Normal form for 日 on epitaphs dating from the Zhou dynasty (690-705), as in this epitaph for Princess Honghua (弘化公主).

Evidence is sufficient for encoding. It makes no sense to discuss "encoding model". Either unify with U+211A0 𡆠 or move back to the Main set. My preference is to encode ⿴〇乙 as a separate character.

Also seen in《五雜組》13:29B (supplementary evidence for VN-F1BD7) on 3rd column from left:

Agree with Andrew, there is no need to postpone this character.

Please confirm the source name of Evidence 2. It looks not like 大正藏.

▲ 《欽定續通志》, 四庫全書本, 卷七十一


▲ 《欽定續通志》, 光緒浙江書局刊本, 卷七十一

Not unify to 𡆠 (U+211A0)

Commonly, 𡆠 U+211A0 is used as the Wuzetian variant of 日, and IRG has decided to unify all the Wuzetian variants if the glyphs are similar. However, the submitted character can’t be unified with 𡆠 U+211A0.

All the evidence showed here and other ancient and modern publishing sources show the submitted character is only the Wuzetian variant of 日, and it is common, but 𡆠 U+211A0 could also be used as a local character used for one geographical name in 广东省永安县 (current 广东省河源市紫金县). 《廣東新語》 and 《康熙永安县次志》 listed this place, and 《广东新语注》 shows it is just a local character for the dialects. It is very hard to confirm the modern name of this place, but we can confirm 围子X or X围子 is a common form for the geographical name in Chinese Hakka-dialects speaking areas, like current 梅州, 河源, 惠州, 清远, 韶关 and so on under 广东省. 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》 shows the possible Putonghua reading is kè, that means it must be not related to 日 (日 reads as ŋit5 in 河源).

Therefore, they are non-cognates for this use.


▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二


▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 北京: 中華書局, 1985.4, 統一書號: 11018·385, p. 62




▲ 屈大均, 李育中, 邓光礼, 林维纯, 熊福林, 陈伟俊: 《广东新语注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1991.5, ISBN 7-218-00351-6/Z·26, pp. 52-53, 60



▲ 张进箓: 《康熙永安县次志译注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-218-12551-0, pp. 494-495


▲ 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》, 1984, p. 39

I guess the current name for this place is 广东省河源市紫金县凤安镇凤民村围子剧. 剧 reads kʰiak1 in 河源.

Disagree that non-cognate, to prove non-cognate one needs to contrast the two glyphs however the new material from Eiso just shows the "square" glyph. If new UCV agreed then should unify.

The following book shows there is one inscription on a tablet called 《龙龛道场铭》 in current 广东省云浮市罗定市苹塘镇谈礼村, and 15 Wuzetian vairants are used in this inscription. 翁方纲 was very interested in this.


▲ 梁基永: 《天下至艳》, 广州: 花城出版社, 2014.6, ISBN 978-7-5360-7077-6, p. 59

The government of 广东省 introduced this inscription in http://www.gdwsw.gov.cn/wsbl/content/post_31293.html.

Current scenic spot shows these 15 Wuzetian variants as below, and we can see the variant of 日 is the same as SAT-01395. Also see https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1736574850641275384.


The following book shows 《龙龛道场铭》 was found and reported by 阮元 (1764—1849) in Qing Dynasty, so maybe 屈大均 (1630—1696) and 张进箓 didn’t know this tablet at that time.This book also mentioned 屈大均, but it means his calligraphy works were used as 摩崖石刻 in current 广东省肇庆市端州区七星岩景区.



▲ 广东省文物管理委员会办公室, 曹腾𬴂, 黄道钦: 《广东摩崖石刻》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-218-02652-4/K·605, pp. 1-2

I can’t find any conclusive evidence to prove 屈大均 and 张进箓 knew Wuzetian variants, but it is hard to imagine they didn’t know as famous traditional literati and official.

The following is one modern publishing version of 《龙龛道场铭并序》. The circle form of Wuzetian variant of 日 is similar and unifiable with SAT-01395. At least, we can confirm the circle form (⿴〇乙) and the square form (⿴囗乙) are both needed in Guangdong Province for different meanings.



▲ 罗定市社会科学联合会: 《罗定历史艺文选》, 北京: 华夏文艺出版社, 2019.3, ISBN 9787988-4578-1-1, pp. 110-111

If anyone find the 拓本 of 《龙龛道场铭并序》, that will be better to show here.

Note that the local dialect of 广东省云浮市罗定市苹塘镇 is also Chinese Hakka-dialect, that means two forms are both needed for Hakka people for different meanings.

Evidence 2 is from 嘉興藏.
https://dzkimgs.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/kakouzou/KB001_02/canvas/0016.json/miradorView

See IRGN2485.