Support #9403 and #9839 to unify with 𰊮 (U+302AE), but it is not better to do the horizontal extension in future.
For Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi and Guangdong, 畬 means She People (畲族) or some Hakka people (客家人), 𤲞 is always the variant with the same meanings, but 畬 is the proper one for the modern Chinese written system.
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.
This character is the variant of 楔 without any doubt. If IRG accept the unification, 契, ⿱⿰丰刃廾, ⿱⿰丰力廾, ⿱⿰龶刃犬, ⿱⿰龶力大, ⿱⿰龶力廾, 𢍆, 𢍠, 𭑕, 𭚘 and so on should be treated as UCV lv. 1.
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
In the evidence, this character is used as the 反切上字 for 髁, that means the 聲母 of this character must be 溪母, and could be 合口 and 一等 or 二等. 𧧳 is the variant of 誇, that matches them.
We can also find the encoded character related to ⿱大干 as below.
U+29A43 𩩃 ≠ U+3116F 𱅯 = U+9ABB 骻
U+31499 𱒙 = U+314AA 𱒪 = U+54B5 咵 ?
There is also U+2D826 𭠦, and we don’t have ⿰扌𡗢, but it is the variant of 挎.
The evidence shows 説文 捼～ 手相摩也. 許慎 also said the variant of 捼 is 挼, and Prof. 费秉勋 modified some definition based on the 《説文解字》, which he was studying “挼曲子” mentioned in 《东京梦华录》. At this time, the submitted character and the relative one are not used in the sentence in 《説文解字》.
Based on Lee’s analysis, the right part is derived from 雚, that means the upper right component should be the vulgar variant form of 卝 not, 艸. The new UCV mentioned in WS2021-02950:TE-2668 is not suitable for this case.
▲ https://seal.cmex.org.tw/view.jsp?ID=2652
▲ 范端昂, 汤志岳: 《粤中见闻》, 广州: 广东高等教育出版社, 1988.7, ISBN 7-5361-0086-8/Z·1, p. 119
This modern publishing edition gives 淞.
▲ 曾楚楠, 《潮州文化丛书》编纂委员会: 《潮州文化丛书·第一辑 韩愈在潮州（增订本）》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.7, ISBN 978-7-218-14801-, pp. 65-67
Based on the analysis, this character should be the omission of 吴淞 (near Yangtze River Delta); 陂塘 means narrow pond, which is a common stable word.
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
As #10358 shows, I also confirm if this character is a Korean Idu character. If yes, the upper component is the omitted form of one other character; if not, the best radical should be 140.0.
Add the second radical as 57.0 (弓) or 102.0 (田), then SC=18 or 16, FS=1.
The evidence shows the rationale for this character is 從⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446)耳聲, that means 耳 is the phonetic. The semantic is the unencoded ⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446) which is the variant of 䰜, 弜 for 䰜 is used for 象形 (象孰飪五味气上出也), and 畐 is the variant of 鬲. Both the radicals for 弜 and 畐 are OK for the second radical.
▲ 许正华: 《金华地区传统名产》, 金华: 浙江省金华地区科学技术委员会, 1983.5, p. 138
▲ 《中华人民共和国地质部 区域地质矿产调查报告 H-50-XXIX 衢县幅 比例尺1:200000》, 浙江省地质局, 1969, p. 59
This form is used widely, it is OK to encode it.
If you check the ancient books, you will find the geographical name listed there is 猷輅, which the original name is 牛路 (牛: cattle, 路: road/path). And they used 猷辂 on the local guideboards.
There is one famous pugilistic art, and they registered as 䣭辂拳 in 第三批浙江省非物质文化遗产名录.
▲ https://www.ihningbo.cn/regulation/show/11
▲ 杨建新: 《浙江文化地图 第四册 钱塘风物 浙江民间文化》, 杭州: 浙江摄影出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5514-0018-3, pp. 268-269
𬨎辂 is also used in the books related to toponymic survey, but not common for the local people.
I also need to know the name of Evidence 1 to confirm the language tag. There are Chinese Gan-dialects and Chinese Mandarin-dialects in 瑞昌市. The words look like Gan more.
▲ 陕西省临潼县志编纂委员会: 《临潼县志》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-208-01191-5/K·276, p. 58
《临潼县志》 gives 坞刘村.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
If the information provided by National Database for Geographical Names of China is right, 坞 looks more correct.
Evidence
It is better to check more evidence to make sure it is not an accidental typo. When we need to say the geographic name could be or has been changed, please show the evidence. Guessing doesn’t make sense for our encoding works.
On the other hand, the traditional one 䲧 is included in Kangxi Dictionary, but the pronunciation is 動五切 which is similar to 杜, that means 塢鵑 is the variant form of 杜鵑. 从鳥土聲, and niǎo is not reasonable for this rationale.
Evidence
The new explanations on Comments #13127 and #13128 look reasonable, it is OK to keep it as-is temporarily.
National Database for Geographical Names of China shows the glyph should be 𰥎 very clear. We need more evidence to confirm if this is a typo.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
For the rationale, this character means 大 (big). 大 reads as ɾʱəu¹³ in 泾县话, ha⁵¹ (文) hu²⁴ (白) in 泾县茂林话, tʰa⁵⁵ (文) tʰo⁵⁵ (白) in 泾县查济话. (Thanks for 神死’s help on the Chinese Wu-dialects.) It is not difficult to know, this character is to record the syllable derived from the 白读 of 大, so the upper component should be 大.
Evidence
For #10205, U+3094E 𰥎
Evidence
The new evidence under Comment #12739 looks good. If IRG confirms this is not suitable for unification, this character could be encoded separately as variant.
I think Yifan’s Comment #4848 is still reasonable. John showed the 木棉花 (kapok) reads as reux in Zhuang. And the dictionary shows U+26AFC 𦫼 reads as reuz. The initials and finals are the same, but the tones are different. It is possible to use U+26AFC 𦫼 to record reux in 隆安, and the semantics are also reasonable.
The submitted evidence just show the character, but the real use cases have not been provided. When we check the places in 福建省龙岩市长汀县, we can find more than 160 places which use 岽. 岽 is a common character used the geographical names in Chinese Hakka-dialects areas.
▲ 肖九根, 卢小芳: 《略论赣南客家话“上”义类方位词》//庄初升, 温昌衍: 《客家方言调查研究——第十二届客家方言学术研讨会论文集》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-306-06448-6, p. 386
▲ 林雄, 顾作义: 《经典广东》, 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5406-7624-7, p. 87
There are more than 550 places in 江西省赣州市, more than 1020 places in 广东省梅州市 with 岽.
On the other hand, we know U+2BCD2 𫳒 is cited from ZJW, and we can’t find the real use of it in 长汀县, 龙岩市, even other Chinese Hakka-dialects areas in 福建省, 江西省, 广东省, 广西壮族自治区, 香港特别行政区, 澳门特别行政区, 台湾省 and so on.
The most reasonable understanding is that this is a typo, and the correct form should be 岽. It is better to withdraw this character.
When we say if one character is used or useful for one place, the proponent must provide at least one piece of sufficient evidence. If not, I agree with Henry for suggesting China to withdraw the character based on the discussion result.
▲ 广东师院, 湖南师院, 华中师院, 武汉师院: 《动物及动物饲养学（下册）》, 内部发行, 1976.4, p. 222
▲ 黄琪琰, 宋承方: 《鱼病防治实用技术》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-109-02213-7/S·1452, pp. 171-172
▲ 叶重光: 《名优淡水产品养殖技术图说》, 郑州: 河南科学技术出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5349-2542-8/S·595, p. 166
▲ 陈锦富, 陈辉: 《鱼病防治技术》, 北京: 金盾出版社, 1997.7, ISBN 7-5082-0377-1, p. 109
Water bloom is common in 高要 (肇庆), 南海 and 顺德 (佛山), so this character must be used to record Chinese Yue-dialect. I have no knowledge on this, so I can’t show the Cantonese reading now.
The evidence shows this is a general geographical name (地理通名). This general geographical name is used widely in Beijing, the following book provided eight forms from different materials, and the authors checked 《京师坊巷志稿》 written by 朱一新 and found that several forms were not used in the real geographical names.
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
This character could be treated as the vendor requirement of Hanyi Fonts. Note that there are quite a lot of wrong factual statements about the encoding and font in the following video, and “生僻字” is still not a well term for our encoding works, but easy to understand for the public accompanied by many unnecessary misunderstandings at the same time.
Please provide the full page and the book information. If not, this character should be withdrawn based on the editing and proofreading quality of 中华大典.
The submitted evidence is cited from the work written by 夏言 (aka 桂洲夏文愍公, 夏言, 號桂洲, 1482-1548), who lived in Ming Dynasty. In the history of China, there are so many places named as 安州, but 安州 means current 保定 or 安新 (both in Hebei) at that time. There is one river named 瀑河 (Bàohé) now, which there were the old names as 雹河 and 鮑河. Note the river flows through 徐水, 易县, 安新, and 瀑河乡 is in 徐水. The submitted character comes from 瀑 and the phonetic element was changed to 鮑.
Therefore, it could be moved back to M-set based on the full-page evidence and my analysis.
The submitted evidence mentioned Chongqing City. There is no 戚鱼 or ⿰鱼戚鱼 as the local name in Chongqing. Maybe it is the error of 鳡. 鳡鱼 (local name: 水老虎/tiger in the river, Elopichthys bambusa). This character should be withdrawn.
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿱郷鱼 not ⿱鄉鱼.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
The followings are eight editions of 《集韻》 at the same entry. At the same position, some are the submitted one (red), some are ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 (blue) and 𣝼 U+2377C (orange), which mean the same character. ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 could be unified to this character.
獐头鼠目/獐頭鼠目 is a stable idiom (成语/成語) in China, so maybe the character is a typesetting extra character. It is better to withdraw it without other sufficient evidence.
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
Evidence
On the other hand, WS2017-04940 provided the totally different meaning and use, but IRG should accept the character based on the evidence first, not the rationale and explanation.
鳬鷖 is a stable word cited from 《詩·大雅·鳬鷖》. This character must be the typo of 鷖 because of the importance for the men of literature and writing in ancient China.
It is better to withdraw this character without additional evidence.
I checked several classic edition of 《世説新語》, the character shows 鎩 U+93A9 which the corresponding simplified form is 铩 U+94E9, but not 𮢎 U+2E88E. 𮢎 U+2E88E was submitted, and it is easy to confirm 𮢎 U+2E88E is the variant of 鎩 U+93A9 in 大正藏 (尾世𮢎數〖殊勝也〗 vs 尾世鎩數（殊勝也）). We should confirm which edition of 《世説新語》 was the book 《中国古代文学事典》 written by 朱碧蓮 based on to judge if it is useful to encode this form.
The full page is shown as below. The evidence shows this part is cited from 《江苏水利全书》, but I don’t have the ancient edition. Note that the traditional form also have TE and KC-Source, which has not been submitted yet.
▲ 中国水利水电科学研究院水利史研究室: 《再续行水金鉴 运河卷 5》, 武汉: 湖北人民出版社, 2004.8, ISBN 7-216-03968-8, p. 1760
Based on the comments on #7722 and #7924, this character should be withdrawn without additional evidence.
Evidence
The evidence shows a blurred character (漫漶字), and this part is included in 《爾雅》, so it is very easy to know the author of the explanatory note was talking about the meaning of 狃. Based on the followings, the blurred character should be the same as the previous character in the running text, that means 狃. Therefore, the new evidence is invalid for this case.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
It looks the source name doesn't match all the evidence.
New evidence
This character is used for a geographical name in Taiwan Province in 《清史稿》.
▲ 《清史稿》, 北京清史館刊, 卷七十八, 地理志十八
The following paper shows the current name is 港口溪.
▲ 谢珽, 宁炜: 《美国领事李仙得在厦门任上》//周旻, 厦门市社会科学界联合会, 厦门大学人文学院, 厦门市社会科学院, 鼓浪屿国际研究中心: 《鼓浪屿研究 第三辑》, 厦门: 厦门大学出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5615-5921-5, p. 53
However, I found the following page which shows the name should be 猪朥束 now in 屏東縣滿州鄉.
https://twlanddb.com/landno-1f8a01d4787740f4864af2d48fcb298f.html
Based on the use, I guess the most common form for this word is 朥. There is one kind of cake name 朥餅 in 潮州 and 汕头, which means lard.
New evidence
The following evidence is related to Vietnamese use. 廣治省 (Tỉnh Quảng Trị) borders on Laos, so this character must mean Lao and Laotian. It is OK to do the horizontal extension for Vietnam in future.
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之七
New evidence
The introduction of 港口溪 is here. It looks it is near the famous 墾丁.
http://www.ekenting.tw/scenic/2188.html
https://okgo.tw/butyview.html?id=2188
There are also a VR tourism services on 港口溪.
http://www.vrwalker.net/tw/scenery_view.php?tbname=scenerys&serno=1301
New evidence
TBS (公視) once published a drama named 《斯卡羅》 (Paiwan: seqalu) in 2021. This drama mentioned this place mentioned in #9630.
Also see the followings.
https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/119154/season/1?language=zh-TW
https://www.marieclaire.com.tw/community/opinion/59764/seqalu
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
The submitted evidence shows this character with the corresponding sentence are cited from 《本草汇言》, but it is incomprehensible that this character is used at this position. In other page of the same dictionary, the authors cited the same sentence, but the character is 韭. On the other hand, this is talking about how to cook 鳗鲡, so the previous words before the character are related to condiment, that it is unbelievable to use a kind of fish as the ingredient to cook other kind of fish, and 鮲 was treated as Japanese kokuji, which is not used in China.
This character should be withdrawn without additional evidence.
▲ 孙长光: 《三沙渔业今昔》//霞浦县政协文史资料编辑委员会: 《霞浦文史资料 第十二辑——三沙专辑》, 宁德: 霞浦县印刷厂, 1994.6, p. 26
Note: 1. ⿰虫戈 and ⿰鱼历 have not been encoded, and I have collected several pieces of evidence; 2. 三沙 here means 福建省宁德市霞浦县三沙镇, not 海南省三沙市.
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议福建省平潭县委员会文史资料委员会: 《海岛胜景说平潭》, 北京: 华艺出版社, 1992.5. ISBN 7-80039-462-X, p. 141
Note: ⿰鱼户 has not been encoded.
▲ 谭兴贵, 廖泉清: 《中国民间饮食宜忌与食疗方》, 长沙: 湖南科技出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5357-5193-5, p. 249
New evidence
▲ 聂凤乔: 《中华饮食文库 中国烹饪原料大典（上卷）》, 青岛: 青岛出版社, 1998.10, ISBN 7-5436-1766-8/TS·160, p. 159
Note: This character was not used by 韓愈 directly. 韓愈 wrote the poem 《初南食貽元十八協律》 “蒲魚尾如蛇 口眼不相營”. 蒲魚 here means 魟魚/魔鬼魚 (Stingray), which is common used in current Guangdong Province, and is different from 紅魚 in Leizhou Peninsula and Hainan Province and 河豚🐡 (puffer).
New evidence
▲ 彭元藻, 曾友文, 王国宪; 王云清; 洪寿祥, 周伟民, 海南地方文献丛书编纂委员会: 《民国儋县志 儋县志初集 上册》, 海口: 海南出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5443-0954-1, p. 205
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
In this case, 立突 are two characters for one French loan word litre. 立 corresponds to li-, 突 corresponds to -tre. This must be a typo. Metre should be 米突, not ⿰米突.
It is better to withdraw this character.
▲ 《算术教科书》//越生文化, 田正品: 《中国近代教育文献丛刊·教材教法卷·24》, 杭州: 浙江教育出版社, 2021.3, ISBN 978-7-5722-1393-9, pp. 341-342
Conifer has shown one example on the 塘汛 symbol on the Chinese traditional maps under #7877. This “character” must be a typo in the submitted evidence. This character should be withdrawn, and China NB and TCA could consider to encode the 塘汛 symbol as the transport and map symbol in future.
