没 is a character in the writing standard (PRC Chinese or *Jōyō* Japanese) - the standard may have characters which are the same or even more “complex” than “Traditional Chinese”.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-25T18:16:22.367Z
Most simplified Chinese characters are nonsense when compared to traditional ones, especially its logical structure. For details please google 六書.
One more funny fact for the following character:
Traditional Chinese: 強
Simplified Chinese: 强
Which has one more stupid stroke and dare to call simplified
user314070
<glyph-origin><traditional-vs-simplified>
沒 simplified to 没: What is the origin of the change?
# 沒 simplified to 没: What is the origin of the change?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-31)

I've just discovered that the simplified form of the character 没 is different from the traditional form (沒). With them both being nearly identical with exception of a single stroke, why was there a need to alter it at all? Does anyone here know the origin of the change?

**Tags:** glyph-origin, traditional-vs-simplified
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It’s important not to get too caught up in labels. “Simplification” is an umbrella term for a bunch of stroke-cutting procedures, rather than an actual writing standard. 没 is a character in the writing standard (PRC Chinese or *Jōyō* Japanese) - the standard may have characters which are the same or even more “complex” than “Traditional Chinese”.  
> **username_2**: Most simplified Chinese characters are nonsense when compared to traditional ones, especially its logical structure. For details please google 六書. One more funny fact for the following character: Traditional Chinese: 強 Simplified Chinese: 强 Which has one more stupid stroke and dare to call simplified  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-01-31. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

"Simplification" is a process. If it's not reduced in stroke count, it's not actually "Simplified" - the mix-up in language is due to PRC's standard of Chinese being popularly known as "Simplified Chinese", even though PRC Chinese may have [the same number of](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/2820/simplification-of-%e5%a4%a0) or even [more strokes](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/10258/why-does-the-simplified-chinese-character-%e5%bc%ba-have-more-strokes-than-its-tradition).

「没」 came from a popular variant of 「沒」, because the right hand side of 「没」, 「殳」, occurs more frequently among characters, while the right hand side of 「沒」, 「」, occurs in...「沒」.

---

It is important to look at a character's earliest traceable meaning before further analysing its components.

* Some of the earliest traceable meanings of 「沒」 is *to be underwater / be submerged* (cf. 「沉沒」). This is the reason for its 「氵・水」.
* 「殳」, if it's a semantic component, is usually used as an active verb marker, cf. 「發」 (*to shoot arrows* > *emit*), 「擊」 (*to attack*), 「殺」 (*to kill*), etc. 「殳」 is therefore not a semantic match for the meaning *submerge* (and is not a phonetic match for the sound of the word either).

So, what exactly is 「沒」?

> `秦  
> 簡  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/zaCo6.png)  
> 秦103  
> 睡虎地秦簡` `隸定  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Xnh03.png)`
>
> 「沒」 was originally a compound of a *hand* 「又」 under *deep waters* (represented by a *whirlpool* 「洄」). 「回」 was later gradually corrupted into the shape of 「勹」 or 「刀」.
>
> `西漢  
> 隸  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/bHbZn.png)  
> 602  
> 銀雀山簡編``三國・魏  
> 隸  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Q8Lot.png)  
> 孔羨碑``今  
> 楷  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/s6Zla.png)`
>
> Note: as a consequence of this development, we can be certain that 「」 was not really a character before, but was made up to decompose 「沒」 into 「氵・水」 and something else.

---

**References:**

* 季旭昇《說文新證》
* 《王力古漢語字典》
* [小學堂](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/)
* [漢字源流](http://chinese-linguipedia.org/search_source.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: " the right hand side of 「没」, 「殳」, occurs more frequently among characters, while the right hand side of 「沒」, 「」, occurs in...「沒」." Suffice to say, the right hand side of 沒 doesnt render and is not a known character on android  
> **username_1**: @小奥利奥 ah, sorry. My answers will use alot of [CJK Unified Ideograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJK_Unified_Ideographs) extension characters. Actually, my own Iphone can't view the characters I type. Unfortunately, these characters are necessary to get the point across.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-02-09. Score: 2

> Can you even call this simplified?

No, it's called 新字形 ('New character forms'). Check out wiki: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_Zixing> <https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E6%96%B0%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2>


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-03-24. Score: -2

No that’s not even simplified. It has only improved the writing. It’s exactly the same character.


---

