> Yes, it definitely is. The reduction of four strokes to one at the bottom for the character for "horse" is a perfect example of how the simplified form proposed by the Chinese state merely copied the rapid way of writing the traditional character.
Again, we're talking about mutual legibility. You can scan through traditional sloppily written chinese because there are still subtle cues that you're used to. With simplified there is none of that, as well as the upper part of the character being just a straight line when it was a vertical line with two lines crossing it. If you scribble something there you still make things vertical and a bit bumpy to suggest the original shape.
Traditional is legible sometimes, as not all characters have changed and some changes aren't important. Take the symbol for country. That is completely puzzling.
You seem to be arguing from how you think things work logically. However simplified is very difficult to figure out from traditional sometimes, no matter how you slice it.
Again, we're talking about mutual legibility. You can scan through traditional sloppily written chinese because there are still subtle cues that you're used to. With simplified there is none of that, as well as the upper part of the character being just a straight line when it was a vertical line with two lines crossing it. If you scribble something there you still make things vertical and a bit bumpy to suggest the original shape.
Traditional is legible sometimes, as not all characters have changed and some changes aren't important. Take the symbol for country. That is completely puzzling.
You seem to be arguing from how you think things work logically. However simplified is very difficult to figure out from traditional sometimes, no matter how you slice it.