Evidence
Other modern publishing edition.
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
The following pieces of evidence is related to unsubmitted SAT-09773 which is the error form of 怏, so I just list them here and not request to add the kFanqie value.
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
The person mentioned in the submitted evidence, 忽酋 or ～耳, means 布占泰 (Bujantai) who was a Jurchen beile of the Ula tribal confederation. However, the Chinese modern researchers identified the submitted character as two characters. Based on the submitted evidence, it looks the Chinese modern publishing books made this name wrong, so it is OK and necessary to encode this character as soon as possible.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
Evidence
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
This mountain is the boundary between the Yuan Dynasty and the Koryo Dynasty, which is at current Hwanghaipukto, DPRK (cf. KPS 11080:2002 & ISO 3166.2:KP). All the books I checked give 岊嶺, so it looks this character is the error form of 岊. If there is no additional evidence, this character should be postponed.
▲ 尤中: 《中华民族发展史》, 昆明: 晨光出版社, 2007.2, ISBN 978-7-5414-2749-7, p. 905
Evidence
For Comment #12850, it looks the “considering” reading of “Jeol(절)” is only based on the glyph, and the component 山 here is not used for the syllable-final, but a semantic element.
It is better to show at least one more evidence to show this is not an accident typo here.
This evidence is showing the story of the peasant uprising in the late Ming Dynasty. The mountain is at current 湖北省十堰市. The mountain name is 羅𤠉山, so this character must be the error form of 𤠉. It is better to withdraw this character, or normalize it to 𤠉 and do the horizontal extension with KC-05370 in future.
Note: the evidence mentioned 曺操 (aka 曹操), but this is just an analogy, that is not related to Chinese Three Kingdoms Period. And, in fact, the glyph on the evidence should be ⿰犭⿱山央.
▲ 《明史》, 同文書局石印本, 列傳, 卷二百六十
▲ 张廷玉, 王天有: 《简体字本二十六史明史卷212卷277》, 长春: 吉林人民出版社, 1995, p. 4455
▲ 許嘉璐, 安平秋, 章培恒, 喻遂生: 《二十四史全譯 明史》, 上海: 漢語大詞典出版社, 2004.1, ISBN 7-5432-0895-4/K·98, p. 5318
▲ 陈梧桐: 《崇祯往事——明帝国后的图景》, 北京: 故宫出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 7-5134-0961-2, p. 376
▲ 北京大学历史系中国古代史教研组: 《中国古代史教学参考资料 第六册 上 封建社会（五）》, 北京: 北京大学, p. 265
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
New evidence
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
New evidence
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
▲ 易庵: 《间岛问题》//《边疆史地文献初编》编委会: 《中国边疆研究资料文库·边疆史地文献初编 东北边疆 第二辑 第二十四册》, 北京: 中央编译出版社, 2011.8, ISBN 978-7-5117-0980-6, p. 7
The place mentioned in the evidence is under current 吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州和龙市.
私渠北鞮海 is a stable geographical name used in Xiongnu (匈奴). Some scholars said it should be current Lake Baikal in Russia, and other scholars said it should be current Uvs Nuur / Uvs Lake in Mongolia and Russian Tyva Republic.
▲ 汤濬, 陶沙, 陶和平, 毛久燕: 《岱山镇志点注本》, 舟山: 岱山县档案局（史志办）, 2019.1, pp. 201-202
Note: 陶沙 here is not our old friend, the main author of GB/T 2312-1980 and the China NB’s proposal on the earliest CJK unification. See http://dsgbgz.dsdj.com.cn/index/news/details/id/312
▲ 黄均铭: 《岱山渔业的历史特点探讨》//中国人民政治协商会议浙江省岱山县委员会文史资料委员会: 《岱山文史资料 第一辑》, 内部发行, 1986.11, p. 117
▲ 毛先舒: 《看三生石记》//郑澍若: 《虞初续志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 778
▲ 毛先舒: 《看三生石记》//郑澍若: 《虞初续志》, 上海: 上海书店, 1986.6, J154·1, p. 12
三生石 is a famous tourist attraction in 浙江省杭州市, now collected in 灵隐寺. The story on 《牡丹亭》 (Peony Pavilion) and 《红楼梦》 (Dream of the Red Chamber) are related to it. The sentence mentioned in the submitted evidence is cited from 《看三生石记》, and the modern version modified the character to 罅. It is better to check the original source of 《虞初续志》 or other versions of 《看三生石记》 if possible to confirm if it is suitable to encode this character.
▲ 杭世駿, 蔡錦芳, 唐宸: 《杭世駿集 第四册》, 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社, 2015.5, ISBN 978-7-5540-0432-6, p. 1067
Note: 山長 here means 全祖望, who once led 端溪書院 (current 肇庆中学). 杭世駿 also wrote 《登端溪講院天章閣望州衙後圃》, 《咏木棉花》 which are both related to 端州 (current 广东省肇庆市端州区, 高要市, 鼎湖区).
▲ 沙门释法显, 章巽: 《佛国记》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 2016.1, ISBN 978-7-5032-5474-1, p. 45
揵搥, 犍搥 or 揵槌, 犍槌, even 揵捶, 犍捶, is a Sanskrit loanword from Ghaṇṭā/घण्टा/𑖑𑖜𑖿𑖘𑖯. 《海國圖志》 is also a very important book for Chinese history to help Chinese people to understand the world in the end of QIng Dynasty, and 魏源 also used 揵槌 in 卷32 of the same book, so it is better to keep this form for the historical research.
▲ 王付兵: 《马来亚华人的方言群分布和职业结构 （1800～1911）》 (Chinese Dialect Group Distribution and Occupational Structure in Malaya, 1800~1911), 昆明: 云南美术出版社, 2012.4, ISBN 978-7-5489-0769-5, p. 66
Note: This is a book on the language research.
The following two pages show the explanation of this song. And the author shows the pronunciation is pʼai³ (pǎi?). 𠂢 will be the better phonetic element than 瓜. The author also showed Thomas Francis Wade (威妥瑪) used this character.
▲ 周建设: 《明、清、民国时期珍稀老北京话历史文献整理与研究 北京歌谣》, 北京: 首都师范大学出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-5656-2645-6, pp. 85-86 (61-62)
In p. 59 of the same book, the glyph for 脈 is shown. The pronunciation muo⁴ (mò) is the 文读音 of 脈 in this verb-object phrase. The glyph for the right part of 脈 is the same as the one of the submitted character.
▲ 周建设: 《明、清、民国时期珍稀老北京话历史文献整理与研究 北京歌谣》, 北京: 首都师范大学出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-5656-2645-6, p. 83 (59)
Therefore, it is OK to accept the normalization as ⿰坐𠂢.
Agree with Andrew. This is not a wrong character. The above picture is cited from one modern internal system in ROK. This form is also used as J+BA38 (J+=juki, 住基ネット統一文字コード) in Japan. We can say this form is needed in China (TCA included), Japan and ROK.
However, Japan has unified J+BA38 to U+2ADC2 𪷂 in Moji_Joho project as MJ057522.
▲ 王文章: 《第二批国家级非物质文化遗产名录图典（全四册）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2015.12., ISBN 978-7-5039-5447-4, p. 472
As this new evidence and Evidence 2 submitted by UK show, 本地⿰亻⿱山西 is the original name of 枣梆, and this Chinese local opera has been registered in 第二批（中国）国家级非物质文化遗产名录, which the register number is Ⅳ-120.
Andrew’s comment is right. The 建瓯 words in 《汉语方言大词典》 were collected from several unpublished books or article written by 潘渭水, such as 《建瓯的谚语（补）》《建瓯方言的谚语和俚语》《建瓯方言词语》. I can’t find these three ones, but I know 潘渭水 also wrote a dictionary on 建瓯方言, and I have checked it.
The entry shows 小⿰女畝 (WS2021-00993:UK-20820) siau21 miau21. “妾，舊時男子在妻子以外娶的女子”. There are also 小⿰女畝囝 siau21 miau21 kying21, “舊指妾生的孩子，在家庭中地位較低”. (李如龍, 潘渭水; 李榮: 《建甌方言詞典——現代漢語方言大詞典·分卷》, 南京: 江蘇教育出版社, 1998.12, ISBN 7-5343-3411-X/Z·90, p. 155) I don’t have a clear copy to show the original page.
I suggest UK withdraw this character if there is no more additional evidence, and I will add the language tag as mnp to WS2021-00993. If any expert has question or comment, I can try my best to ask Prof. 李如龙.
▲ 佚名: 《四聲等子》, 叢書集成初編影本, folio 31A
The evidence means the 音韻地位 of this character is 滂母, 止攝内轉二四等, 平聲, so we can confirm the phonetic is 皮 without any doubt.
The submitted evidence shows 坑～ is a Cantonese word in Guangzhou, but I have no memory on this word and I don’t know how to confirm if it is right. And, the new evidence has not provided the use case or meaning. I also find other use case for the 同文韻統 form as the pure syllable 皮日切. I have introduced the 同文韻統 system as one of the complex ideographs out of the IRG encoding works. If there is no more additional evidence or explanation, I suggest pending or postpone this character for safety.
The Chinese Min nan pronunciations of 毛 of Xiamen/Amoy sub-dialect provided by zi.tools are mɔ̃35, bo35; mŋ35, mŋ55, maũ35. No one looks similar the current one. And the pronunciation of the phonetic component 乇 must be 入聲 commonly.
Jerry You helps me confirm this issue. He said the pronunciation of this word showed on the submitted evidence sounds like 消毒 which reads as sɪə44 to35 in Xiamen/Amoy.
It is better to make the character pending or postponed for more additional evidence for safety.
In current 广东省湛江市遂溪县, there are Chinese Yue- and Chinese Min nan-dialects. 广东省广州市, 佛山市, 惠州市 often use 门𲍏. The Chinese Yue-dialects in 广东省湛江市赤坎区 and 广东省湛江市霞山区 often use 门𲍏, even 门鳝. I add two language tags for safety. 门～ means conger eels.
Note that 縣 here means 宣化縣 (Huyện Tuyên Hóa) in 廣平省 (Tỉnh Quảng Bình). ～𱏣 means Laotian, which was called as 哀牢蠻 or 哀牢夷 or 愛獠 in the ancient books. (cf. 哀牢山 in Chinese Yunnan Province) China called Laos as 老挝 since 1954 (http://finance.china.com.cn/roll/20150720/3241362.shtml) in Chinese mainland, but 寮國 is kept using in Taiwan Province.
The new evidence shows the phonetic is 了, so it is necessary to use two radicals for this characters. I guess SAT can provide clearer evidence if needed.
In 2020, a Chinese rapper Nineone (乃万) claimed to be 哈人 in the variety show Youth With You Season 2 (《青春有你 第二季》). She was born in 陕西省西安市. When the Xi’an people wrote 哈, there are at least two meanings: evil or and stupid or blockhead. See https://www.aihip-hop.com/12972.html .
However, when the Northeast people write 哈, that means “what”, such as 干哈, which is similar to 啥.
The submitted evidence is related to Chinese Sichuanese dialect (Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects). There are at least three meanings mentioned in the evidence, the first red square includes two meanings I mentioned above in Xi’an. It is easy to know the right part must be 嗄, because the initial is 生母 in 廣韻. Please also compare 哈 with 啥.
The G-Source reference could be GHZH-015381, if there is no additional evidence for the the geographic name.
Editorial issue
▲ 《通用规范汉字表》, p. 54
As 《通用规范汉字表》 shows, 坟 and 墳 are the simplified/traditional pair, not ⿰土贲 and 墳.
千字墳 is a classical geographic name in 四川省, and now the corresponding name is 千字坟 not others which is provided by the local government and other scholars.
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议四川省中江县委员会文史资料研究委员会: 《中江文史资料选辑 第6辑》, 1988.12, p. 32
▲ 《四川省》编纂委员会, 蒲孝荣: 《中华人民共和国地名词典 四川省》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 1993.6, ISBN 7-100-01452-2/K·317
This book was commissioned by the People's Government of Sichuan Province.
This word is used widely in Chinese Mandarin-dialects, not only in 吉林省吉林市桦甸县, but other places use 奔儿楼, 奔儿颅, 锛儿楼, 锛儿髅, 锛儿拉 and so on, and it is common for 二人转. The lyrics involve pornography, so they are not posted here. The meaning could consider the following page, but I don’t agree with the comment on etymology.
https://www.visitbeijing.com.cn/article/47QtRjqxBMI
The submitted evidence and the new evidence in Comment #13148 are both used in Yunnan Province, and two pieces of evidence both show it is related to 锛 (石锛/stone adze is a stable word in Chinese), so it is OK to treat this character as the local vulgar variant of 锛 in Yunnan.
But now, I can find any evidence to confirm the relationship between this character and ⿰钅莽(WS2021-04211).
BTW, 锛 has other meaning in Chinese Beijing- and Jilu-Mandarin-dialects (汉语北京官话方言与冀鲁官话方言), but it is not related to the meaning of this geographic name.
The evidence of the traditional form is shown as below.
▲ 周凱: 《厦門志》, 道光刻本, 卷二
It looks this character is used for the geographical names widely in Southern China, Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects, Wuchuan-Huazhou sub-dialects of Chinese Yue-dialects, Chinese Minnan-Dialects and so on. In almost all the cases, this character could be written as 径 as well, but 加浆～ is often written as 加浆劲 for the local people.
I have no plan to add the language tag for this character at this step.
In #11341, Huang Junliang said, “According to the evidences of 𱷆, 𱷆 is used in Jiangxi province, bordered by Guangdong province where ⿰土窊 is used according to Evidence 1.” I don’t think this is a reason to confirm this character is the same.
The submitted evidence shows this character used in 广东省罗定县屋地～, currently, this place is under 广东省云浮市罗定市榃滨镇, and this is a Chinese Yue-dialect speaking town, but it borders a big Chinese Hakka-dialect speaking town 泗纶镇. It is very hard for us to confirm if this geographical name is named after any Hakka word only by the materials.
U+31DC6 𱷆 is used in current 江西省九江市瑞昌市, and the submitted evidence of U+31DC6 𱷆 didn’t give the pronunciation or meaning. 瑞昌市 is a Chinese Hakka-dialect speaking area. My friend Yang Lu helps me check the places related to U+31DC6 𱷆 in other books. 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》 shows 𱷆里陈 is written as 凹内陈, 大𱷆陇 is written as 大凹垄.
▲ 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》, 九江: 江西省瑞昌县地名志办公室, 1984.12, p. 177
▲ 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》, 九江: 江西省瑞昌县地名志办公室, 1984.12, p. 200
If there is no additional evidence, it looks U+31DC6 𱷆 is related to 凹, 洼, 坬 and so on.
BTW, GDM-00287 is a very common character just only based on the submitted evidence and #11362. If GDM-00287 is unified with U+31DC6 𱷆, I strongly request China for consideration to do the horizontal extension as soon as possible.
Comment
An old classmate of mine who was born in Luoding just helped me confirm the village 屋地～ is a Chinese Yue-dialect speaking village.
This is the river. See https://www.meipian.cn/1a4cusrv
This character has not been encoded, so the local people use 耶江, 鲰江 (百度百科, 中国国家地名信息库), 粤江 (中国国家地名信息库, 眉山人大), 月江 (百度百科, 高德地图, 百度地图, Apple Map) and so on to make more confusions.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
乳 reads as vu⁵¹ in Lanzhou (兰州), and the readings of other Chinese Lanyin (Lanzhou-Yinchuan) Mandarin-dialects are similar to vu, even ʋu. Therefore, 乳 could be used as the phonetic element of this syllable of the Mongolian loan word reasonably.
The tone is right, because this pronunciation is derived from 䉪 U+426A. X房湾 is a common format of the geographical names in 仁寿县, and the submitted character means a kind of farm implement.
