According to 《福建 广东 广西地名生僻字表》P26，𦵑 and ⿱艹⿰立匀 have same pronunciation, thus they can be unified. However, they are treated as different characters in the meterial.
阳春市 (Yángchūn County-level city) is governed by 阳江市 (Yángjiāng City). According to 阳江市地名志 (1992.10) p.161, a place name called 蒟园 (Lǎoyuán) in 春城镇 (Chūnchéng Town) is found. So WS2017-03723 may be unified to 蒟 (U+849F).
The shape at U+303A3 is ⿱𫼉山. If the correct shape for KC-00976 should be ⿱𫼉心, the source reference at U+303A3 should be changed to KC-07224 and the glyph ⿱𫼉心 should be re-submitted for WS2021.
杨扬发：潮汕十八音字典 普通话对照，汕头：汕头大学出版社，2001年7月第1版，2001年7月第1次印刷，P166
It is very clear that 𬒈(U+2C488) is used in Shantou place name and UK-10587 is a wrong print or unifiable variant.
The evidence shows that this means "take, bring, offer" and is clearly not cognate with 冘 (U+5198), which means "uncertain, hesitant", but has been borrowed phonetically to represent Vietnamese words similar to V-F0042. V-F0042 is cognate with U+219C4 and could be unified. If Unified, Vietnam will consider changing the glyph for U+219C4.
The evidence shows that this means "take, bring, offer" and is clearly not cognate with 冘 (U+5198), which means "uncertain, hesitant", but has been borrowed phonetically to represent Vietnamese words similar to V-F0761. V-F0761 is cognate with U+219C4 and could be unified. If Unified, Vietnam will consider changing the glyph for U+219C4.
The meaning of this character is "that" and has no relation to 痺 (read "tê or tí), unless 痺 is meant as a phonetic. There is no clear semantic here, in fact, 卑 can be read "te", so it could be the phonetic. There is no reason to postpone this.
Why is this still shown as postponed? Vietnam is fine with the IRG assigning "theoretically correct" radicals that will never be used in practice as long as this does not cause a delay to the encoding of the character.
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep Radical 119 米.
Following the updated IRG PnP regarding assignment of radicals, R=119 is the intuitive radical.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
As my analysis in Comment #1471 and #1472, the semantic element is 炭 and the phonetic element is 米. For this rationale, the radical should be 火. If the IRG experts consider it’s not too intuitive, we can keep the radical as 米.
According to 《福建 广东 广西地名生僻字表》p40, this character is also used in Guangxi（广西）.
According to 《江西省靖安县地名志》, there is a place named 柘树垴. Considering 柘树( a kind of tree) is normal in Jingan（靖安） , this ⿱木石 should be a variant of 柘.
The original glyph of G-source was the same with the one from UTC. It occur to me that there is a discussion between Chen Zhixiang and me about the glyph of 00002. We concluded that the last stroke should be a hook instead of a vertical. Then we changed the glyph and forgot to submit the new evidences.
《道古堂全集》Daogutang Quanji
《周礼·春官宗伯》Zhouli Chunguan Zongbo
The evidences above show that this character is the same one with the UTC-source.
Thanks for ROK experts send me the evidences from 龍龕手鑒, which may prove these two are different characters. Actually, 龍龕手鑒 is the only dictionary which try to separate 示 and 00002, as 龍龕手鑒 says, 示 衣 00002 usually interact with each others, which means the radical separation of 龍龕手鑒 is much more reasonable for these similar components. The only change which may lead to misunderstanding is 龍龕手鑒 changed the first stroke of 示 to a dot, and the last stroke of 00002 to a dot too.That's how the dictionary confuses us.
As comment #9879 shows, I post the original source evidence of KC-07721. The source is shown as below.
柳疇睦：《溪堂集》，景仁文化社，卷之一
As this evidence shows, the glyph on the evidence is ⿰争靑, but China can normalized to ⿰争青 to follow the PRC convention, and ROK has normalized to ⿰爭靑 according to ROK Norm Rule 237-1.
The original evidence for 𩵑. 《康熙字典》 showed this character was cited from 《字彙補》.
《康熙字典》
《字彙補》
If we search 弘農王 in the Internet, the most obvious result is related to 劉辨 in 《三國演義》《三國志》《後漢書》. 《字彙補》 doesn’t mean 劉辨 here. The author of《字彙》 is 梅膺祚 in Ming Dynasty, and 吴任臣 re-edited the book and changed the name to 《字彙補》, so we can guess maybe 弘農王 here means a tetrarch (藩王) in Ming Dynasty.
I finally found out the record in 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》. The name of 弘農王 is 朱倪𩵑.
In the same book, the last character of his name was also written as ⿰亻魚.
The K glyph has been updated to match the new evidence and ROK request in IRGN2469 code chart, but we need to update the glyph in the review tool at the same time. See #7291.
It looks the normalization is not acceptable, although it has been matched the ROK's normalization rule. Will it mean all the component 兔 be normalized to the component 免 in future encoding work?
