pro-traditional commentators argue that the changes through the history are almost exclusively alterations in writing styles, especially vernacular writing, and not in the fundamental structure of the characters—especially after the qin standardization. they have alleged that simplified characters were arbitrarily schematized and then imposed by the prc on its people with the intention of subverting and eradicating selected elements of traditional chinese culture, in order to carry out what the prc viewed as necessary revolutionary modernization. these critics point out that many of the fundamental characteristics underlying chinese characters, including radicals as well as etymological and phonetic elements, were deliberately omitted in their simplified form at least partly for this reason (i.e. disrupting continuity with traditional chinese culture). one frequently-cited example is the character for "sage" or "holy", 圣 in simplified and 聖 in traditional. the simplified character lacks the "king" radical (王), replacing it with "soil" (土). supporters of simplification appeal to the fact that that 圣 was often used, in handwriting, as a simplified variant of 聖 long before the prc itself came into being. the "shuowen jiezi" furthermore classifies 聖 as a "xingsheng" character with phonetic component 呈. thus the origin of the character may have nothing to do with any cultural connection to kings or royalty.