塔 mentioned in the the geographical name 塔下～ means 雁塔. 雁塔穿云 was called as one of the 通城古八景, and 塔下～ (currently a part of 建设路 or 建设街) is a good viewing place.
This character is common used in different editions of 《集韻》, but 鵋 is also used commonly at the same position. It is OK to encode the submitted character separately.
Yes, this form is stable and not error, but the main and important issue is if it is suitable to encode an obvious ligature as a separate CJKUI. If yes, maybe I can provide hundreds even thousands of this kind of characters in future; if not, we can try to use other method to handle it by GSUB.
This is a typesetting issue beyond IRG.
On the other hand, this is a ligature of 蟲 insect and 鳥 bird, it is not easy to confirm which radical is suitable, both are right, but both are wrong.
Comment
This is page to show a demo to use 'liga' and 'ccmp' to handle the CJK ligature with WOFF. Note: this website will be removed when we finished the discussion. http://ccamc.org/WS2021-liga/liga.xml
The 'liga' solution on CJKUI has been used by FounderType (方正字库) in 可口可乐在乎体. If any IRG expert thought this solution is not good, please also let FounderType know. Please see Section of the following page. Note: The term “EUDC” is not suitable to use here, and we all know they mean PUA, but there is no need to use PUA for this solution. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/3A49hplUiiL5iecJJeJwig
'ccmp' solution is the better one for me, and I add zwj between two elements.
If any IRG expert hasn’t known about OFF/OpenType and WOFF, please read ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019 and it Amd.1:2020, and the related W3C recommendation first.
Chairman Mao once mentioned 仲家人 in his famous article 《中国革命和中国共产党人》. He juxtaposed 僮人 (Zhuang) and 仲家人, so 仲家人 not means Zhuang. In other other paper, other scholar mentioned 仲苗 means current 布依族 (Bouyei), and the new evidence on #7788 shows clearly 苗⿰犭仲 live in Yunnan and Guizhou (滇=Yunnan, 黔=Guizhou), which matches Bouyei. On the other hand, Zhuang and Bouyei are relevant, maybe the etymology is similar to “cuengh” in Zhuang language.
▲ 谢启晃, 郭在忠, 莫俊卿, 陆红妹: 《岭外壮族汇考》, 南宁: 广西民族出版社, 1989.12, ISBN 7-5363-0226-6/K·12, p. 1
The name of this kind of fish is used commonly in 江苏省苏州市常熟市 and 江苏省扬州市高邮市. The following first picture shows the use in 沙家浜镇. 沙家浜镇 is a town in 常熟市, and the famous Peking Opera modern drama 《沙家浜》 was written by 汪曾祺 mainly, which 昂丝鱼 was used in the book. The following second and third pictures show 昂嗤鱼 written by 汪曾祺 in his hometown 高邮市, but he has written clearly that he didn’t know the name of the fish. On the other hand, the second picture also shows 昂刺鱼, and I also found 𫚐丝鱼 in other places in Jiangsu Province.
沙家浜 and 高邮 are the important tourism destinations now, so this character is very useful. This character could be used for Jiangsu cuisine (苏菜), even Huai’an-Yangzhou cuisine (淮扬菜).
▲ 江苏省常熟市沙家浜镇志编纂委员会: 《沙家浜镇志》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2017.3, ISBN 978-7-5144-2387-7, p. 82
▲ 《汪曾祺的高邮家常菜》//王道: 《流动的味道——汪曾祺食谱》, 郑州: 大象出版社, 2020.5, ISBN 978-7-5711-0565-5, p. 110
▲ 《故乡的食物》//汪曾祺: 《春初新韭 秋末晚菘——汪曾祺散文精选》, 北京: 台海出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5168-2694-2, p. 23
The evidence shows this character is the old form of 顯 U+986F, but I can’t find the original form. I think other experts could pay more attention on this.
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 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.
Comment
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.
Comment
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.
The character under 12 and 13 in the submitted evidence has been encoded as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
However, the current SAT-05235 glyph for U+2D5B2 𭖲 doesn’t match the source and #2388, so maybe SAT should update the glyph later.
On the other hand, all the evidence shows U+2D5B2 𭖲 has the fanqie as the common Hanzi/Kanji. And the situation of the submitted character is the same as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
This character is also used in 《碣石調·幽蘭》 which is the earliest 古琴文字譜, that means the variant of 牽. It is also one fingering letter name now. This is the last unencoded Han character in 《碣石調·幽蘭》, so it will be very useful to encode it. There are other unencoded punctuation in 《碣石調·幽蘭》.
When we see the left component of the next character of the submitted character in Evidence 1 more carefully, we can find the current form is not the common one for the left component 犭.
It should be the following.
This is the transitional form from 犭 to 彳, and the next character has not been shown as U+3042D 𰐭.
犭 and 彳 are often interchanged to make more possible variants in the ancient books, but the possible variants could be used as other characters with other the completely irrelevant pronunciations and meanings. Therefore, it is very dangerous to unify 犭 and 彳 in general.
山 and 宀, 木 and 扌 are similar to this pair.
Note 張子盛 mentioned the Jianzi fingering letter 揉 (mapped to 犭 commonly) could also be written as 彳 form in 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 and 《松風閣琴譜》 (not the Siku version). But I excluded 彳 form as 猱 in my list, because 彳 has other meaning of Jianzi fingering letter and 𢔟 U+2251F is a different character commonly, which can’t be used as the name of Jianzi fingering letters.
This is a good example for the so-called “stable error”.
According to the evidence, this character is only used for the 反切上字 of 𨺙 U+28E99.
Yi Bai provided two variants of 𨺙 U+28E99, one is 陧, the other one is 倪. 陧 is a 入聲字, that is not related to 計 here; the 韻 of 倪 and 計 are both 齊 and the tones are both 去聲. The evidence shows the word 陴𨺙 that must be the variant form of 俾倪. The most common 反切 related to 計 for 倪 should be 五計反/切, but the submitted character must not be the variant of 五, so it is better to keep as-is in main set. At least, we can know the 聲母 of the submitted character is 疑母, that matches the rationale for the phonetic element, so the radical assignment is also right.
The new evidence shows the character is used for the old name of one river without more information. When we search the river name in the ancient books, the greatest possibility is a river as the tributary of 湘江 in current 湖南省. So, it could be marked as hsn.
The following two modern editions of the similar sentences of #1195 give 岸 and 堓 (variant of 岸), and the second evidence of #1202 has shown it is the variant of 岸.
▲ 王士祯, 阮亭: 《水月令》//黄承增: 《广虞初新志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 1390
▲ 周衣德, 杨安利: 《周衣德集》, 合肥: 黄山书社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-5461-0765-3, p. 593
▲ 张殿英: 《杨家埠木版年画》, 北京: 人民美术出版社, 1990.5, ISBN 7-102-00765-5/J·710, pp. 157-158
Comment
▲ 金良年: 《中国神秘文化百科知识》, 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1994.12, ISBN 7-80511-682-0/G·167, pp. 232-233
Comment
▲ 陆锡兴: 《汉字民俗史》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-100-17227-1, p. 436
Comment
The website of CCDI (中共中央纪律检查委员会, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China) showed these four characters in 康百万庄园 in one article. https://www.ccdi.gov.cn/yaowen/201704/t20170408_146614.html However, they have not shown the picture.
In WS2017 review, I once mentioned WS2017-02193 could be unified with U+2DCA6 𭲦.
In the KC DB, there are three source reference related to this character.
KC-02163 ⿰氵⿳爫旧夂
KC-05266 ⿰氵⿱𦥝夂
KC-07515 ⿰氵夐
If we unify this character to U+2DCA6 𭲦, ROK should change the glyph to ⿰氵夐 and the source reference to KC-07515.
If we encode this character separately, ROK should change the source reference for U+2DCA6 𭲦 to KC-02163 and do the horizontal extension for this character as KC-07515 in future.
In fact, the local name is 猪乸菜 (vegetable for sow feeding), but the phonetic moral of 莙荙 is better than 猪乸菜.
▲ 莫熙穆, 陈定如, 陈章和, 广东省畜牧局, 华南师范大学固氮牧草研究中心: 《广东饲用植物》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1993.6, ISBN 7-5359-1064-5/S·132, pp. 147-148
This character should be treated as the local variant, not the local name. It is OK to keep it.
浮 reads as fu²⁴ in 南京 (Chinese Lower-Yangtze Mandarin-dialect), vəu²⁴ in 宜兴 (Chinese Wu-dialect), and vei³²³ in 溧阳 (also Chinese Wu-dialect).
坏 is not the simplified form of 壞 or the variant of 坯 here. Mr. 钱松嵒 is a famous Chinese painting artist, who was born in 宜兴. In his article, he used 坏. It is impossible for the local persons call the mountain as “Big Bad Mountain”.
▲ 钱松嵒: 《学画溯源头》//北京大学中国名人丛书编委会: 《中国名人谈少儿时代 苦涩的梦》, 长春: 北方妇女儿童出版社, 1990.7, ISBN 7-5385-0602-0/I·88, p. 4
For 大岯山, there is a mountain called 大岯山 or 大伾山 in 河南省. I can’t find the local people call the 大～山 and 小～山 as 大岯山 and 小岯山 in 南京, 宜兴 and 溧阳. On the other hand, the pronunciation of 岯 doesn’t match 浮. Therefore, 岯 for this case is wrong.
～玀/～猓 mentioned at #3071 means Ersu people (尔苏人). Ersu people who are treated as a part of Zang (藏族). Prof. Zhao Liming and Dr. Wang Yihua once submitted L2/17-341, and we once see the materials at Hohhot (WG2 meeting).
This name is named after later 则拉乡 in 四川省凉山彝族自治州甘洛县, but 则拉乡 was merged into 玉田镇 June 12th, 2020. Now, Ersu people live in 四川省雅安市石棉县蟹螺藏族乡 mainly.
(The above is based on 《李星星论藏彝走廊》 and 《西南丝绸之路考察札记》.)
My Beijing friend has help me confirm this word. This word is 牛屎/粪pǎnr/pǎir, and they often write as 牛屎盘儿 or 牛粪盘儿. Based on 《现代汉语词典》, the retroflex suffixation forms (儿化) of the finals ɑ, ɑi, ɑn are the same. 盘 must be not the proper form of this one and a half syllables (一个半音节), just a temporary replaced form. Therefore, it is valuable to encode this character.
▲ 北董: 《卓越的力量》//北董: 《飞马烽火桥》, 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社, 2020.1, ISBN 978-7-5598-2340-3, p. 52
This place is under 顺天府, but it looks not in current 北京市. When I check 德聚窑, it is at current 内蒙古自治区赤峰市, but 长顺窑 is at current 北京市门头沟区. So, I added two language tags now.
It is easy to know the meaning is “to taste”. There are three use cases for the Chinese Hakka word “to taste” in 江西省赣州市 and 广东省梅州市, and the they all use “尝下” or “尝一下” directly. It looks the character is the related character of 尝, but it is not related to U+4459 䑙 “to lick”.
▲ 温昌衍: 《石城（高田）客家话的否定词》//陈振宇, 盛益民: 《汉语方言否定范畴研究》, 上海: 中西书局, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5475-1746-8, p. 247
(This is a use case for 江西省赣州市石城县高田镇.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《客家方言词语考释》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2019.10, ISBN 978-7-218-13543-4
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市梅县区.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《五华客家话研究》, 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2010.6, ISBN 978-7-5623-3299-2, p. 393
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市五华县.)
The most common form for “to lick” is 舐 in Chinese Hakka-dialects, and some places use one word which has the corresponding word in Chinese Yue-dialects, which the final consonant is still -m, not -n for 丹 in Hakka.
▲ 张维耿: 《客方言标准音词典》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 978-7-306-04342-9, p. 239
If IRG experts have comments on this character, I should ask other Chinese Hakka-dialects researchers to get their comments.
They show the reading is tâm, but I can’t read this Romanization scheme. Yi Bai shows the reading as tʰiam44陰平 in 广东省韶关市新丰县, tʰiam31上聲 in 广东省梅州市梅江县.
舔 is not included in 廣韻, but Kangxi Dictionary gives the fanqie as 他點切 cited from 《篇海》. I check the reading for 点 in 《客赣方言调查报告》, all the dialectal places give the head of final vowel as -i-, and I check the reading of 点 in above page, they show the Romanization form is tiám which the -i- is still here, that means this character is still not related to 舔 or U+4459 䑙.
This character is very common used in Guangdong Province for the geographical names, Yue-, Min nan-, and Hakka-dialects included.
～岗 is a place under current 广东省深圳市宝安区. This character has not been encoded, so they sometimes use 壆, sometimes use 坣, that will make the information confused.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
The pronunciation follows 琵. This place is under current 广东省广州市海珠区新港东路. ～潖洲, 琵琶洲, 潖洲 and 琶洲 mean the same place. Currently, there are one pagoda named 海鳌塔 or 琶洲塔, which the corresponding English name is Whampoa Pagoda (黄埔塔). Currently, there is the Guangzhou Pazhou International Convention and Exhibition Center (广州琶洲国际会展中心) near there, which is the main venue of the China Import and Export Fair (aka Canton Fair, 中国进出口商品交易会, 广交会).
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: Eiso CHAN
Date: Generated on 2026-07-26
Labels
Unification
Support #9403 and #9839 to unify with 𰊮 (U+302AE), but it is not better to do the horizontal extension in future.
For Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi and Guangdong, 畬 means She People (畲族) or some Hakka people (客家人), 𤲞 is always the variant with the same meanings, but 畬 is the proper one for the modern Chinese written system.
unify to 㟧 (U+37E7)?
Or add both of them to kSpoofingVariant?
unify to 愎?
Similar to the followings.
unify to 𱂥 (U+310A5)
The other method is to unify to U+310A5, but I don’t think it is a good solution.
Consider to add 𱂥 (U+310A5) and ⿰名页 as a new UCV.
unify to 噸 (U+5678)
Support #5231 to add a new UCV.
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.
Unification to 𱔱 (U+31531) looks better.
unify to 𰇪 (U+301EA)
Same meanings and similar glyphs.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第一, p. 2129
unify to 𣈻 (U+2323B)
The evidence has shown the right part is related to 哉, and 㢤 and 哉 is always the variants.
[ {{WS2017-01588}} ]
Also add 㢤 (U+38A4), 㦲 (U+39B2) and 哉 as UCV lv. 1.
other solution is to unify with 楔 (U+6954)
This character is the variant of 楔 without any doubt. If IRG accept the unification, 契, ⿱⿰丰刃廾, ⿱⿰丰力廾, ⿱⿰龶刃犬, ⿱⿰龶力大, ⿱⿰龶力廾, 𢍆, 𢍠, 𭑕, 𭚘 and so on should be treated as UCV lv. 1.
https://zi.tools/zi/%E6%A5%94
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAxOTc4
https://zi.tools/zi/%E5%A5%91
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAwODY0
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
We should consider if UCV #307 is suitable for this case to unify with 𢿵 (U+22FF5).
IDS should also be ⿺棠攵.
We could discuss if it is OK to add ⿱ and ⿵ as a new UCV. If yes, we can consider to unify this character to 𢲿 (U+22CBF).
unify to 㝣 (U+3763)
Also see WS2021-01815.
In 説文解字, 㝣 is different from 絜, but 㝣 could be loaned (假借) as 絜.
▲ 朱駿聲: 《説文通訓定聲》, 臨嘯閣藏本, 泰部弟十三
unify to 𱯋 (U+31BCB)
SAT has proved the current form is stable for different editions.
unify to 憻 (U+61BB)
It is a good chance to add 亶, 𮧊 (U+2E9CA) and ⿱面旦 as UCV lv.1.
