null

類化字

類化字

類化字

Level 1 𦕅/聊.

See above comments for rationale. I don't think this character should be postponed.

According to CNS11643, 𫇑 is pronounced as zhēn. Same with ⿱艹臻 (從草臻聲). Consider unify to 𫇑 by UCV #307c. SAT can HE if the shape is preferred.

Assuming the evidence of ⿰虗兮 is correct. If we accept the new evidence, please also consider expand the UCV #370 to include 虗.

Here are a list of disunified examples, with each pair sharing the readings and meanings. So the expanded UCV 虚虛虗 can still be of level 1:

U+271C0 𧇀 = U+8661 虡
U+271F2 𧇲 = U+271FA 𧇺
U+29D1B 𩴛 = U+29D25 𩴥
U+2D28C 𭊌 = U+5653 噓
U+2D3DF 𭏟 = U+589F 墟
U+2D7FC 𭟼 = U+6231 戱
U+2D889 𭢉 = U+22D2E 𢴮
U+2DB54 𭭔 = U+6B54 歔
U+2E17D 𮅽 = U+25CA4 𥲤
U+2EBD3 𮯓 = U+2A66B 𪙫
U+3102D 𱀭 = U+28F0B 𨼋
U+3103D 𱀽 = U+3103C 𱀼

Unify to 𢦟.

Both evidences refer to the 尚書 text, alternatively written as 𢦟. See also the glyph evolution from zi.tools:



The following encoded pairs (⿰？戈 versus ⿹戈？）are semantic variants:
𢧄U+229C4 = 戜U+621C
𢦧U+229A7 = 𢦵U+229B5
𢦴U+229B4 = 㦱 U+39B1 (~ ⿰主戈)

The following encoded pairs （⿱戈？ versus ⿹戈？）are semantic variants:
𬷁U+2CDC1 = 𫼃U+2BF03

We may consider a level 2 UCV ⿰？戈/⿹戈.

Unify to 偯.

The right component is also similar to 𭈆, which is a variant of 哀 according to MOE dictionary.

I suggest adding a new UCV 哀/⿳𠂉口𧘇, similar to UCV 151b and 230a.

Consider unify to 峕 if we accept the UCV proposed by Henry.

Here are some evidences of 𡆮:


▲ 康熙字典（清內府刊本）丑集備考 folio 9b


▲ 五音篇海（明正德刊本）卷14 folio 4b

Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.

From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.

Here are some evidences of ⿰日𦻏:


▲ 臨汾縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷7 folio 15


▲ 貴州通志（清乾隆刊本）卷8 folio 8 (⿰日𦻏/⿰目𦻏);

⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙.

Update IDS to ⿴囗𰁜, since it is a simplification of 圝.

Since 中華大典 is not a reliable source, hence I provide a new evidence:



▲ 雄乘（明嘉靖刊本）卷上 folio 27b

Here is another printed version of 韻經:



▲ 韻經（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 7a

Suggest to move this character in M-set.

文清公薛先生文集 is a compilation of 薛瑄（1389—1464）'s work.

The original evidence is from 文清公薛先生文集（清雍正刊本）卷1 folio 14a.

However, ⿰王魚 is not attested in older evidences: I have checked two 薛文清公全集 printed in 明, both of which give 魚, same as 文淵閣四庫全書.


▲ 薛文清公全集（明刊本）卷18 folio 14b


▲ 薛文清先生全集（明刊本）卷23 folio 15a (pp38).

I suggest China provide additional evidence to prove that ⿰王魚 is a stable error / used in other texts.

⿰魚𰕎 is observed in another two 藝文類聚 versions, so it is not a modern (but rather ancient) misprint.


▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷19 folio 2a //中華再造善本(250)


▲ 藝文類聚（明嘉靖胡纘宗刊本）卷19 folio 2a


▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷19 folio 3a gives 轍

I suggest keep it as-is.

Corrupted form of 䴐?



▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999031766 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 71b

⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.

Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.

Please provide the whole evidence, as the author may have stated the relationship between ⿰宇鳥 and 𪁔.

