GKJ-00628 |
Date | Description |
---|---|
IRG #62 2024-03-20 (Wed) 9:44 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | back to m set. |
IRG #62 2024-03-21 (Thu) 11:47 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | could be sumitted to WS2024. |
IRG #59 2022-10-18 (Tue) 9:15 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | Unified to U+243AC, Add new UCV by Henry CHAN in comment #6293 |
IRG #58 2022-03-15 (Tue) 9:10 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | Not unified to 𤠼 U+2483C, Evidence accepted |
Version | Description |
---|---|
3.0 | For 02417, add Discussion Record "Not unified to 𤠼 U+2483C, evidence accepted, IRG 58." |
4.0 | For 02417, change Status to Unified |
4.0 | For 02417, add Discussion Record "Unified to 𤠼 U+2483C, add a new UCV rule ⿱𣪊X and ⿱殸X and ⿹ 𣪊X, level 2, IRG 59." |
7.0 | For 02417, add Discussion Record "Not unified to 𤠼 U+2483C, kept in D-set due to frozen M-set, may be submitted to WS2024, IRG 62." |
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
GKJ-00628 | 1.0 |
group | China (GKJ - Science and Technology Characters) |
a) Source reference | GKJ-00628 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | E19F |
c) KangXi Radical Code(Primary) | 94.0 |
d) Stroke Count(Primary) | 11 |
e) First Stroke(Primary) | 1 |
g) Total Stroke Count | 15 |
i) IDS (Ideographic Description Sequence) | ⿱殸犬 |
j) Similar/ Variants | N/A |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | 通雅 汉书补注 說文解字 |
Review Comments
misprint of 𤠼?
▲ 《説文解字》(陳昌治本)
▲ 《説文解字》(平津館叢書本)
However, in THX and other version, the glyph is different, which looks like ⿱㱿犬.
▲ 《説文解字》(藤花榭本)
In DYC version, ⿱㱿犬 and ⿱殸犬 are both used in the text, and Duan Yucai said they are variants, but ⿱㱿犬 is the regular form.
▲ 《説文解字注》
⿱殸犬 is a necessary variant in 説文 research, and ⿱㱿犬 could be unified to U+3E89 㺉.
𣪊X.
If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・白口本 (the ancestor of 汲古閣本) looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・天啓年間本 looks like this.
But even if the character was really mistakenly generated, if it has been separately used for a long time, the separate encoding might be a considerable option.
Tao Yang, please could you supply more detailed bibliographic information of the evidence 1? Is it taken from 《通雅》? 《漢書補注》? I don't have nice text database to spot where the part was taken from.
汉书补注 P4130
Details on this page.
說文解字 清嘉慶九年(1804)陽湖孫星衍平津館校刻宋小字本
說文解字注箋 民國三年(1914)京師補刻清光緒二十年(甲午1894)番禹徐氏桂林刻本
正字通 清康熙九年(1670)序弘文書院木刻本
正字通 清康熙間芥子園刻本
通雅 清康熙五年(1666)姚文燮浮山此藏軒刻本
御定佩文韻府 清乾隆間寫摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本
黔游记
古經解彙函二十三種·说文解字 清同治十二年(1873)粵東書局刻本
粵雅堂叢書·續黔書 清道光光緒間(1821-1908)南海伍氏刻本
養素堂文集 清道光十五年(1835)束華書屋刻本
平津館叢書·說文解字 清光緒十一年(1885)吳縣朱氏槐廬家塾刻本
中国养生文献全书·第三卷·调疾饮食辨
Although character analysis is required in coding work, overall, our task is not to provide textual research for linguists and only code for correct character shapes, but to provide code points for social character usage needs. If some glyphs have independent usage cases in the text or have value in distinguishing glyphs, they should be able to be encoded. Discussing these types of characters without reaching a consensus would waste a lot of meeting time in the past and future.