U+23780 𣞀 vs U+6A80 檀
U+28BAE 𨮮 vs U+28B56 𨭖
U+2D2E2 𭋢 vs U+20FDE 𠿞
U+2D400 𭐀 vs U+58C7 壇
U+2E09F 𮂟 vs U+4120 䄠
U+2EB59 𮭙 vs U+9E07 鸇
U+311C3 𱇃 vs U+9C63 鱣
U+31327 𱌧 vs U+2A675 𪙵
unify to 𧧳 (U+279F3) or U+8A87?
In the evidence, this character is used as the 反切上字 for 髁, that means the 聲母 of this character must be 溪母, and could be 合口 and 一等 or 二等. 𧧳 is the variant of 誇, that matches them.
We can also find the encoded character related to ⿱大干 as below.
U+29A43 𩩃 ≠ U+3116F 𱅯 = U+9ABB 骻
U+31499 𱒙 = U+314AA 𱒪 = U+54B5 咵 ?
There is also U+2D826 𭠦, and we don’t have ⿰扌𡗢, but it is the variant of 挎.
unify to 㼝 (U+3F1D)
Also see
unify to 𫑄 (U+2B444) or U+285D2
The evidence shows it is the variant of 霆. 《隨函録》 uses 𫑄.
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 賢聖集音義第七之四
unify to 逌 (U+900C)
海山仙館叢書 and the modern paper both give 逌. The submitted one and 逌 are very very similar.
▲ 玄應: 《一切經音義》, 海山仙館叢書, 卷第二十二
▲ 聂志军, 向红艳: 《敦煌遗书S.1815V再研究》, 《敦煌研究》, 2018年第1期, p. 118
unify to 莏 (U+838F)
The evidence shows 説文 捼～ 手相摩也. 許慎 also said the variant of 捼 is 挼, and Prof. 费秉勋 modified some definition based on the 《説文解字》, which he was studying “挼曲子” mentioned in 《东京梦华录》. At this time, the submitted character and the relative one are not used in the sentence in 《説文解字》.
▲ 許慎: 《説文解字》, 藤花榭本, 第十二上
▲ 费秉勋: 《宋舞杂考》//中国艺术研究院舞蹈研究所: 《舞蹈艺术丛刊 1986年第4辑（总第17辑）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 1986.11, 统一书号: 8228·151, p. 112
The following book provided the similar word related to the submitted character.
▲ 李玉汶: 《漢英新辭典 第五版》, 上海: 商務印書館, 中華民國十年九月 (1921.9), p. 533
《廣韻》 and 《集韻》 showed more useful information.
▲ 《廣韻》, 符山堂藏板, 下平聲卷第二 (蘇禾切)
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
Based on current unification rule, they could be unifiable because of cognate.
Japan has used this UCV in Hanyo-Denshi and Moji_Joho IVD collections.
U+5156 兖 = U+5157 兗
U+6071 恱 = U+6085 悅 U+60A6 悦
U+6BE4 毤 = U+23B86 𣮆
U+8412 萒 = U+26CC6 𦳆
U+20C55 𠱕 = U+54FE 哾
U+21DCB 𡷋 = U+37CB 㟋
U+22B01 𢬁 = U+6329 挩 U+635D 捝
U+22F20 𢼠 = U+6553 敓 U+655A 敚
U+26B80 𦮀 = U+838C 莌 U+26CAE 𦲮
U+26CAE 𦲮 = U+44F2 䓲
U+289A3 𨦣 = U+92B3 銳 U+92ED 鋭
U+294AC 𩒬 = U+4AC4 䫄
U+2D8ED 𭣭 = U+2D8F3 𭣳
U+2DF66 𭽦 = U+24FEB 𤿫
Note: the outside component of U+22F20 𢼠 is not totally the same as U+514A 兊, but they must be unifiable.
The followings have not the corresponding 兑/兌 variant forms.
U+38DE 㣞
U+20D77 𠵷
U+211F0 𡇰
U+2170E 𡜎
U+2406B 𤁫
U+278E5 𧣥
U+27344 𧍄
U+2E8FD 𮣽
U+31F79 𱽹
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2015/app/?id=01354
unify to 𪝷 (U+2A777) possibly
盁 /⿱𠂊皿/ ⿱𠘧皿 is enough.
unify to 𫮝 (U+2BB9D) ?
Both are used for person name in Taiwan Province.
unify to 𩬖 (U+29B16) based on the reading?
Based on Lee’s analysis, the right part is derived from 雚, that means the upper right component should be the vulgar variant form of 卝 not, 艸. The new UCV mentioned in WS2021-02950:TE-2668 is not suitable for this case.
▲ https://seal.cmex.org.tw/view.jsp?ID=2652
For the glyph, the vulgar variant of 雚 is often written as 萑 with three-stroke 艹, so there is no need to change the glyph as the vulgar one.
unify to 𱾨 (U+31FA8) possibly
unify to 蟹
The new UCV for 解觧 has been added.
unify to 淞 (U+6DDE)
▲ 范端昂, 汤志岳: 《粤中见闻》, 广州: 广东高等教育出版社, 1988.7, ISBN 7-5361-0086-8/Z·1, p. 119
This modern publishing edition gives 淞.
▲ 曾楚楠, 《潮州文化丛书》编纂委员会: 《潮州文化丛书·第一辑 韩愈在潮州（增订本）》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.7, ISBN 978-7-218-14801-, pp. 65-67
Based on the analysis, this character should be the omission of 吴淞 (near Yangtze River Delta); 陂塘 means narrow pond, which is a common stable word.
口 and 厶 are commonly unifiable.
unify to 玜 (U+739C)
I don’t oppose to unify with 𡧾 (U+219FE), but I don’t know why 《汉语大字典》 include ⿳宀乛皿 form not this one, that is so strange.
I strongly request UK for consideration to do the horizontal extension later, if this one been unified.
unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5)
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
Also see WS2021-00150, 01465, 01466, 02476.
U+5715 圕 means 圖書館/圖書舘 (library), and this character means 圖書 (book, Latin word is libri)
maybe unify to 𥺺 (U+25EBA)?
The new UCV for 解觧 has been added.
Attributes
The evidence shows the rationale for this character is 從⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446)耳聲, that means 耳 is the phonetic. The semantic is the unencoded ⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446) which is the variant of 䰜, 弜 for 䰜 is used for 象形 (象孰飪五味气上出也), and 畐 is the variant of 鬲. Both the radicals for 弜 and 畐 are OK for the second radical.
Evidence 1 shows ⿰音⿱日⿹勹⿺𠃊㐅, Evidence 2 shows ⿰音⿱日匂.
The reading mǒu means 某, so two radicals should be better.
Also see WS2021-01948:TC-7C7C
Radical follows 坐.
Evidence
▲ 许正华: 《金华地区传统名产》, 金华: 浙江省金华地区科学技术委员会, 1983.5, p. 138
▲ 《中华人民共和国地质部 区域地质矿产调查报告 H-50-XXIX 衢县幅 比例尺1:200000》, 浙江省地质局, 1969, p. 59
This form is used widely, it is OK to encode it.
If you check the ancient books, you will find the geographical name listed there is 猷輅, which the original name is 牛路 (牛: cattle, 路: road/path). And they used 猷辂 on the local guideboards.
There is one famous pugilistic art, and they registered as 䣭辂拳 in 第三批浙江省非物质文化遗产名录.
▲ https://www.ihningbo.cn/regulation/show/11
▲ 杨建新: 《浙江文化地图 第四册 钱塘风物 浙江民间文化》, 杭州: 浙江摄影出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5514-0018-3, pp. 268-269
𬨎辂 is also used in the books related to toponymic survey, but not common for the local people.
▲ 《中国共产党山东省青岛市黄岛区组织史资料 1939—1987》, 青岛: 中共青岛市黄岛区委党史征委会, 1989.4, p. 292
▲ 桦甸县地方志编纂委员会: 《桦甸县志》, 长春: 吉林人民出版社, 1995.7, ISBN 7-206-02269-3/Z·92, pp. 35-36
▲ 常秉志: 《桦甸县地名录》, 吉林: 吉林省桦甸县地名委员会, 1984.10, 吉林省内部资料准印证第4082号, p. 16
▲ 德宏州史志办公室: 《德宏史志系列丛书 德宏历史资料 历史卷》, 潞西: 德宏民族出版社, 2012.10, ISBN 978-7-80750-755-0, p. 430
▲ 李根源, 刘楚湘, 许秋芳: 《民国腾冲县志稿【点校本】》, 昆明: 云南美术出版社, 2004.12, ISBN 7-80695-180-6/Z·44, p. 206
▲ 毛荣楷: 《怀岭禅风——六祖惠能在怀集的故事》, 肇庆: 怀集县冷坑镇委、镇政府 & 《新怀集》编辑部 & 怀集县志办公室, 2005.8, p. 55
This is a common word in Yue-dialects, this form is used commonly in 肇庆.
▲ 秦皇岛市地名办公室: 《秦皇岛市地名词典》, 天津: 天津人民出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-201-01759-4/K·233, p. 231
▲ 慈溪市民间文学集成办公室: 《中国民间文学集成浙江省宁波市慈溪市卷》, 杭州: 浙江省民间文学集成办公室, 1989.4, 书号: Z CSL-1989-0022, pp. 351-352
▲ 大埔县地方志编纂委员会: 《大埔县志》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1992.11, ISBN 7-218-00994-8/K·230, p. 50 & p. 55
▲ 苏秉琦: 《考古学文化论集（三）》, 北京: 文物出版社, 1993.12, ISBN 7-5010-0685-7/K·283, p. 12 & p. 23
▲ 贵州省黔西南布依族苗族自治州史志征集编纂委员会: 《黔西南布依族苗族自治州志·民政志》, 贵阳: 贵州人民出版社, 1989.12, ISBN 7-221-01548-1/K·51, p. 214
▲ 《贵州省中草药新医疗法展览资料选编》, 贵州省中草药新医疗法展览会, 1972, p. 74
▲ ～硐小学
▲ 《闽北农业科技手册》, 1978.5, p. 62
▲ 《重修揚州府志》, 嘉慶刻本, 卷之三十三
▲ 陕西省临潼县志编纂委员会: 《临潼县志》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-208-01191-5/K·276, p. 58
《临潼县志》 gives 坞刘村.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
If the information provided by National Database for Geographical Names of China is right, 坞 looks more correct.
On the other hand, the traditional one 䲧 is included in Kangxi Dictionary, but the pronunciation is 動五切 which is similar to 杜, that means 塢鵑 is the variant form of 杜鵑. 从鳥土聲, and niǎo is not reasonable for this rationale.
▲ 《湖南省长沙市地名录》, 长沙: 长沙市人民政府, 1986.3, 内部发行, p. 447
(This evidence is provided by my friend Yang Lu.)
▲ 国务院东北经济区规划办公室农林组: 《生态农业建设——东北经济区生态农业建设模式选编》, 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学出版社, 1987.8, ISBN 7-81008-018-0/S·3, p. 192
国务院东北经济区规划办公室 is an authoritative group under the State Council of PRC, which the previous name was 东北能源交通规划办公室 before 1985.
▲ 杨新华, 赵恒珊, 韩明安: 《中苏贸易口岸》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 1991.3, ISBN 7-207-01954-8/F·395, p. 116
When this book was published, the Soviet Union had not yet disintegrated.
▲ 国家文物局: 《中国文物地图集 山西分册（中）》, 北京: 中国地图出版社, 2006.12, ISBN 7-5031-4205-7, p. 293
▲ 刘清泉: 《绿色文明录（第一册）》, 太原: 山西高校联合出版社, 1994.8, ISBN 7-81032-684-8/S·38, p. 21
▲ 方炳桂: 《闽都风情录》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-5334-2284-8/K·56, pp. 67-68
▲ 中国食品杂志社, 杜福祥, 谢帼明: 《中国名食百科》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1988.6, ISBN 7-203-00009-5/Z·4, p. 870
▲ 福州市地方志编纂委员会: 《福州市志 第四册》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2000.7, ISBN 7-80122-568-6/K·238, p. 420
▲ 福州市地方志编纂委员会: 《福州市志 第五册》, 北京: 方志出版社, 1999.2, ISBN 7-80122-418-3/K·154, p. 325
▲ 李如龙: 《论方言和普通话之间的过渡语》//中国社会科学院语言文字应用研究所社会语言学研究室: 《语言·社会·文化——首届社会语言学学术讨论会文集》, 北京: 语文出版社, 1991.1, ISBN 7-80006-232-5/H·64, p. 159
▲ 福建省糖业烟酒公司, 中国民主建国会福州市委员会, 福州市工商业联合会: 《实用副食品手册》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 1982.10, 书号: 17211·15, p. 179
▲ 洪锡山: 《吴修潭先生传略》//中国人民政治协商会议福建省晋江市委员会文史资料委员会: 《晋江文史资料选辑 第十九辑》, 泉州: 泉州晚报印刷厂, 1997.12, p. 98
▲ 广东省汕头市地方志编纂委员会: 《汕头市志 第2册》, 北京: 新华出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5011-4387-0, p. 454
▲ 赖云青, 何玳丽: 《大亨黄金荣》, 北京: 作家出版社, 1987.8, ISBN 7-5063-0023-0/I·22, p. 101
▲ 《四川省仁寿县地名录》, 眉山: 仁寿县地名领导小组, 1982.10, p. 444
▲ 清远市地方志编纂办公室: 《清远县志》, 1995, 内部发行, p. 117
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第二十九
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
For the rationale, this character means 大 (big). 大 reads as ɾʱəu¹³ in 泾县话, ha⁵¹ (文) hu²⁴ (白) in 泾县茂林话, tʰa⁵⁵ (文) tʰo⁵⁵ (白) in 泾县查济话. (Thanks for 神死’s help on the Chinese Wu-dialects.) It is not difficult to know, this character is to record the syllable derived from the 白读 of 大, so the upper component should be 大.
▲ 肖九根, 卢小芳: 《略论赣南客家话“上”义类方位词》//庄初升, 温昌衍: 《客家方言调查研究——第十二届客家方言学术研讨会论文集》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-306-06448-6, p. 386
▲ 林雄, 顾作义: 《经典广东》, 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5406-7624-7, p. 87
There are more than 550 places in 江西省赣州市, more than 1020 places in 广东省梅州市 with 岽.
On the other hand, we know U+2BCD2 𫳒 is cited from ZJW, and we can’t find the real use of it in 长汀县, 龙岩市, even other Chinese Hakka-dialects areas in 福建省, 江西省, 广东省, 广西壮族自治区, 香港特别行政区, 澳门特别行政区, 台湾省 and so on.
The most reasonable understanding is that this is a typo, and the correct form should be 岽. It is better to withdraw this character.
▲ 广东师院, 湖南师院, 华中师院, 武汉师院: 《动物及动物饲养学（下册）》, 内部发行, 1976.4, p. 222
▲ 黄琪琰, 宋承方: 《鱼病防治实用技术》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-109-02213-7/S·1452, pp. 171-172
▲ 叶重光: 《名优淡水产品养殖技术图说》, 郑州: 河南科学技术出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5349-2542-8/S·595, p. 166
▲ 陈锦富, 陈辉: 《鱼病防治技术》, 北京: 金盾出版社, 1997.7, ISBN 7-5082-0377-1, p. 109
Water bloom is common in 高要 (肇庆), 南海 and 顺德 (佛山), so this character must be used to record Chinese Yue-dialect. I have no knowledge on this, so I can’t show the Cantonese reading now.
▲ 季裕庆: 《江苏名城录》, 北京: 北京旅游出版社, 1987.11, 书号: 12273·12, p. 148
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议江苏省宜兴县委员会文史资料研究委员会: 《宜兴文史资料 第四辑》, 无锡: 中国人民政治协商会议江苏省宜兴县委员会文史资料研究委员会, 1983.4, p. 156
▲ 程裕祯, 解波: 《中国名胜楹联大观》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 1987.3, ISBN 7-5032-0022-7/I·3, p. 119
▲ 平定段⿱斩石石道班
▲ 杜五安: 《太旧路英雄谱》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1995.09, ISBN 7-203-03383-X, p. 498
▲ 望城县人民政府: 《湖南省望城县地名录》, 长沙: 望城县湘江印刷厂, 1983.3, p. 178
The other page of the same book shows the pronunciation and the meaning.