Where is the other evidences?

The text 鉤行之陳…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·十陣》and the text 左右旁伐以相趨…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·略甲》. I don't know why 文史 combine them as if they were from the same source. Note that the text is incorrectly included in 孫臏兵法 on the Internet.



▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 197

Here is the bamboo slip for reference:


▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 68

Here is the full evidence and the complete source:


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（十萬卷樓叢書本，第60冊）卷6 folio 20

and another new evidence:


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第60冊）卷6 folio 26

Here is the evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 from the same book, a variant of ⿰鏁斤 (See below for rationale).


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷2 folio 19


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷3 folio 2


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷4 folio 5

From the preface 重雕宋本衛生家寶產科備要叙 of this book and the paiji (牌記) at the end, we know that the 清十萬卷樓叢書本 version is a reprint of the 淳熙十一年（1184） version.

The 淳熙 version consistently gives ⿲金⿱甾廾斤:


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷2 folio 19 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷3 folio 2 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷4 folio 5 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 16 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 22 // 中華再造善本

I suspect ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is a variant of 𨰉. Because of that, ⿰鏁斤 should have first radical 金. The second radical is fine for me. The evidences above also reveal that ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is the intermediate form between 𨰉 and ⿰鏁斤.

Now that we have more evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 than ⿰鏁斤. Should we encode them separately? Especially both ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 and ⿰鏁斤 appear in the 十萬卷樓叢書 version. Alternatively, we can unify ⿰鏁斤 to ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 or vice, or we can unify both to 𨰉.

I agree with Andrew that ⿰犭五 is an error for 狂. For reference here is an older evidence:



▲ 中華再造善本//陸士龍文集（慶元六年華亭縣學刻本）卷8 folio 9b（Also in 明正德覆宋本）

五音集字 is authored by 汪朝恩, the earliest known published version is 道光十三年(1833年)刊本.

The text possibly comes from 康熙字典. 康熙字典（清康熙內府刊本） gives



𤠏……本作㺁或作𧳦𧳺, quoted from 集韻.

I suspect ⿰犭⿱册止 is a misprint of 𤠏, consider pending more evidences.

▲ 民國37年貴州通志 土民志1 folio 26b.

The new evidence provided by Tao Yang is from its table of contents. 猔⿰犭家、⿰犭仲家、仲家 are exonyms of the Bouyei people (Buxqyaix).

▲ 乾隆大理府志卷12 folio 7 // 故宮珍本叢刊 v. 230

玀⿰犭舞 is same with 玀⿰犭武(雍正廣西通志90:2). Alternative words are 羅武(康熙楚雄州志1:40) and 羅婺(乾隆雲南通志24:30).

02371

犬 94.8.1

GKJ-00582

TS 11 · IDS ⿰犭武

Evidence accepted, IRG 57.

▲ [開慶]四明續志（宋開慶元年刊本）卷1 folio 16b

The new evidence gives ⿰土柰, potentially unifiable with ⿰土奈.

For reference, see also the UCV 奈/柰 proposed by Eiso in WS2021-02879.

▲ 盛京通志（清乾隆嘉慶間刊本）卷126 folio 8b

Text is from 朱佩蓮《聖駕東巡盛京恭謁祖陵大禮慶成詩（癸亥）》:「風馬飛揚來掩⿰氵葢，雲旂搖曵下褊𮖽」

Here is the evidence of ⿰氵𭗾（三汊⿰氵𭗾）


▲ 湖廣通志（清雍正刊本）卷14 folio 27a (pp29)

Note that 直隷澧州志林 gives 三汊腦, so ⿰氵𭗾 is very likely a variant of ⿰氵𡿺.


▲ 直隷澧州志林（清乾隆刊本）卷2 folio 7a.

If we accept the new evidence, please also consider the UCV 𭗾/𡿺.

I suspect ⿰氵⿱巛㓙 should have been ⿰氵𡿺, if we can see the original handwritten form of ⿰氵⿱巛㓙, it will be much easier for us to determine the desired glyph shape.

▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷51 folio 44a (⿰木⿱品亐 = ⿰木⿱品亏 by UCV #93)

▲ [康熙]臨晉縣志（清康熙刊本）卷7 folio 7a

▲ 曲洧舊聞（明嘉靖楚山書屋刊本）卷3 folio 12b gives ⿰氵罧 (normalized by UCV #402a)


▲ 集韻（述古堂影宋抄本） 上聲．四十七寑．所錦切. 宋潭州刊本 gives 𠘏.

According to 集韻, ⿰氵罧 is a variant of 𠘆/𠘏. I think ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is a corrupted form of ⿰氵罧. We can consider encode ⿰氵罧 instead based on the new evidences.

▲ 民國二十年交河縣志料卷5 folio 20b

The original source is 民國交河縣志, 《中國地方志集成: 河北府縣志輯》 (2006) vol. 45 includes a reprint of 民國交河縣志, so they are of same sources.

The text is from 《厲壇祝文》. As a ritual text, we can find it in quite a few other sources:


▲ 壇廟祀典（清乾隆刊本）卷下 folio 11b gives 壇壝.


▲ 武邑縣志（清同治刊本）卷5 folio 20a gives 壇壝.

and if we search the text "歸神之格", another 17 gazetteers also give 壇壝 or 壇𡒌.



▲ 中國數字方志庫/歸神之格

I suspect 𡊨⿰土迷 is a corrupted form of 坛壝. Suggest pending more evidences.

▲ 義楚六帖（寬永刊本）卷19 folio 24b

I suggest we encode ⿰禾奈 per the new evidence, and consider a new UCV 奈/柰.
Credits to 王一凡 who provided an evidence from another 義楚六帖 version. Link

The evidence is not suitable for encoding, because it is produced from modern digital fonts. Hence I provide a new evidence:

Attached PDF file
▲ 上海縣續志（民國7年刊本）卷4 folio 11a

I suggest we accept the new evidence and encode it as-is.

I think ⿰氵𠅤 is an error of ⿰氵恵 (潓+VS19). From the evidences we know 姚⿰氵𠅤 is from 慈谿, 乙未進士. Here we show 姚潓（慈谿縣軍籍，嘉靖乙未） in 太學進士題名碑錄



▲ 太學進士題名碑錄（清乾隆刊本）嘉靖 folio 44a

Consider withdraw this character.

▲ 寶祐四年登科錄（明嘉靖元年汀州知府胥文相刊本） folio 55b

I agree with Andrew that ⿰氵辦 is an error of 𤀫. The text mentioned 源叔（趙彥嶓）子⿰氵辦夫，here we show that in 宋史宗室表, 彥嶓 has three sons: 漉夫、𤀫夫、㵟夫.



▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷237 folio 31a (pp72).

TL;DR

Note that the common 宋史 versions available in China all give corrupted forms of 𤀫, since they are derived from 明成化朱英刊本.


▲ 明成化朱英刊本 (⿰㳯手, also missing 渿(⿰氵⿱木未)夫's son 時𦭲）


▲ 清乾隆武英殿刊本 (⿰㳯斤)


▲ 中華書局 (pp. 8240) (⿰㳯手)

If we ever handle evidences from 宋史宗室表, we should be very careful on the 宋史 version. As of 宗室表, the 朝鮮刊本 is more authentic than the other versions (of course except the incomplete 至正本) because it is the only nearly-complete (missing 227-229) version preserving the exact typography of 宋史宗室表 in 至正本, the other such version is 永樂大典 (229 - 232).

▲ 保定縣志（清康熙刊本） gives 斌, though the text is almost indecipherable, we can still rule out ⿰文我. Suggest pending more evidences.

▲ 御定歷代賦彙（清康熙刊本）卷37 folio 17a


▲ 錢塘縣志（清康熙刊本）卷34 folio 9a


▲ 古今圖書集成（中華書局影印清康熙刊本）卷284

The webpage mentioned by Eiso in #7235 is not suitable for encoding because the text is extracted from the 古今图书集成全文数据库. The Ming-style character pictures are not from an actual printed book, but digital representations of characters in 古今圖書集成（中華書局影印本） and serve as search placeholders in the database. We should check the original version instead of the digitalized one.