As you can see from the image too, Taisho Tripitaka has the distinction of rounded and square left-bottom corner in glyphs, so we want to stay away from modifying the representative glyph.
The V glyph has been updated in IRGN2469 code chart. If the new glyph has been accepted by IRG, the SC, TS and IDS should be updated correspondingly.
Glyph design
WANG Yifan
SAT
Now with VIETNAMESE ALTERNATE READING MARK NHAY U+16FF1 encoded in Unicode, the glyph change seems unnecessary. The swash is identifiable as U+16FF1 per UTC L2/17-373R https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17373r-viet-alt-reading-marks.pdf
This character also looks similar to 浙, but we know this character is intended to be a 淅 (木) because the 浙 is a different entry in Yupian.
Comment
Henry CHAN
Individual
There are also similar variant case for stone carving:
Comment
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
For the discussion about the identity of the middle component, here is the heading glyph of the entry and the same characters in the description text in the same entry. This is taken from 古逸叢書, the source material of the original evidence by TCA. The existence of the hook in the middle component is varied. So I suggest not to determine something critical by the existence of the hook. Also I note about the hook in the right component (lower-right part).
Comment
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
And, the same comparison for the original text (東方文化叢書), the source of the 2nd evidence by Wang Yifan, is like this (the original photo was provided by Mr. Oi Tsukasa). Also the existence of the hook is varied.
Other
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
And, checking the corresponding entry in 大廣益會玉篇(宋本), which is the descendant of 原本玉篇, the corresponding printing form would be 淅. The 反切 notation in 原本玉篇 is 枽激反, it corresponds to 宋本玉篇's 桑激切. 浙 in 宋本玉篇 has different 反切 notation 之列切 (unfortunately, the entry for 浙 in 原本玉篇 was lost and we cannot discuss the glyph shape, sigh).
Comment
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
According to 康煕字典 description, 𣶁 is 俗字 of 淅 (taken from 正字通 - yet I've not dug the source in 正字通), so 𣶁 would be another candidate of the unification.
Discussion Record says as "unified by 01053, irg50", but 01053 is this character itself.
Maybe "unified by 01049, irg50" would be better.
WS2017-01049 was originally assigned to GDM-00051, it has a discussion record "unifies 01053, irg50".
This character is also used as Bouyei character (方块布依字), which the current Bouyei word is daanx and the meaning is to “talk” and to “say”. It looks the variant of 谭 and 譚 as well.
It’s not acceptable to treat this character as the simplified variant of 谭, because 谭 and 譚 are the real T/S pair, but it’s OK to treat it as the semantic variant of 谭 and 譚.
Trad variant
Xieyang WANG
Individual
⿰讠云 is a non-standard simplified form of 谭.
罗成模,任振斌,叶青,李洪勇,刘仁章.镉作业工人肾功能及生物接触限值研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,1997(02):30-32.
百度贴吧：
IRG Working Set 2017v5.2
Unification
Unify to 蓤（U+84E4）.
Unify to 𰎣 (U+303A3).
The shape at U+303A3 is ⿱𫼉山. If the correct shape for KC-00976 should be ⿱𫼉心, the source reference at U+303A3 should be changed to KC-07224 and the glyph ⿱𫼉心 should be re-submitted for WS2021.
Unify to 𮠨 (U+2E828)?
U+2E828 is also a SAT character.
The new evidence shows it’s suitable to unify with 浩 (U+6D69).
The new glyph looks more similar to 淅 (U+6DC5). If yes, it’s better to unify.
We prefer to unify with 𣶁 (U+23D81) (proper graph).
Because [
from Macau, 2021-03-15.
Unify to 煥 (U+7165).
The center part of the new evidence looks like 人 instead of 十
We already have existing UCV rule #188a which has additional restriction "Only for rain.":
[𭂬] can be a variant of [瓦] or [凡].
If the new glyph ⿰石⿱𰉗⿰夕𰀁 could be accepted, it's better to unify it to 磷.
Suggest Unification to 𰩋 (U+30A4B); add new UCV 𡉵 = ⿰土⿺乚匕 = ⿻北乚
SAT also has the first variant with extra stroke.
It is very clear that 𬒈(U+2C488) is used in Shantou place name and UK-10587 is a wrong print or unifiable variant.
Unify to 𮤫
李如龙: 福建县市方言志12种, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2001年10月, p389
It is very clear that ⿵门丅 should be unified to 𮤫 (U+2E92B).
The evidence shows that this means "take, bring, offer" and is clearly not cognate with 冘 (U+5198), which means "uncertain, hesitant", but has been borrowed phonetically to represent Vietnamese words similar to V-F0042. V-F0042 is cognate with U+219C4 and could be unified. If Unified, Vietnam will consider changing the glyph for U+219C4.
The evidence shows that this means "take, bring, offer" and is clearly not cognate with 冘 (U+5198), which means "uncertain, hesitant", but has been borrowed phonetically to represent Vietnamese words similar to V-F0761. V-F0761 is cognate with U+219C4 and could be unified. If Unified, Vietnam will consider changing the glyph for U+219C4.