▲ 沁源老区建设促进会: 《英雄的沁源人民》, 北京: 海潮出版社, 1997.12, ISBN 7-80054-921-6/K·64, p. 97
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
▲ 骆国和: 《湛江掌故》 , 北京: 中国文联出版社, 2006.12, ISBN 7-5059-4369-3, pp. 112-113
▲ 汉仪字库: 《中文上万个“生僻字”，都能打出来吗？ | 字体研究院》, https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1v84y1J7GY
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
On the other hand, this place is under 清新区, and 氹塘/凼塘 is a common stable word in 清远市.
▲ 广东省地理学会科普组: 《广东农谚》, 广州: 科学普及出版社广州分社, 1983.2, 统一书号: 16051·60185, p. 77
▲ 葉廷珪: 《海録碎事》, 萬歷刻本, 卷二十二上
▲ 葉廷珪: 《海録碎事》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十二上
According to the new evidence, this character is also the variant of 䱤, but it is better to move it back to M-set for not only one piece of evidence.
Therefore, it could be moved back to M-set based on the full-page evidence and my analysis.
▲ 《霸州志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之五
Also see WS2021-04607:GKJ-00233.
▲ 方以智: 《通雅》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷四十七
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
▲ 《略陽縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之三
略阳县 is under 陕西省汉中市 now.
Some one posted the picture of 青⿰拐鳥 on https://tieba.baidu.com/p/2077973832. It looks this kind of bird is also common in 汉中.
▲ 《銅陵縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 方成珪: 《集韻考正》, 光緒刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 曹氏楝亭本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷一
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
▲ 《集韻》, 金州軍刻宋本, 卷之九
It is better to withdraw this character without additional evidence.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 愛新覺羅·玄燁: 《御定駢字類編》, 四庫全書本, 卷二百九
Compared with other books related to 《天目山賦》 written by 盧柟, this character must be the variant of 鵹.
▲ 孙应时, 鲍廉, 卢镇, 陈其弟, 常熟市地方志编纂委员会办公室: 《至正重修琴川志》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5144-0793-8/K·642, p. 95
▲ 《本草匯箋》//朱大年: 《歷代本草精華叢書 七》, 上海: 上海中醫藥大學出版社, 1994.6, ISBN 7-81010-206-0, p. 431
▲ 郝懿行: 《爾雅義疏》, 郝氏家刻本, 下之四
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 39
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 42
This is a common character used in Ningpo cuisine.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 106
▲ 傅国通, 郑张尚芳: 《浙江省语言志》, 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-213-06955-0, p. 245
▲ 《五音集韻》, 卷五
▲ 《輶軒使者絶代語釋别國方言》, 第十一
This character looks like the variant of 錞.
We have the UCV for 夗 and 死.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第五
▲ 吴大澂: 《説文古籀補》, 光緒二十一年重刻本, 卷第十二
▲ 劉義慶: 《世説新語》, 四部叢刊本, 卷上之上
▲ 劉義慶, 劉孝標: 《世説新語》, 崇文書局叢書本, 卷一
▲ 中国水利水电科学研究院水利史研究室: 《再续行水金鉴 运河卷 5》, 武汉: 湖北人民出版社, 2004.8, ISBN 7-216-03968-8, p. 1760
▲ 《康熙字典》, 康熙五十五年武英殿本, 巳集下
▲ 鄭樵: 《爾雅》, 津逮秘書, 卷下
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//施方穆: 《抗戰前後 八十家佳作集 上集》, 香港: 新流書店, 1947.9, p. 545
The simplified form is shown as below.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
⿰犭围 has not been encoded yet.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第九百一十三
On the other hand, in other edition of 《太平御覽》, the character is written as 㺊.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 嘉慶仿宋刻本, 卷第九百一十三
▲ 《重修政和證類本草》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第十
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 錢恂藏揚州使院本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《清史稿》, 北京清史館刊, 卷七十八, 地理志十八
The following paper shows the current name is 港口溪.
▲ 谢珽, 宁炜: 《美国领事李仙得在厦门任上》//周旻, 厦门市社会科学界联合会, 厦门大学人文学院, 厦门市社会科学院, 鼓浪屿国际研究中心: 《鼓浪屿研究 第三辑》, 厦门: 厦门大学出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5615-5921-5, p. 53
However, I found the following page which shows the name should be 猪朥束 now in 屏東縣滿州鄉.
https://twlanddb.com/landno-1f8a01d4787740f4864af2d48fcb298f.html
Based on the use, I guess the most common form for this word is 朥. There is one kind of cake name 朥餅 in 潮州 and 汕头, which means lard.
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之七
http://www.ekenting.tw/scenic/2188.html
https://okgo.tw/butyview.html?id=2188
There are also a VR tourism services on 港口溪.
http://www.vrwalker.net/tw/scenery_view.php?tbname=scenerys&serno=1301
Also see the followings.
https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/119154/season/1?language=zh-TW
https://www.marieclaire.com.tw/community/opinion/59764/seqalu
《蠕范》 was mentioned for so many times in the evidence. It is better to check the original edition if possible.
▲ 李元: 《蠕範》, 同治刻本, 卷六
For the Jianzi use, the fingering letter 猱 should be 犭 commonly, but 《琴言十則》 (Yuan D.) and 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 (Qing D., non-Siku editions) used 彳.
▲ 朴仁范, 尹明浩: 《国家中医药管理局民族医药文献整理丛书 乡药集成方：校勘注释（下册）》, 长春: 吉林科学技术出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 7-5578-0244-8, p. 2029
▲ 谢宇: 《女性常见病药草治疗》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5029-4, p. 178
▲ 侯玲文: 《上古汉语朝鲜语对应词研究》, 北京: 民族出版社 , 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-105-10271-6, p. 256
▲ 国家中医药管理局: 《中华本草》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1999, ISBN 7-5323-5106-8, p. 667
▲ 陈丕显, 陈金祥: 《长阳县志（民国二十五年纂修）》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2005.9, ISBN 7-80192-609-9/K·443, p. 85
长阳县 means 湖北省宜昌市长阳土家族自治县.
▲ 王云, 孙立新: 《人是铁，饭是钢：谷物坚果增智慧》, 北京: 现代出版社, 2011.10, ISBN 978-7-5143-0076-5, p. 108
▲ 陈企望: 《神农本草经注》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2018.11, ISBN 978-7-5152-1714-7, p. 1275
▲ 惠永正: 《中药天然产物大全 11 下 中药》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 7-5478-0202-1, p. 8760
▲ 任继昉: 《“转注字也是半形半声的字”——于安澜先生“转注”观的启示》//张生汉: 《于安澜先生纪念集》, 开封: 河南大学出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-81091-846-6, p. 199
▲ 曾昭聪: 《魏晋南北朝隋唐五代词源研究史略》, 北京: 语文出版社, 2010.4, ISBN 978-7-80184-999-1, p. 30
▲ 许志刚: 《诗经论略》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.1, ISBN 7-5610-3909-3, p. 304
▲ 杨汝福, 邓望鸿, 黎远方, 廖学新, 吴政: 《咏鸟诗选》, 南宁: 西人民出版社, 1988.8, ISBN 7-219-00802-3/I·220, pp. 386-388
In fact, the variant 𲎆 U+32386 is used more widely in the modern publishing books. The submitted one is also variable to encode.
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
▲ 王者悦: 《中国药膳大辞典》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2017.10, ISBN 978-7-5152-1539-6, p. 135
▲ 李文瑞，李秋贵: 《中药别名辞典》, 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-5046-0446-1/R·102, p. 891
▲ 江门市地方志编纂委员会: 《江门市志：1979~2000》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5144-0381-7, p. 107
▲ 中国民间文学集成全国编辑委员会, 中国民间文学集成广东卷编辑委员会, 《中国谚语集成 广东卷》, 北京: 中国ISBN中心, 1997.7, ISBN 7-5076-0124-2/J·119, p. 268
▲ 吕变庭: 《中国南部古代科学文化史 第二卷 珠江流域部分》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-80192-148-8, p. 396
▲ 鹿文远: 《钓鱼技巧》, 西安: 陕西科学技术出版社, 1987.5, ISBN 7-5369-0278-6/Z·33, p. 27
This character should be withdrawn without additional evidence.
▲ 江苏新医学院: 《中药大辞典 下册》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1977.10, 统一书号: 14171·274, p. 2720
▲ 倪朱谟, 郑金生, 甄雪燕, 杨梅香: 《本草汇言》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2005.2, ISBN 7-80174-285-0, p. 690
▲ 常敏毅: 《积健为寿 上册 益寿有道》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2012.8, ISBN 978-7-5067-5536-8, p. 333
▲ 盛维忠: 《薛立斋医学全书》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.2, ISBN 978-7-5132-2331-7, p. 479
▲ 于善浦: 《清代帝后的归宿》, 北京: 紫禁城出版社, 2006.10, ISBN 7-80047-611-1, p. 300
▲ 吴奎信, 杨方笙: 《潮州菜烹调技法》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 2000.6, ISBN 7-5359-2038-1, p. 25
▲ 陈碧涵: 《岭南文化知识书系 杨孚》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2012.3, ISBN 978-7-218-07078-0, p. 56
▲ 《湖南农业志》编纂委员会: 《湖南农业志（征求意见稿）第二分册》, 长沙: 湖南农业厅, 1985.8, p. 417
▲ 中国医学科学院卫生研究所: 《食物成分表》, 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1976.12, p. 246
▲ 广东省农业区划委员会: 《广东省农业资源要览》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1988.3, ISBN 7-218-00140-8/S·3, p. 54
The above evidence mentioned current 广东省番禺区.
▲ 水利部珠江水利委员会, 《珠江志》编纂委员会: 《珠江志》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1994.5, ISBN 7-5359-1257-5, p. 239
▲ 广东省兴宁县政协文史资料研究委员会: 《兴宁文史 第21辑 罗斧月专辑》, 1996.11, p. 110
▲ 吕变庭: 《中国南部古代科学文化史 第二卷 珠江流域部分》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-80192-148-8, p. 396
▲ 叶广良: 《岭南长歌》, 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2011.10, ISBN 978-7-5406-8363-4, pp. 516-517
▲ 丘书院: 《丘书院海洋生物学文集》, 厦门: 厦门大学出版社, 1996.9, ISBN 7-5615-1209-0/Q·34, p. 370
In Xiamen, this character has other meaning for Chinese Min-nan-dialects.
▲ 孙长光: 《三沙渔业今昔》//霞浦县政协文史资料编辑委员会: 《霞浦文史资料 第十二辑——三沙专辑》, 宁德: 霞浦县印刷厂, 1994.6, p. 26
Note: 1. ⿰虫戈 and ⿰鱼历 have not been encoded, and I have collected several pieces of evidence; 2. 三沙 here means 福建省宁德市霞浦县三沙镇, not 海南省三沙市.
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议福建省平潭县委员会文史资料委员会: 《海岛胜景说平潭》, 北京: 华艺出版社, 1992.5. ISBN 7-80039-462-X, p. 141
Note: ⿰鱼户 has not been encoded.
▲ 谭兴贵, 廖泉清: 《中国民间饮食宜忌与食疗方》, 长沙: 湖南科技出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5357-5193-5, p. 249
▲ 聂凤乔: 《中华饮食文库 中国烹饪原料大典（上卷）》, 青岛: 青岛出版社, 1998.10, ISBN 7-5436-1766-8/TS·160, p. 159
Note: This character was not used by 韓愈 directly. 韓愈 wrote the poem 《初南食貽元十八協律》 “蒲魚尾如蛇 口眼不相營”. 蒲魚 here means 魟魚/魔鬼魚 (Stingray), which is common used in current Guangdong Province, and is different from 紅魚 in Leizhou Peninsula and Hainan Province and 河豚🐡 (puffer).
▲ 彭元藻, 曾友文, 王国宪; 王云清; 洪寿祥, 周伟民, 海南地方文献丛书编纂委员会: 《民国儋县志 儋县志初集 上册》, 海口: 海南出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5443-0954-1, p. 205
▲ 李文瑞, 李秋贵: 《中药别名辞典》, 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-5046-0446-1/R·102, p. 654
▲ 高学敏: 《中医药学高级丛书 中药学 上册》, 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000.11, ISBN 7-117-03790-3, p. 255
▲ 冉先德: 《全新修订经典版 中华药海 上卷 第一册》, 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨出版社, 1993.4, ISBN 7-80557-593-2, p. 61
▲ 程超寰: 《本草释名考订》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.7, ISBN 978-7-5132-1473-5, p. 296
▲ 老中医养生堂: 《本草纲目白话解（彩图版）》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-5335-5689-1, p. 261
▲ 陈仁寿, 刘训红: 《江苏中药志 第三卷》, 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5713-1211-4, p. 336
▲ 郑恢: 《事物异名分类词典》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2002.9, ISBN 7-207-05045-3/G·1052, p. 96
▲ 周路红: 《古代名医学术懿行研究——走近中医》, 天津: 天津科技翻译出版有限公司, 2013.11, ISBN 978-7-5433-3323-9, p. 75
▲ 唐慎微, 陆拯, 郑苏, 傅睿, 岳雪莲, 薛今俊: 《重修政和经史证类备用本草》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5132-1219-9, p. 1509
Note: 𥤶 U+25936 is the variant of 屁.
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
▲ 李行健: 《学生现代汉语规范词典》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2016.3, ISBN 978-7-5326-4501-5, p. 782
▲ 程前: 《汉英化学化工科技词汇》, 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5025-1699-9, p. 1221
▲ 王秀山: 《现代汉英化学化工词典》, 西安: 陕西人民教育出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-5419-1023-6/Z·55, p. 828
▲ 张洋: 《精编德汉化学化工词典》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5608-4673-6, p. 723
▲ 张键: 《新英汉化学化工大词典》, 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-80198-313-8, p. 1546
▲ 梅森 (L. F. A. Mason): 《摄影加工化学》(Photographic Processing Chemistry), 北京: 中国电影出版社, 1982.12, 统一书号: 15061·183, p. 357
▲ 弗雷德里克 A. 洛温海姆 (F. A. Lowenheim): 《现代电镀 第三版》 (Modern Electroplating, Third Edition), 北京: 机械工业出版社, 1982.9, 统一书号: 15033·5233, p. 362
▲ A. G. E. 皮尔斯 (A. G. Everson Pearse): 《组织化学（增订第二版）》 (Histochemistry: Theoretical and Applied), 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1959.4, 统一书号: 14048·1727, p. 535
▲ 中国人民解放军第一五七医院: 《简易护士西学中教材（试用本）》, 广州: 中国人民解放军第一五七医院, 1975.3, p. 88
▲ 广西植物研究所: 《广西植物名录 第二册 双子叶植物》, 桂林: 广西植物研究所, 1971.12, p. 625
▲ 牟百谦: 《从英语学习词典的新发展看积极型中型英汉词典的编纂》, 《辞书研究》, 1999.1, ISSN 1000-6125, p. 96
王仁兴: 《国菜精华 商代—清代》, 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-80768-233-2, p. 574
▲ 陈万青, 谢洪方, 陈驰, 肖建良: 《海错溯古——中华海洋脊椎动物考释》, 青岛: 中国海洋大学出版社, 2014.4, ISBN 978-7-5670-0170-1, p. 25
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1F36.
It is better to withdraw this character.
