![]() KC-05180 |
Date | Description |
---|---|
IRG #61 2023-10-18 (Wed) 1:07 pm -0400 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | Postponed for further investigation |
Version | Description |
---|---|
6.0 | For 01720, change Status to Postponed |
6.0 | For 01720, add Discussion Record "Postponed for further investigation, IRG 61." |
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
KC-05180 | ![]() |
group | ROK |
a) Source reference | KC-05180 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | EE87 |
c) KangXi Radical Code(Primary) | R072.0 |
d) Stroke Count (Primary) | 15 |
e) First Stroke(Primary) | 3 |
g) Total stroke count | 19 |
i) IDS (Ideographic Description Sequence) | ⿰日質 |
j) Similar/ Variants | N |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | 韓國古典飜譯院 洛下生集 冊16 |
m1) Previous IRG WS | N/A |
m2) Sequence No of Previous IRG WS | N/A |
Review Comments
I did a search query on the KR history website for 金礩, and it returns 1245 results:
As I am not familiar with Korean history at all, can KR or someone help me check if 金⿰日質 and 金礩 is the same person? If so ⿰日質 would be a misinterpreted form of 礩.
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
The 成宗大王實錄 gives 金礩:
▲ 성종실록 46권, 성종 5년 8월 13일 乙未 4번째기사 1474년 명 성화(成化) 10년
And we have much more evidences of 金礩 in 實錄:
▲ 문종실록 1권, 문종 즉위년 5월 18일 辛酉 2번째기사 1450년 명 경태(景泰) 1년
▲ 성종실록 1권, 성종 즉위년 12월 1일 庚戌 2번째기사 1469년 명 성화(成化) 5년
Therefore 金⿰日質 and 金礩 are the same person. I think 成宗大王實錄 is more authoritative than 洛下生集, I suggest KR provides more evidences of ⿰日質 to show that ⿰日質 is a stable form.