Date | Description |
---|---|
IRG #61 2023-10-18 (Wed) 12:09 pm -0400 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | withdraw. |
Version | Description |
---|---|
6.0 | For 04907, change Status to Withdrawn |
6.0 | For 04907, add Discussion Record "Withdrawn, IRG 61." |
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
GKJ-00642 | 1.0 |
group | China (GKJ - Science and Technology Characters) |
a) Source reference | GKJ-00642 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | E1AD |
c) KangXi Radical Code(Primary) | 208.0 |
d) Stroke Count(Primary) | 4 |
e) First Stroke(Primary) | 4 |
g) Total Stroke Count | 17 |
i) IDS (Ideographic Description Sequence) | ⿰鼠斗 |
j) Similar/ Variants | N/A |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | 粵雅堂叢書 |
Review Comments
▲ 南部新書(明刻本)卷辛 folio 14a gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬
▲ 南部新書(商務印書館,1936) pp. 86 also gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬.
▲ 南部新書(文淵閣抄本)卷8 16b gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.
Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:
▲ 唐書(宋紹興刊本)地理志30 folio 8b gives 𪕅鼥鼠, which according to 李時珍, is what he called 土撥鼠 in Ming:
So ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬 is corrupted form of ⿺鼠丰鼣, which is variant / error of 𪕅鼥. As for ⿰鼠斗, I suggest pending more evidences.