▲ 大美聯邦志畧（1861）美華書院刊本卷上 folio 36a

The text seems to be derived from the Evidence 1, with ⿱刻士 written as 刻士.

I can't find 汝⿱直木 in 宋史宗室表, but I do find 崇𠅺. Note that the name characters of Song imperial descendants are often shared across generations, so it is likely it should have been 汝𠅺.



▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷224 folio 4b

I didn't find 趙汝末 in 宋史宗室表. I guess ⿱直木 is derived from 𣖈/𠅺/𣓟.








漢字海 p1002 includes a character (⿱𥃭木) similar to 直木:



I have no preference between ⿱𥃭木 and ⿱直木, I think they are unifiable pairs.

▲ 溧水縣志（清光緒刊本） 卷13 folio 18b has 砌. But ⿰石曼 and 砌 are very different to each other.

The evidence shows that the text is quoted from 舊志, i.e. an earlier version of 灤州志.



▲ 灤州志（清嘉慶刊本） 卷1 folio 15a gives 莊.

So ⿱艹肚 is a corrupted form of 莊. Consider pending more evidences.

▲ 靖江縣志稿（清咸豐刊本）卷5 folio 19b gives 篩.

Assuming the phonetic component of ⿱竹酒 is 酒, I suspect it should have been ⿱竹洒. In wuu dialect (上海), 篩 (sa53) and 灑 (sa35) is very similar and 洒 is a variant of 灑. But 酒 (ʨiɤ35) is very different to 篩.

The current shape ⿱竹酒 may have been influenced by the following 酒.

The evidence source should be 嘉定鎮江志（丹徒朱氏清宣統二年刊本）. Anyway the Ming style font would never appear in a Song dynasty book.



▲ 嘉定鎮江志（丹徒朱氏清宣統二年刊本）校勘記下 卷30.

In this evidence the editor noted that although he couldn't find 𦶝、⿱興同、⿰氵𥬡 in dictionaries, he decided to keep them due to the lack of other sources.

▲ 續登州府志（清乾隆刊本）卷10 folio 3a gives 𨹘.


▲ 福山縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷10 folio 66a gives 𨹘.

From the evidences above, we know that both 王⿰阝府 and 王𨹘

1) come from 登州, were active in early Qing
2) have a son named 王𣻜
3) are titled as 通議大夫

So 王⿰阝府 and 王𨹘 must be the same person and ⿰阝府 is not attested in earlier gazetteers. Therefore ⿰阝府 is a corrupted form of 𨹘 and consider pending more evidences.

▲ 中華再造善本//藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷44 folio 10a (blue square) less clear version on ctext

文選 gives "其妙聲，則清靜厭瘱". I agree that ⿸广悘 might be an error for 瘱, the shape might be influenced by the annotation 音翳.

▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷49 folio 14b L8


▲ 藝文類聚（文淵閣抄本）卷49 folio 17a

藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）is missing juan 49-53, so I don't have earlier evidences.

▲ 中華再造善本//藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷78 folio 7 (blue square, also ctext with worse image quality)

For every 藝文類聚 characters submitted by UK, I have checked against the 宋紹興刊本, the earliest known version publicly available today, so I can provide more evidences per request.

▲ 白氏六帖事類集（北宋刊本）卷6 folio 28b


▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（南宋刊本）卷19 folio 3b

▲ 白孔六帖（文淵閣抄本）卷32 folio 21b


▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（明抄本）卷32 folio 18a

▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（南宋刊本）卷32 folio 17b

聖主得賢臣頌 is authored by 王襃（90 - 51 B.C.E）. For such ancient text, the original evidence is probably long lost. Because of that I am not convinced that Ming Dynasty calligraphy would contribute a lot to the text authenticity.