▲ 《算术教科书》//越生文化, 田正品: 《中国近代教育文献丛刊·教材教法卷·24》, 杭州: 浙江教育出版社, 2021.3, ISBN 978-7-5722-1393-9, pp. 341-342
▲ 高名凱, 刘正埮: 《現代汉語外来詞研究》, 北京: 文字改革出版社, 1958.2, 統一書号: 9060·12, p. 76
▲ 陳文: 《中學適用算術教科書》, 上海: 科學會編譯部 & 商務印書館, 中華民國十年一月 (1921.1), p. 66
▲ 《中國度量衡學會對於度量衡標準制法定名稱之意見》, p. 11
▲ 舒新城, 沈颐, 徐元诰, 张相: 《老辞海 1936 戌集 亥集 影印本》, 北京: 新星出版社, 2015.8, ISBN 978-7-5133-1758-0, 附录7
▲ 延一: 廣清涼傳, 大正新修大藏經, 卷上
Maybe SAT can provide more explanations.
Also be GHF-0543.
▲ 董莲池: 《谈谈徐承庆对〈说文解字注〉的匡谬》//王宁, 北京师范大学民俗典籍文字研究中心: 《陆宗达先生百年诞辰纪念文集》, 北京: 中国广播电视出版社, 2005.8, ISBN 7-5043-4677-2, p. 270
𱂥 U+310A5 is enough.
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
▲ 四川省水利厅: 《低水头农村水电站修建技术》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1958.6, 統一書号: 15118·8, p. 57
▲ 吴观周: 《给妹妹的信（研究无线电）》//蒋逸霄: 《红藏——进步期刊总汇（1915-1949） 〈上海妇女〉②》, 湘潭: 湘潭大学出版社, 2014.6, ISBN 978-7-81128-686-1, p. 279
▲ 南京部队政治部电影工作站: 《电影放映教材（试用本）》, 1971.8, p. 148
▲ 上海物理学会中学物理教学研究委员会: 《高中物理教学参考读物 电场》, 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1959.5, 统一书号: 7150·527, p. 56
▲ 中央人民政府第一機械工業部電器工業管理局: 《電工手册》, 北京: 機械工業出版社, 1953.9, 書號: 0257-0-71, p. 5
▲ 卢延光: 《广州第一家族》, 广州: 岭南美术出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5362-2878-3, pp. 79-86
▲ 黄道周: 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》, 崇禎藜光堂刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 邢准: 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》, 金刻本, 卷第九
▲ 《八閩通志》, 明弘治刻本, 卷之六十八
▲ 黄仲昭, 福建省地方志编纂委员会旧志整理组, 福建省图书馆特藏部: 《福建地方志丛刊 八闽通志 下》, 福州: 福建人民出版社, 1991.6, ISBN 7-211-01144-0/K·75, p. 620
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 賢聖集音義第七之三, 《陁羅尼雜集一帙十卷》, 第七卷
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》, 明萬曆己丑本, 卷二
▲ 楊文峰, 萬廷蘭: 《新昌縣志》, 乾隆刻本, 卷之六
▲ 陳葆光: 《三洞群仙録》, 重刊道藏輯要, folio 224
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》, 早稻田大學藏本, 卷第一
▲ 黄道周: 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》, 崇禎藜光堂刻本, 卷之四·
▲ 郎祖培: 《拉祜族族称渊源》//澜沧县政协: 《澜沧文史资料 第一辑》, 普洱: 澜沧县政协, 1986, p. 150
▲ 高苏平: 《王连芳传》, 昆明: 云南人民出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-222-10678-9, p. 198
▲ 佚名, 杨黔云, 陈艳丽: 《〈铜政便览〉校注》, 成都: 西南交通大学出版社, 2017.7, ISBN 978-7-5643-5633-0, p. 101
▲ 杨成志: 《云南民族调查报告》//李文海, 夏明方, 黄兴涛: 《民国时期社会调查丛编 一编 少数民族卷》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2014.10, ISBN 978-7-5334-6620-6, p. 50
▲ 田雯: 《古歡堂集》, 四庫全書本, 卷七
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》, p. 5884
▲ 《重刊詳校篇海》, 國會藏明萬曆刻本, 四卷前册
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之六
▲ 任士林: 《松鄉集》, 四庫全書本, 卷六
▲ 陸廷燦: 《續茶經》, 四庫全書本, 卷上之二
▲ 朱刚: 《茶经·续茶经》, 北京: 北京时代华文书局, 2019.8, ISBN 978-7-5699-2504-3, p. 160
▲ 陆羽, 晋云彤: 《茶经》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江美术出版社, 2017.4, ISBN 978-7-5593-0015-7, pp. 116-117
▲ 陈国勇: 《中华古典文学丛书 茶经 （一）》, 广州: 广州出版社, 2003.2, ISBN 7-5363-3732-9/Z·419, p. 69
▲ 《後村先生大全集》, 四部叢刊本, 卷之四十九
▲ 罗福颐: 《汉印文字征》, 北京: 文物出版社, 1978, 书号: 7068·624, 第十, folio 19
The following pieces of evidence is related to unsubmitted SAT-09773 which is the error form of 怏, so I just list them here and not request to add the kFanqie value.
▲ 釋慧琳: 《一切經音義》, 獅谷蓮社刻本, 卷第四十七
▲ 慧琳: 《一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四十七
▲ 《駢雅訓籑》, 清道光刻本, 卷七下
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十四
▲ 東方朔: 《神異經》, 漢魏叢書
▲ 张华, 赵娣: 《中华国学经典精粹 博物志》, 北京: 北京联合出版公司, 2017.1, ISBN 978-7-5502-9143-0, p. 100
▲ 《神异经·南荒经》//徐寒: 《中华私家藏书》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2001.1, ISBN 7-5008-2462-9/K·88, p. 13820
▲ 黄道周: 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》, 崇禎藜光堂刻本, 卷之十五
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F19EE.
▲ 韓國學中央硏究院 思陵都監儀軌 秩物所入
Copy from WS2021-00526:KC-00473.
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之十三
This person’s name is 阮輝～ and his brother is 阮輝𠐓.
This character and 𠐓 (U+20413) both have not the V-Source reference.
▲ 計六奇: 《明季北略》, 清印本, 卷之二十
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=74387
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
▲ 陶宗儀: 《説郛》, 四庫全書本, 卷九十六下
The other edition gives 踽.
▲ 陶宗儀: 《説郛》, 涵芬樓本, 卷九十六下
▲ 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》, 梁鴻志影本, 卷之四十九
▲ 佚名: 《朝鮮志》, 四庫全書本, 卷下
▲ 《邊裔典》, 古今圖書集成本, 第二十二卷, 《朝鮮部彙考十》, 元二
▲ 辞海编辑委员会: 《辞海 地理分册·历史地理》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 1982.8, 统一书号: 17187·10, p. 278
▲ 尤中: 《中华民族发展史》, 昆明: 晨光出版社, 2007.2, ISBN 978-7-5414-2749-7, p. 905
It is better to show at least one more evidence to show this is not an accident typo here.
▲ 《朝鮮王朝實録·太宗實録》, 太白山史庫本, 太宗十八年 (1418), 卷三十五, 春正月25日
More evidence in 朝鮮王朝 shows the geographic name is 岊嶺.
▲ 《朝鮮王朝實録·世宗實録》, 太白山史庫本, 世宗十四年 (1432), 卷五十六, 夏四月13日
▲ 《朝鮮王朝實録·宣祖實録》, 太白山史庫本, 宣祖二十六年 (1593), 卷二十七, 正月1日
章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第五
▲ 沈欽韓: 《漢書疏證》, 光緒二十六年浙江官書局刻本, 卷二十三
The new evidence shows the glyph normalized by ROK.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之二
Note: the evidence mentioned 曺操 (aka 曹操), but this is just an analogy, that is not related to Chinese Three Kingdoms Period. And, in fact, the glyph on the evidence should be ⿰犭⿱山央.
▲ 《明史》, 同文書局石印本, 列傳, 卷二百六十
▲ 张廷玉, 王天有: 《简体字本二十六史明史卷212卷277》, 长春: 吉林人民出版社, 1995, p. 4455
▲ 許嘉璐, 安平秋, 章培恒, 喻遂生: 《二十四史全譯 明史》, 上海: 漢語大詞典出版社, 2004.1, ISBN 7-5432-0895-4/K·98, p. 5318
▲ 陈梧桐: 《崇祯往事——明帝国后的图景》, 北京: 故宫出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 7-5134-0961-2, p. 376
▲ 北京大学历史系中国古代史教研组: 《中国古代史教学参考资料 第六册 上 封建社会（五）》, 北京: 北京大学, p. 265
▲ 祝穆: 《古今事文類聚續集》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十五
▲ 李昉: 《太平御覽》, 四庫全書本, 卷八百七
Therefore, this character is stable enough to encode separately.
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 張深切: 《日語要領》, 北京: 新民印書館, 1942.9, p. 46
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 《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
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074392
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 魏仲舉: 《五百家注昌黎文集》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
The related sentence is cited from 《荀子》, and some versions give 齫.
Two modern publishing books also related to 韩愈 (韩昌黎) also give the corresponding simplified form ⿰齿羽.
▲ 刘国盈: 《韩愈评传》, 北京: 北京师范学院出版社, 1991.6, ISBN 7-81014-532-0/I·13, p. 191
▲ 宗传璧: 《韩愈诗选注》, 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1986.6, 书号: 10275·38, p. 227
▲ 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏順治刻本, 三卷前册
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 《大乘經音義》, 第一之二, 始, 《大寶積經》, 一部一百二十卷, 第八帙, 第七十四卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 邢准: 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》, 金刻本, 卷第二十三
▲ 黄道周: 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》, 崇禎藜光堂刻本, 七卷
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074396
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 李登: 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏萬曆刻本, 卷之一
▲ 宋濂, 張嘉和: 《篇海類編》, 明刻本, 卷之十四
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 施謝捷: 《古璽彙考》, p. 300
▲ 朱珔: 《説文假借義證》, 光緒刻本, 卷十八
▲ 黃侃: 《字通·上》, p. 92
▲ 王筠: 《説文解字句讀》, 清同治四年安邱王氏刊本, 弟三下
▲ 《合併字學集篇》, 明萬曆刻本, 卷之一
▲ 董誥: 《欽定全唐文》, 清嘉慶内府刻本, 卷一百六十四
Other versions give 繣.
▲ 《類篇》, 汲古閣本, 卷第五下
This character is stable in 《類篇》, and Prof. 蒋礼鸿 pointed out this is also the variant of 繣.
▲ 李登: 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏萬曆刻本, 卷之三
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十一卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第二
▲ 愛新覺羅·弘曆: 《御製詩五集》, 四庫全書本, 卷八十九
The modern publishing version gives 濭.
▲ 香山公园管理处: 《清·乾隆皇帝咏香山静宜园御制诗》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2008.9, ISBN 978-7-5008-4196-8, p. 61
香山 here means current 香山公园 in 北京市. The following is current 静宜园.
▲ 中国舞台美术学会: 《建筑丨静宜园：香山红叶，三山五园》, 2022.1.23, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9lggHmbmi-Kz65IV_ZHobA
▲ 《古音駢字續編》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
▲ 《奇字韻》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
《陵川集》 gives ⿺兊支, but they are unifiable based on UCV #307.
▲ 郝經: 《陵川集》, 四庫全書本, 卷十四
《洪武正韻》 gives ⿺兌支 in all editions, but I trust they are unifiable based on UCV #307 and the possible new version of UCV #27.
▲ 樂韶鳳: 《洪武正韻》, 明嘉靖刻本, 卷第十四
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 未集
▲ 王仁昫, 裴務齊: 《裴務齊正字本刊謬補缺切韻》
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 陳繼儒: 《𣈿曝餘談》, 萬曆刻本, 卷之上
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷十一
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第七
▲ 向燕南: 《中国长城志 文献 上册》, 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社, 2016.8, ISBN 978-7-5537-5581-6, p. 586
▲ 韩荫晟: 《党项与西夏资料汇编》, 银川: 宁夏人民出版社, 2000.6, ISBN 7-227-02101-7, p. 5273
* The editor of this book is 景永时.
▲ 李华瑞: 《宋夏关系史》, 石家庄: 河北人民出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-202-02367-9/K·594, p. 194
▲ 王雄: 《辽夏金元史徵·西夏卷》, 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学出版社, 2007.9, ISBN 978-7-81115-311-8, p. 181
▲ 易庵: 《间岛问题》//《边疆史地文献初编》编委会: 《中国边疆研究资料文库·边疆史地文献初编 东北边疆 第二辑 第二十四册》, 北京: 中央编译出版社, 2011.8, ISBN 978-7-5117-0980-6, p. 7
The place mentioned in the evidence is under current 吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州和龙市.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 白於藍: 《簡帛古書通假字大系》, 福州: 福建人民出版社, 2017.12, ISBN 978-7-211-07846-2, p. 793
▲ 何琳仪, 黄德宽: 《安徽大学汉语言文字研究丛书 何琳仪卷》, 合肥: 安徽大学出版社, 2013.3, ISBN 978-7-5664-0218-9, p. 330
▲ 刘志基, 董莲池, 王文耀, 张再兴, 潘玉坤: 《古文字考释提要总览——文字网“http://www.wenzi.cn/”关联书系之一 第二册》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2010.5, ISBN 978-7-208-09211-2/H·46, p. 551
▲ 盛羽: 《中国传统镂版印花工艺研究》, 北京: 中国纺织出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5180-5192-2, pp. 159-160
▲ 傅璇琮, 徐海荣, 徐吉军: 《五代史书汇编 捌》, 杭州: 杭州出版社, 2004.5, ISBN 7-80633-648-6, p. 4484
▲ 《職方典》, 古今圖書集成本, 第九百三十一卷, 浙江總部彙考一
▲ 吴其濬: 《植物名实图考长編》, 北京: 商務印書館, 1959.12, 統一书号: 13017·188, p. 273
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+A0100.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1B9E.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F0610.
Current KC-05266 glyph on the code charts is also included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F016B.
▲ 广东省兴宁县政协文史资料研究委员会: 《兴宁文史 第21辑 罗斧月专辑》, 1996.11, p. 112
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F136B.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F00E4.
▲ 陈耆卿, 徐三见: 《嘉定赤城志》, 北京: 中国文史出版社, 2004.9, ISBN 7-5034-1425-1, p. 346
▲ 喻長霖: 《台州府志 十五册》, 上海: 遊民習勤所, 民國二十五年 (1936), folio 8A
▲ 汤濬, 陶沙, 陶和平, 毛久燕: 《岱山镇志点注本》, 舟山: 岱山县档案局（史志办）, 2019.1, pp. 201-202
Note: 陶沙 here is not our old friend, the main author of GB/T 2312-1980 and the China NB’s proposal on the earliest CJK unification. See http://dsgbgz.dsdj.com.cn/index/news/details/id/312
▲ 黄均铭: 《岱山渔业的历史特点探讨》//中国人民政治协商会议浙江省岱山县委员会文史资料委员会: 《岱山文史资料 第一辑》, 内部发行, 1986.11, p. 117
▲ 陈玉中, 李响, 杨衡善: 《峄县志点注（三）》, 枣庄: 枣庄出版管理办公室, 1986.7, p. 757
▲ 赵亚伟: 《峄县志（点注本）（下）》, 北京: 线装书局, 2007.9, ISBN 978-7-80106-697-8, p. 548
▲ 毛先舒: 《看三生石记》//郑澍若: 《虞初续志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 778
▲ 毛先舒: 《看三生石记》//郑澍若: 《虞初续志》, 上海: 上海书店, 1986.6, J154·1, p. 12
三生石 is a famous tourist attraction in 浙江省杭州市, now collected in 灵隐寺. The story on 《牡丹亭》 (Peony Pavilion) and 《红楼梦》 (Dream of the Red Chamber) are related to it. The sentence mentioned in the submitted evidence is cited from 《看三生石记》, and the modern version modified the character to 罅. It is better to check the original source of 《虞初续志》 or other versions of 《看三生石记》 if possible to confirm if it is suitable to encode this character.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1943.