Unifiable with 𩵑 under UCV rule 322.
An erroneous form of this character seems to be have been coded as 𪲂 (U+2AC82).
See also:
U+2AC82 "suông" tasteless
V-F1A6C "sương" dew, a simplification of 霜
Cf. TĐCNDG
Suggest Unification to 𠼪 (U+20F2A); add new UCV 多 & 夛.
The difference seems to be systematic:
Attributes
杰 is not the simplification of 傑 in mainland China. 杰 is also included in GB/T 12345-1990.
If the radical is the left component, the FS should be 5; if the radical is the right component, the FS should be kept as current 2.
It is the bottom of U+2916C 𩅬.
IDS should be changed to ⿰氵⿱入圡.
If the radical is the left component, the FS should be 1; if the radical is the right component, the FS should be kept as current 2.
Cf. WS2017-04638
Following the updated IRG PnP regarding assignment of radicals, R=119 is the intuitive radical.
Evidence
According to 《江西省靖安县地名志》, there is a place named 柘树垴. Considering 柘树( a kind of tree) is normal in Jingan（靖安） , this ⿱木石 should be a variant of 柘.
It’s clear that his name is 曾庭蘭 here. [4] means 《同治吉水縣志》.
《道古堂全集》Daogutang Quanji
《周礼·春官宗伯》Zhouli Chunguan Zongbo
This glyph is also the variant of 示 and 永.
《刘申叔先生遗书.左盦词录》LiuShenshu Xiansheng Yishu
《皇朝文鑑》Huangchaowenjian
《辨字通考》Bianzitongkao
《吳中兩布衣集》Wuzhongliangbuyiji
The evidences above show that this character is the same one with the UTC-source.
Thanks for ROK experts send me the evidences from 龍龕手鑒, which may prove these two are different characters. Actually, 龍龕手鑒 is the only dictionary which try to separate 示 and 00002, as 龍龕手鑒 says, 示 衣 00002 usually interact with each others, which means the radical separation of 龍龕手鑒 is much more reasonable for these similar components. The only change which may lead to misunderstanding is 龍龕手鑒 changed the first stroke of 示 to a dot, and the last stroke of 00002 to a dot too.That's how the dictionary confuses us.
《九史同姓名略》JiuShi TongXingMing Lue
As comment #9879 shows, I post the original source evidence of KC-07721. The source is shown as below.
柳疇睦：《溪堂集》，景仁文化社，卷之一
As this evidence shows, the glyph on the evidence is ⿰争靑, but China can normalized to ⿰争青 to follow the PRC convention, and ROK has normalized to ⿰爭靑 according to ROK Norm Rule 237-1.
Wrong form of this character, change the glyph.
中华大典·民俗典·地域民俗分典 the Great Encyclopedia of Chinese Culture·Folk Culture Encyclopedia·Volume of Regional Folk Culture
苗夔《說文建首字讀》（陶廬叢刻本）第九
According to the book, it is also a rarely used variant of 𬻀 which means 菩萨.
P332 of the same book. It is impossible to be other shapes.
I believe this photo is clear enough.
P252 of the same book. It is impossible to be other shapes.
《康熙字典》
《字彙補》
If we search 弘農王 in the Internet, the most obvious result is related to 劉辨 in 《三國演義》《三國志》《後漢書》. 《字彙補》 doesn’t mean 劉辨 here. The author of《字彙》 is 梅膺祚 in Ming Dynasty, and 吴任臣 re-edited the book and changed the name to 《字彙補》, so we can guess maybe 弘農王 here means a tetrarch (藩王) in Ming Dynasty.
I finally found out the record in 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》. The name of 弘農王 is 朱倪𩵑.
In the same book, the last character of his name was also written as ⿰亻魚.
Glyph Design & Normalization
-> The glyph for GHC-00004 should be changed back from GHC-00004 (v5.0) to GHC-00004 (v2.0) as shown in the evidence.
2) If China wants to add the glyph GHC-00004 (v5.0) to UCS, China can probably submit this glyph as another char in the future (e.g., WS2021).
The dot will be moved under the horizontal stroke as shown in the evidence.
Editorial
The current editorial record is not right.
Other
The famous place name with 㮾 should be 磁浮㮾梨站 in Changsha, Hunan.
Maybe it would be a typo of "unified by 00185".
This character is also used in ROK and may be unified with KC-07721:
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/grid_list.jsp?code_type=3&codebase=KC07721
广西壮族自治区公安厅一处：广西汉语方言常用词语汇编 第一册，1988年12月，P40
Maybe "unified by 01049, irg50" would be better.
WS2017-01049 was originally assigned to GDM-00051, it has a discussion record "unifies 01053, irg50".
Data for Unihan
It’s not acceptable to treat this character as the simplified variant of 谭, because 谭 and 譚 are the real T/S pair, but it’s OK to treat it as the semantic variant of 谭 and 譚.
罗成模,任振斌,叶青,李洪勇,刘仁章.镉作业工人肾功能及生物接触限值研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,1997(02):30-32.
百度贴吧：