We can go through some Song Dynasty evidences sourced from other books:


▲ 白氏六帖事類集（北宋刊本）卷9 folio 16b gives 靶


▲ 文選〔李善註〕（宋淳熙八年尤袤刊本）卷47 folio 2b gives 靶


▲ 漢書（南宋福州刊元遞修本）列傳34下 (27) folio 10b gives 靶

唐宋白孔六帖, first published in the end of Southern Song dynasty, is a compilation of 白氏六帖 and 孔氏六帖. From these evidences we can assume that the shift from 靶 to ⿰革舟 happens during the editing process of 唐宋白孔六帖. I agree that ⿰革舟 may be a misprint of 靶, or the editor of 唐宋白孔六帖 changed the glyph sourced from a book unavailable today. Given that ⿰革舟 persists across quite a few 唐宋白孔六帖 versions, I suggest encoding it as-is.

The folio number is incorrect, it should be 《丹陽縣續志》（民國十六年刊本）卷20 folio 2. The text is from 王英冕《皇太后六旬萬壽頌》, based on the context, I think ⿰土旋宮 is a misprint of 璇宮, which means imperial residence.

▲ 穀城山館文集（明嘉慶萬曆間刊本）卷25 folio 41 from《明誥贈通議大夫都察院右副都御史前⿸厂盩厔知縣介菴王公神道碑銘》

Though it is a variant of ⿰土𭻾, which is given in 隆慶二年登科錄 folio 58, it must not be 璇 based on the radicals of his brothers' names. We can keep ⿰土旋 per the new evidence.

▲ GHZR 0766.6


▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷45 folio 31b


▲ 五音篇海（明正德刊本）卷14 folio 4a（⿴囗圡）

The following evidence gives ⿰坴戈, which IMO is unifiable to ⿹𢦏𡉀.



▲ 《福建通志》（清乾隆二年刊本）卷40 folio 66b

⿹𢦏𡉀 might be a variant of 臷.

▲ 康對山先生集（萬曆10年刊本）卷2 folio 1b

Text is from 康海《夢遊太白山賦》:「夫八紞〔紘〕之廣，獨有太白盤礴峵⿰山異，瑰𡺨崎崛」.

▲ 日本藏中國罕見地方志叢刊//福寧州志（萬曆四十二年刊本）卷15 folio 37a


▲ 福建通志（清康熙刊本）卷51 folio 26a


▲ 福建通志（清乾隆刊本）卷60 folio 22b


▲ 重纂福建通志（清同治刊本）卷263 folio 24b

民國霞浦縣志卷38 folio 2 gives 林瞪, however I can't find evidences of 林瞪 earlier than 1616, so I can't determine whether 瞪 is derived from ⿰日登 or vice.

Glyph does not match IDS.

Note that TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 is also not encoded:

https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=804667

From the reading of TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 and TC-4743 ⿺完寸, we know they are both variants of 冠. And ⿱宀㝴 is probably unifiable to ⿺完寸. If TCA can provide evidences for TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴, I suggest we encode TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 instead and unify ⿺完寸 to ⿱宀㝴.

For reference, here is an evidence of ⿰釒剿, which is likely a variant of 䥷 / ⿰鏁斤.


▲ 江南通志（清乾隆刊本）卷97 folio 6a

For the proposed UCV rule 𣅀/旨, see also

01121

山 46.6.1

TC-3A56

TS 9 · IDS ⿱山旨

I suspect this character is a variant of KC-03744 （⿰虗兮）. However I don't know how to find the original evidence. Can Korea provide the original evidence of ⿰虗兮?

I suspect the right component ⿸虍帀 should have been 𧆞, which is a variant of 虎/乕.

Another similar T-source only unencoded character: ⿰貝蕉 (TE-7C51):



Although it has component 貝 versus 目 in the submitted character. The 貝 could be influenced from the adjacent 灬 below 隹. I suggest TCA do some offline research to check whether these characters are related.

Variant of 𪱸 / 於 ?

It reads as 不𣪏縱其湠漫兮，⿰木勿孰爲之涯滸, where ⿰木勿 should be a function word. If ⿰木勿 is indeed 於, the sentence can be roughly translated as "Do not let the Yellow River rove freely, otherwise where could be its boundary".