▲ 李玉尚: 《感潮区变化与青浦沿湖地区的血吸虫病——以任屯为中心》//《成蹊集——葛剑雄先生从教五十五年誌庆论文集》编委会: 《成蹊集——葛剑雄先生从教五十五年誌庆论文集》, 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2019.11, ISBN 978-7-309-14697-4/K·713, p. 609
Note: the first dot is missing in the new evidence, but it is easy to identify the outside component should be 疒 based on the submitted evidence.
▲ 杭世駿, 蔡錦芳, 唐宸: 《杭世駿集 第四册》, 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社, 2015.5, ISBN 978-7-5540-0432-6, p. 1067
Note: 山長 here means 全祖望, who once led 端溪書院 (current 肇庆中学). 杭世駿 also wrote 《登端溪講院天章閣望州衙後圃》, 《咏木棉花》 which are both related to 端州 (current 广东省肇庆市端州区, 高要市, 鼎湖区).
▲ 吕伟刚: 《寻踪塘栖古园林》, 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2017.4, ISBN 978-7-5184-1271-6, p. 111
Note: The author said he cited these paragraphs from 《唐栖志》.
▲ 王同: 《唐栖志》, 杭州: 浙江摄影出版社, 2006.5, ISBN 7-80686-489-X, p. 68
Both two books give 垸.
▲ 杨成志: 《云南民族调查报告》//李文海, 夏明方, 黄兴涛: 《民国时期社会调查丛编 一编 少数民族卷》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2014.10, ISBN 978-7-5334-6620-6, p. 53
▲ 胡震亨: 《海盐县图经》, 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-80715-482-2, p. 120
▲ 山东省曹县档案局, 山东省曹县档案馆: 《曹县志 上部》, 1981.8, p. 110
▲ 《魯齋文集》, 崇禎刻本, 卷二
▲ 凌蒙初: 《中国古典小说普及文库 二刻拍案惊奇》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2019.4, ISBN 978-7-5538-0937-3, p. 267
▲ 凌濛初, 鲁晓菡: 《二刻拍案惊奇》, 北京: 团结出版社, 2017.9, ISBN 978-7-5126-5042-8, p. 298
▲ 凌濛初, 徐金庭: 《华夏古典小说分类阅读大系 二刻拍案惊奇》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2017.2, ISBN 978-7-5080-9043-6, p. 263
The current glyph matches the most common one in the modern publishing editions.
▲ 《淄川高氏族谱 卷八》, 2002.8, p. 692
This book gives 坛.
▲ 周应合: 《南京稀见文献丛刊 景定建康志（二）》, 南京: 南京出版社, ISBN 7-80718-331-4, p. 426
▲ 《至正金陵新志》//《南京文獻 第十至二十號》, 南京: 南京市通志館文獻委員會, 1948.10, p. 519
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二十三
The better upper right component should be 儿 or 八.
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二
▲ 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. 51-52
Note: 永安 here means current 广东省河源市紫金县, so the language tag should be hak.
▲ 罗则逖: 《乡情文化丛书 隆化县志》, 长春: 吉林大学出版社, 2013.5, ISBN 978-7-5601-4842-7, p. 170
The modern publishing edition give 敉. 敉平 means to pacify.
▲ 《高湻縣志》, 清光緒學山書院刻本, 卷十四
▲ 《旌德縣志》, 民國重刊本, 卷之七
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+A02A1.
▲ 史彌堅, 盧憲: 《嘉定鎮江志》, 宛委别藏本, 卷十七
▲ 文榕生: 《中国古代野生动物地理分布》, 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 2013.6, ISBN 978-7-5331-6533-8, p. 708
▲ 葛洪: 《抱朴子内篇》, 重刊道藏輯要, follio 11A
This is the clearer evidence for the same source. I think the current glyph is OK.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F00C4.
▲ 《永樂大典》, 卷之九百六, folio 7
▲ 张正明, 科大卫 (David Faure), 王勇红: 《明清山西碑刻资料选 续二》, 太原: 山西经济出版社, 2009.5, ISBN 978-7-80767-183-1, p. 218
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 279
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 274
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 275
In 新集藏經音義隨函錄, ⿸疒麦 is the 反切下字 of 拯, that means the 韻母 should be 拯 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻上聲).
In 一切經音義, ⿸疒麦 is the 反切下字 of 瞪, that means the 韻母 should be 證 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻去聲).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𤷖 (U+24DD6) is 里孕切, and the 韻母 of 孕 is also 證 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻去聲).
The Cantonese used character uses 麥 as the phonetic element, 梗攝開口二等耕韻入聲.
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 276
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 276
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 267
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 267
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》, p. 2617
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 269
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 269
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 278
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 277
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 278
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 278
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 273
▲ 沙门释法显, 章巽: 《佛国记》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 2016.1, ISBN 978-7-5032-5474-1, p. 45
揵搥, 犍搥 or 揵槌, 犍槌, even 揵捶, 犍捶, is a Sanskrit loanword from Ghaṇṭā/घण्टा/𑖑𑖜𑖿𑖘𑖯. 《海國圖志》 is also a very important book for Chinese history to help Chinese people to understand the world in the end of QIng Dynasty, and 魏源 also used 揵槌 in 卷32 of the same book, so it is better to keep this form for the historical research.
▲ 王付兵: 《马来亚华人的方言群分布和职业结构 （1800～1911）》 (Chinese Dialect Group Distribution and Occupational Structure in Malaya, 1800~1911), 昆明: 云南美术出版社, 2012.4, ISBN 978-7-5489-0769-5, p. 66
Note: This is a book on the language research.
▲ 周建设: 《明、清、民国时期珍稀老北京话历史文献整理与研究 北京歌谣》, 北京: 首都师范大学出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-5656-2645-6, pp. 85-86 (61-62)
In p. 59 of the same book, the glyph for 脈 is shown. The pronunciation muo⁴ (mò) is the 文读音 of 脈 in this verb-object phrase. The glyph for the right part of 脈 is the same as the one of the submitted character.
▲ 周建设: 《明、清、民国时期珍稀老北京话历史文献整理与研究 北京歌谣》, 北京: 首都师范大学出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-5656-2645-6, p. 83 (59)
Therefore, it is OK to accept the normalization as ⿰坐𠂢.
▲ 朱駿聲: 《説文通訓定聲》, 臨嘯閣藏本, 履部弟十二
▲ 汪烜: 《詩韻析》, 光緒刻本, 卷末
▲ 何其泰, 吴新德: 《岳池縣志》, 光緒刻本, 卷十八
▲ 《增訂武城縣誌續編》, 民國元年刻本, 續卷之十四
▲ 《玉詮》, 重刊道藏輯要, 卷二
Agree with Andrew. This is not a wrong character. The above picture is cited from one modern internal system in ROK. This form is also used as J+BA38 (J+=juki, 住基ネット統一文字コード) in Japan. We can say this form is needed in China (TCA included), Japan and ROK.
However, Japan has unified J+BA38 to U+2ADC2 𪷂 in Moji_Joho project as MJ057522.
▲ https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E5%9B%B3%E5%BD%A2%E5%90%8D=MJ057522
This most important issue is if it is right to unify J+BA38 or MJ057522 to U+2ADC2 𪷂.
BTW, current glyph for U+2ADC2 𪷂 is also included in modern internal system in ROK.
▲ 石奕龙: 《中国民俗知识 福建民俗》, 兰州：甘肃人民出版社 , 2008.9, ISBN号 ：978-7-226-03631-0, p. 39
▲ 长江水产研究所: 《淡水养鱼》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1975.10, 统一书号: 16144·1714, p. 159
▲ 黄勤忠: 《烹饪原料知识（上）（第四版）》, 北京: 中国商业出版社, 2000.5, ISBN 7-5044-1406-9, p. 144
▲ 鹿文远: 《钓鱼技巧》, 西安: 陕西科学技术出版社, 1987.5, ISBN 7-5369-0278-6/Z·33, p. 24
▲ 姚瑩: 《東溟奏稿》, 清刻本, 卷之三
▲ 黄道周: 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》, 崇禎藜光堂刻本, 卷之二
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 79
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 121
▲ 周家楣, 缪荃孙: 《光绪顺天府志》, 北京: 北京古籍出版社, 1987.12, 书号: 11205·11, p. 2063
▲ 王文章: 《第二批国家级非物质文化遗产名录图典（全四册）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2015.12., ISBN 978-7-5039-5447-4, p. 472
As this new evidence and Evidence 2 submitted by UK show, 本地⿰亻⿱山西 is the original name of 枣梆, and this Chinese local opera has been registered in 第二批（中国）国家级非物质文化遗产名录, which the register number is Ⅳ-120.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
Based on the above explanation, this character could be withdrawn.
▲ 浙江省民政厅: 《浙江省标准地名志 第一卷》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2021.9, ISBN 978-7-5326-5767-4, pp. 123-124
文獻通考
六書存
The new pieces of evidence are copied from WS2021-02593.
▲ 杨增武, 张光明, 温端政: 《忻州方言俗语大词典》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2002.7, ISBN 7-5326-0913-8/K·120, p. 379
The entry shows 小⿰女畝 (WS2021-00993:UK-20820) siau21 miau21. “妾，舊時男子在妻子以外娶的女子”. There are also 小⿰女畝囝 siau21 miau21 kying21, “舊指妾生的孩子，在家庭中地位較低”. (李如龍, 潘渭水; 李榮: 《建甌方言詞典——現代漢語方言大詞典·分卷》, 南京: 江蘇教育出版社, 1998.12, ISBN 7-5343-3411-X/Z·90, p. 155) I don’t have a clear copy to show the original page.
I suggest UK withdraw this character if there is no more additional evidence, and I will add the language tag as mnp to WS2021-00993. If any expert has question or comment, I can try my best to ask Prof. 李如龙.
▲ 石泰康, 深圳市宝安区档案局（馆）, 深圳市宝安区史志办公室: 《宝安往事——追溯宝安历史文化遗存》, 北京: 中国文联出版社, 2007.4, ISBN 978-7-5059-5512-7, p. 46
▲ 吴淑娴: 《中国果树志·荔枝卷》, 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1998.2, ISBN 7-5038-1603-1, p. 162
▲ 广东省农业科学院: 《广东荔枝志》, 广州: 广东省科学技术出版社, 1978.2, p. 68
▲ 广东省惠阳地区地名委员会: 《广东省惠阳地区地名志》, 广州: 广东省地图出版社, 1988.10, ISBN 7-80522-049-2/K·49, p. 181
▲ 缪德良: 《缪氏源流志（第二卷）》, 梅州: 广东省五华县文联, 2004.9, pp. 5-6
▲ 陈速影: 《革命老区上莞——东县革命传统教育基地（2）》, 河源: 中共东源县委党支部史研究室, 2003.9, p. 113
▲ 佚名: 《四聲等子》, 叢書集成初編影本, folio 31A
The evidence means the 音韻地位 of this character is 滂母, 止攝内轉二四等, 平聲, so we can confirm the phonetic is 皮 without any doubt.
The submitted evidence shows 坑～ is a Cantonese word in Guangzhou, but I have no memory on this word and I don’t know how to confirm if it is right. And, the new evidence has not provided the use case or meaning. I also find other use case for the 同文韻統 form as the pure syllable 皮日切. I have introduced the 同文韻統 system as one of the complex ideographs out of the IRG encoding works. If there is no more additional evidence or explanation, I suggest pending or postpone this character for safety.
Jerry You helps me confirm this issue. He said the pronunciation of this word showed on the submitted evidence sounds like 消毒 which reads as sɪə44 to35 in Xiamen/Amoy.
It is better to make the character pending or postponed for more additional evidence for safety.
▲ 古今图书局: 《古今笔记精华录》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, ISBN 7-80520-714-3/I·396, p. 301
▲ 胡朴安: 《中华全国风俗志 上编》, 石家庄: 河北人民出版社, 1988.2, ISBN 7-202-00107-X/K·23, p. 251
⿰𣄼𣄼 is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F22B0.
▲ 邹忠庭, 谭宁志, 支云峰, 黄志明, 黄南, 梁晓敏: 《遂溪县海洋渔业渔具渔法调查报告》//《广东省海洋渔业渔具渔法调查报告汇编 第4册》, 广州: 广东省水产局海洋渔具调查组, 1985.1, p. 73
In current 广东省湛江市遂溪县, there are Chinese Yue- and Chinese Min nan-dialects. 广东省广州市, 佛山市, 惠州市 often use 门𲍏. The Chinese Yue-dialects in 广东省湛江市赤坎区 and 广东省湛江市霞山区 often use 门𲍏, even 门鳝. I add two language tags for safety. 门～ means conger eels.
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 15
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 273
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 270
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 275
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 275
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 276
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 275
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 279
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》, 明萬曆己丑本, 卷四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之三
▲ 滕固: 《一条狗》//滕固, 陈子善: 《世纪文存摩登文本 外遇》, 杭州: 浙江文艺出版社, 2004.1, ISBN 7-5339-1880-0/I·1620, p. 224
▲ 滕固: 《一条狗》//张伟, 钱谷融: 《中国新文学社团、流派丛书 花一般的罪恶——狮吼社作品、评论资料选》, 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2002.2, ISBN 7-5617-1837-3/I·174, p. 154
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之八
Note that 縣 here means 宣化縣 (Huyện Tuyên Hóa) in 廣平省 (Tỉnh Quảng Bình). ～𱏣 means Laotian, which was called as 哀牢蠻 or 哀牢夷 or 愛獠 in the ancient books. (cf. 哀牢山 in Chinese Yunnan Province) China called Laos as 老挝 since 1954 (http://finance.china.com.cn/roll/20150720/3241362.shtml) in Chinese mainland, but 寮國 is kept using in Taiwan Province.
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 《大乘論音義第三之二》, 𥪰, 第二帙五論十卷同帙
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十六
▲ 陳耀文: 《天中記》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
▲ 饶安鼎, 黄履思: 《中国地方志集成 福建府县志辑20 乾隆福清县志 民国平潭县志》, 上海: 上海书店出版社, 2000.10, ISBN 7-80622-424-6, p. 698
▲ 胡朴安: 《中国风俗（上）》, 长春: 吉林出版集团股份有限公司, 2017.2, ISBN 7-5581-1902-6, p. 171
▲ 郑丽生: 《福州岁时风俗类征》//郑丽生, 福建省文史研究馆: 《福建文史丛书 郑丽生文史丛稿（上）》, 福州: 海风出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 7-80597-871-9, p. 410
▲ 赵麟斌: 《福建岁时节俗谈》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2014.5, ISBN 978-7-5608-5477-9, p. 277
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之二
▲ 邢准: 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》, 金刻本, 卷第二十
▲ 扈仲榮: 《成都文類》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十四
▲ 馮任修, 張世雍: 《新修成都府志》, 天啓刻本, 卷之三十八
▲ 陸丹林: 《⿰白衣依景尊之因緣（續）》//《青年維德會報》, 1920年第2期, p. 3
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 九卷
▲ 陰時夫: 《韻府群玉》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十
▲ 李时珍: 《本草纲目 金陵本 16》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 7-5067-8393-4, p. 4216
▲ 李时珍, 柳长华, 柳璇, 吴少祯: 《中医非物质文化遗产临床经典名著 本草纲目》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2011.8, ISBN 978-7-5067-4915-2, p. 1136
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》, 早稻田大學藏本, 卷第一
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F0623.
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 《大乘經音義》, 第一之六, 《藥師如來本願經等六經》, 十卷同帙, 《藥師瑠璃光七佛本願功德經》, 兩卷
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 董斯张: 《广博物志》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 1991.4, ISBN 7-80520-253-2/I·147, p. 949 (万历四十五年高晖堂刻本)
▲ 董斯張: 《廣博物志》, 四庫全書本, 卷四十三
▲ 魯迅: 《古小説鈎沉·幽明録》, p. 308
▲ 李新宇, 周海婴: 《鲁迅大全集 第20卷 学术编 1911—1912年》, 武汉: 长江文艺出版社, 2011.9, ISBN 978-7-5354-4404-2, p. 216
▲ 鲁迅: 《鲁迅全集 第八卷》, 南京: 江苏凤凰文艺出版社 & 上海: 读客文化股份有限公司, 2020.5, ISBN 978-7-5594-4719-7, p. 209
Some other versions give 職/职, but the versions related to Lu Xun all give this character.