In the evidence above, the authors of 上海縣續志 noted that ⿰氵競子港 was 兢子港 in previous gazetteers. Yet we can still find 兢子港 and ⿰氵兢子港 in 上海縣續志. They are even within the same juan:

⿰氵兢子港:


▲ 上海縣續志（民國7年刊本）卷4 folio 19b (also presented in L2/19-308)

兢子港:


▲ 上海縣續志（民國7年刊本） 卷4 folio 28a

So ⿰氵競 is a variant of ⿰氵兢 derived from 兢.

⿰火規燬 may be derived from 規燬, which means sun. See 柳宗元《天對》from 增廣註釋音辯唐柳先生集：「規燬魄淵〈日月也〉，太虚是属」

I think the evidence is clear enough.

Here is the next page.



▲ [康熙]衢州府志（清光緒刊本）卷7 folio 5

The complete text is 衍聖公端友⿰𧾷扈蹕南渡.

Since 扈蹕 means accompanying the emperor on a journey to some place, so ⿰𧾷扈 is derived from 扈.

In the new evidence provided by Eiso, I suspect ⿱艹暘 is a variant of 𧀄, the fanqie 恥令 is similar to 𧀄 and the meaning 卉木茷（茂） (luxuriant) matches.

> 雷州府 and 廉州府 were established at the same level at that time, so it is hard to imagine that ancient writers would confuse these two places.

I didn't find 鄭⿰香隻/鄭頀 in 雷州府志. However I do find 鄭頀 in a few 廉州府志 editions, 崇禎廉州府志卷8 folio 5, 康熙16年廉州府志卷8 folio 3, 乾隆廉州府志卷15 folio 3, 道光廉州府志卷19 folio 15.

道光廣東通志 also gives 鄭頀, 石康人:



▲ 廣東通志（清道光刊本）卷68 folio 21a

鄭頀 is not recorded in 萬曆廣東通志, which may explain why 雍正廣東通志 editors got his ancestral home wrong.

BTW 《明史·鄭韺傳》also mentions 鄭頀：「石康人。父賜，舉人，兄頀，進士」

⿰言𥅍 might be a variant of 𧫧.


▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷222 folio 24a (pp84) has 與𧫧.


▲ 宋史（元至正刊本）卷222 folio 24a // 中華再造善本, but not as clear as 朝鮮刊本.

The glyph in 宋史 is almost ⿰言𥅍 at the first glance. The right component 𥅍 might be a variant of 酓, where 令 comes from merging the horizontal bar of 酉 with 今, and 目 comes from the rest of 酉.

The evidence states that ⿱輿鳥 is error form of 鸒. So it is 鸒's variant.

The evidence suggests that ～ is a semantic variant of 鄜.

On the first evidence, another text gives 溯, a semantic variant of 㴑:


▲ 景定建康志（文淵閣抄本）卷31 folio 37a

On the second evidence, another text gives 㴑:



▲ 雍正浙江通志（光緒刊本）卷239 folio 10a

Note that 雍正浙江通志（雍正刊本）卷239 folio 10a gives ⿰氵庠:



so the editor of 光緒刊本 revises ⿰氵庠 to 㴑 with intent.

⿰氵庠 might come from the cursive script form of 㴑:



▲ 字統网/㴑

Based on the evidences above, I suggest we mark ⿰氵庠 as a semantic variant of 㴑.

Variant of 郫.



▲ 邵氏聞見前錄（明崇禎汲古閣刊本）卷20 folio 8：「癸巳，伯溫奉使西州，美孺居郫」

According to MOE dictionary, ⿰宜宜 is a variant of 𡪀. 字彙補：「𡪀，古宜字，字略作『⿰宜宜』」

Variant of 𬨎?

《2013年统计用区划代码和城乡划分代码》 gives 「330822219204 輶辂村委会」, and 330822 is the area code of 常山.

Similar to

01719

日 72.15.2

UK-20886

TS 19 · IDS ⿰日𡼙

. They are both variants of 曄.