▲ GZJW, p. 1145
▲ 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》, 梁鴻志影本, 卷之四百六十
▲ 李国祥, 杨昶: 《明实录类纂 宗藩贵戚卷》, 武汉: 武汉出版社, 1995.11, ISBN 7-5430-1445-9/K·157, p. 1250
▲ 孫承恩: 《文簡集》, 四庫全書本, 卷八
▲ 孫承恩: 《孫文簡公瀼溪草堂稿》, 明刻本, 卷之八
▲ 馬積高, 曹大中: 《歷代辭賦總匯 明代卷 第7册》, 長沙: 湖南文藝出版社, 2014.1, ISBN 7-5404-5344-2, p. 5853
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十一卷
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》, 早稻田大學藏本, 卷四下
▲ 《龍龕手鏡》, 高麗本, 入聲卷第四
▲ 慧琳: 《一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第七十六, p. 2128
▲ 釋慧琳: 《一切經音義》, 獅谷蓮社刻本, 卷第七十六
The new evidence shows the phonetic is 了, so it is necessary to use two radicals for this characters. I guess SAT can provide clearer evidence if needed.
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 酉集
▲ 陳子龍: 《皇明經世文編》, 明崇禎平露堂刻本, 卷之一百四十一
▲ 陳仁子: 《文選補遺》, 卷三十一
Other versions give 浸 or 寖.
Glyph Design & Normalization
It is better to add a Norm. rule, and this normalization could be accepted.
This is the middle and right part of U+22567 𢕧.
As Lee’s comment on #11432, the better glyph should be ⿰爿匕 like Evidence 2. 《隨函録》also gives ⿰爿匕.
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 30, 《賢聖集音義第七之十》, 第四帙六卷, 二十五卷
For the upper right part, we have accepted the unification of these differences in URO.
Therefore, it is OK for me to accept the current glyph.
Does it mean SAT support any new UCV?
If yes, SC=13, TS=19
However, when the Northeast people write 哈, that means “what”, such as 干哈, which is similar to 啥.
The submitted evidence is related to Chinese Sichuanese dialect (Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects). There are at least three meanings mentioned in the evidence, the first red square includes two meanings I mentioned above in Xi’an. It is easy to know the right part must be 嗄, because the initial is 生母 in 廣韻. Please also compare 哈 with 啥.
So, the current glyph is right and acceptable.
Editorial
▲ 《通用规范汉字表》, p. 54
As 《通用规范汉字表》 shows, 坟 and 墳 are the simplified/traditional pair, not ⿰土贲 and 墳.
千字墳 is a classical geographic name in 四川省, and now the corresponding name is 千字坟 not others which is provided by the local government and other scholars.
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议四川省中江县委员会文史资料研究委员会: 《中江文史资料选辑 第6辑》, 1988.12, p. 32
▲ 《四川省》编纂委员会, 蒲孝荣: 《中华人民共和国地名词典 四川省》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 1993.6, ISBN 7-100-01452-2/K·317
This book was commissioned by the People's Government of Sichuan Province.
▲ 巴蜀史研究会, 任乃强: 《巴蜀史研究丛书 四川上古史新探》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1986.6, 书号: 11118·193, p. 317
Other
https://www.visitbeijing.com.cn/article/47QtRjqxBMI
But now, I can find any evidence to confirm the relationship between this character and ⿰钅莽(WS2021-04211).
BTW, 锛 has other meaning in Chinese Beijing- and Jilu-Mandarin-dialects (汉语北京官话方言与冀鲁官话方言), but it is not related to the meaning of this geographic name.
▲ 周凱: 《厦門志》, 道光刻本, 卷二
It looks this character is used for the geographical names widely in Southern China, Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects, Wuchuan-Huazhou sub-dialects of Chinese Yue-dialects, Chinese Minnan-Dialects and so on. In almost all the cases, this character could be written as 径 as well, but 加浆～ is often written as 加浆劲 for the local people.
I have no plan to add the language tag for this character at this step.
The submitted evidence shows this character used in 广东省罗定县屋地～, currently, this place is under 广东省云浮市罗定市榃滨镇, and this is a Chinese Yue-dialect speaking town, but it borders a big Chinese Hakka-dialect speaking town 泗纶镇. It is very hard for us to confirm if this geographical name is named after any Hakka word only by the materials.
U+31DC6 𱷆 is used in current 江西省九江市瑞昌市, and the submitted evidence of U+31DC6 𱷆 didn’t give the pronunciation or meaning. 瑞昌市 is a Chinese Hakka-dialect speaking area. My friend Yang Lu helps me check the places related to U+31DC6 𱷆 in other books. 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》 shows 𱷆里陈 is written as 凹内陈, 大𱷆陇 is written as 大凹垄.
▲ 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》, 九江: 江西省瑞昌县地名志办公室, 1984.12, p. 177
▲ 《江西省瑞昌县地名志》, 九江: 江西省瑞昌县地名志办公室, 1984.12, p. 200
If there is no additional evidence, it looks U+31DC6 𱷆 is related to 凹, 洼, 坬 and so on.
BTW, GDM-00287 is a very common character just only based on the submitted evidence and #11362. If GDM-00287 is unified with U+31DC6 𱷆, I strongly request China for consideration to do the horizontal extension as soon as possible.
This is the river. See https://www.meipian.cn/1a4cusrv
This character has not been encoded, so the local people use 耶江, 鲰江 (百度百科, 中国国家地名信息库), 粤江 (中国国家地名信息库, 眉山人大), 月江 (百度百科, 高德地图, 百度地图, Apple Map) and so on to make more confusions.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%B2%B0%E6%B1%9F/4516598
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%9C%88%E6%B1%9F%E6%B2%B3/17560953
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU3NzEzNjk2Mw==&mid=2247491373&idx=1&sn=35757f9248ca33e80116ff71efb8bd31
▲ 中国民间文艺家协会, 罗杨, 赵云舞: 《中国民间故事丛书·江苏南通·如皋卷》, 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2016.5, ISBN 978-7-5130-3040-3, pp. 134-135
It is not better to treat them as variants.
▲ http://livechina.cctv.com/zbdcy/index.shtml?pageID=PAGEyEydUBAm5VKz7jq1nYLP220429&interactionId=INTEG7ITxmtdf0CWfgeZuCvw220429
The evidence shows the fanqie of this character is 戸𧸖切.
The 音韻地位 of 戸 is 匣母遇攝姥韻上聲開口一等;
the 音韻地位 of 𧸖 is 澄母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等,
that means the 音韻地位 of the submitted character is 匣母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等.
In 廣韻, there are two fanqie for 䱤 (U+4C64).
古念切 means 見母咸攝添韻去聲開口四等
戸韽切 means 澄母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等 which matches 戸𧸖切 as well.
Therefore, this character is the typo of 䱤 (U+4C64) without any doubt. 函聲 is also a typo.
If any expert can prove it is the stable error, IRG could consider to keep it as-is. However, I can’t find any useful evidence.
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷之一
This is a typesetting issue beyond IRG.
On the other hand, this is a ligature of 蟲 insect and 鳥 bird, it is not easy to confirm which radical is suitable, both are right, but both are wrong.
http://ccamc.org/WS2021-liga/liga.xml
If you are interested in the font, please find here. https://gitee.com/eisoch/cjkliga
The 'liga' solution on CJKUI has been used by FounderType (方正字库) in 可口可乐在乎体. If any IRG expert thought this solution is not good, please also let FounderType know. Please see Section of the following page. Note: The term “EUDC” is not suitable to use here, and we all know they mean PUA, but there is no need to use PUA for this solution.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/3A49hplUiiL5iecJJeJwig
'ccmp' solution is the better one for me, and I add zwj between two elements.
If any IRG expert hasn’t known about OFF/OpenType and WOFF, please read ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019 and it Amd.1:2020, and the related W3C recommendation first.
▲ 《环湖村志》编委会: 《环湖村志》, 上海: 上海科学普及出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5427-4142-4, p. 355
▲ 谢启晃, 郭在忠, 莫俊卿, 陆红妹: 《岭外壮族汇考》, 南宁: 广西民族出版社, 1989.12, ISBN 7-5363-0226-6/K·12, p. 1
▲ 四川省通江县志编纂委员会: 《通江县志》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1998.8, ISBN 7-220-04106-3/K·574, p. 188
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=72638
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162033
沙家浜 and 高邮 are the important tourism destinations now, so this character is very useful. This character could be used for Jiangsu cuisine (苏菜), even Huai’an-Yangzhou cuisine (淮扬菜).
▲ 江苏省常熟市沙家浜镇志编纂委员会: 《沙家浜镇志》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2017.3, ISBN 978-7-5144-2387-7, p. 82
▲ 《汪曾祺的高邮家常菜》//王道: 《流动的味道——汪曾祺食谱》, 郑州: 大象出版社, 2020.5, ISBN 978-7-5711-0565-5, p. 110
▲ 《故乡的食物》//汪曾祺: 《春初新韭 秋末晚菘——汪曾祺散文精选》, 北京: 台海出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5168-2694-2, p. 23
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=74896
术 U+672F (GTP)
𣏀 U+233C0 (GT)
杊 U+674A (GT)
柶 U+67F6 (GHMTJKP)
𬂡 U+2C0A1 (J)
𣏥 U+233E5 (T)
朼 U+673C (GHMTKP) / 𱢾 U+318BE (G)
朳 U+6733 (GHMTJKP)
朹 U+6739 (GHMTKP)
For China, 𬂡 U+2C0A1 and 𣏥 U+233E5 could be done for the horizontal extensions possibly in future.
𤇿 U+241FF (T)
𰟏 U+307CF (G)
𤈝 U+2421D (V)
𤊬 U+242AC (V)
𤇿 U+241FF, 𤈝 U+2421D, 𤊬 U+242AC have not the G-Source references now.
▲ https://view.inews.qq.com/k/20220707A06CKF00
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162481
▲ 倪濤: 《六藝之一録》, 四庫全書本, 卷一百二
The character in the above new evidence is related to 黯.
▲ 張津: 《乾道四明圖經》, 宋元四明六志本, 卷五
The modern publishing editions still use 黯.
▲ 王国宝: 《大爱妈祖——妈祖信仰在宁波》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2017.11, ISBN 978-7-5526-2909-5, pp. 124-125
▲ 浙江省地方志编纂委员会: 《宋元浙江方志集成 第7册》, 杭州: 杭州出版社, 2009.6, ISBN 978-7-80633-640-3, p. 2908
The above pieces of evidence are related to 董黯, so the following is the story of this person.
▲ 孙静, 屠应超, 陈可伟: 《义乡鄞州》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2020.11, ISBN 978-7-5526-3993-3, pp. 142-144
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=74970
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70603
黄鸝又帶好音來 平平仄仄仄平平
多慙疑～論詩眼 平平仄仄平平仄
羃得紗㡡撥未開 仄仄平平仄仄平
According to the above analysis, this character must be 仄聲字, but I don’t know which one will be better.
The current K-Source reference for U+2E086 𮂆 is KC-05501, but KC-05501 on {{www.koreanhistory.or.kr}} is the unencoded ⿰禾厚.
KC-05501
KC-10116
KC-08090
▲ 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.
▲ 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.
However, the current SAT-05235 glyph for U+2D5B2 𭖲 doesn’t match the source and #2388, so maybe SAT should update the glyph later.
On the other hand, all the evidence shows U+2D5B2 𭖲 has the fanqie as the common Hanzi/Kanji. And the situation of the submitted character is the same as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
If the modern publishing books are not related to 韩愈, this character should be ⿰齿困 not ⿰齿羽.
▲ 张宗祥: 《浙江省文史研究馆文史丛书十一 铁如意馆碎录》, 杭州: 西泠印社, 2000.6, ISBN 7-80517-198-X/J·199, p. 178
▲ 翟灏, 陈志明: 《通俗编（下册）》, 北京: 东方出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5060-4412-7, p. 692
▲ 杨恩寿, 王婧之: 《湖湘文库 杨恩寿集》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2010.9, ISBN 978-7-80761-450-0/G·864, p. 337
It should be the following.
This is the transitional form from 犭 to 彳, and the next character has not been shown as U+3042D 𰐭.
犭 and 彳 are often interchanged to make more possible variants in the ancient books, but the possible variants could be used as other characters with other the completely irrelevant pronunciations and meanings. Therefore, it is very dangerous to unify 犭 and 彳 in general.
山 and 宀, 木 and 扌 are similar to this pair.
Note 張子盛 mentioned the Jianzi fingering letter 揉 (mapped to 犭 commonly) could also be written as 彳 form in 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 and 《松風閣琴譜》 (not the Siku version). But I excluded 彳 form as 猱 in my list, because 彳 has other meaning of Jianzi fingering letter and 𢔟 U+2251F is a different character commonly, which can’t be used as the name of Jianzi fingering letters.
According to the evidence, this character is only used for the 反切上字 of 𨺙 U+28E99.
Yi Bai provided two variants of 𨺙 U+28E99, one is 陧, the other one is 倪. 陧 is a 入聲字, that is not related to 計 here; the 韻 of 倪 and 計 are both 齊 and the tones are both 去聲. The evidence shows the word 陴𨺙 that must be the variant form of 俾倪. The most common 反切 related to 計 for 倪 should be 五計反/切, but the submitted character must not be the variant of 五, so it is better to keep as-is in main set. At least, we can know the 聲母 of the submitted character is 疑母, that matches the rationale for the phonetic element, so the radical assignment is also right.
▲ 顧藹吉: 《隸辨》, 玉淵堂, 卷第三
IRG will not accept the Lisu style as the evidence, so I just list this one here.
▲ 蓝德康, 松冈荣志: 《汉字海》, 北京: 华语教学出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5318-1500-0, p. 1998
▲ 《南昌縣志》, 民國二十四年鉛印本, 卷十六
According to https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=161807, KC-12229 is cited from 명실록 (aka 《明實録》).
▲ 《明世宗肅皇帝實録》, 紅格鈔本, 卷四百二十三
▲ 王士祯, 阮亭: 《水月令》//黄承增: 《广虞初新志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 1390
▲ 周衣德, 杨安利: 《周衣德集》, 合肥: 黄山书社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-5461-0765-3, p. 593
similar to U+31F6C 𱽬
[ {{WS2017-03695}} ]
▲ 李元强: 《民俗中的合体字调查小记》//刘志基: 《汉字文化学简论》, 贵阳: 贵州教育出版社, 1994.5, ISBN 7-80583-535-7/G·529, p. 124
▲ 沈泓: 《福神文化》, 北京: 中国物资出版社, 2012.1, ISBN 978-7-5047-4008-3, p. 144
▲ 高善东: 《邹鲁民俗》, 济南: 齐鲁书社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5333-3660-8, p. 184
▲ 沈泓: 《非遗·中国年画经典系列 中国娃娃年画经典》, 深圳: 海天出版社, 2015.9, ISBN 978-7-5507-1453-3, p. 300
▲ 胡玉远: 《北京旧闻丛书 京都胜迹》, 北京: 北京燕山出版社, 1996.6, ISBN 7-5402-0031-6, pp. 338-339
▲ 中国民间美术教学大全编委会: 《中国民间美术教学大全》, 沈阳: 春风文艺出版社, 1993.3, ISBN 7-5313-0977-7/J·80, p. 164
▲ 政协邹城市委员会: 《邹城文史资料 第10辑 风俗专辑》, 济宁: 邹城市印刷厂, 1994.12, 鲁济NCZZ94-074号, pp. 187-188
▲ 张殿英: 《杨家埠木版年画》, 北京: 人民美术出版社, 1990.5, ISBN 7-102-00765-5/J·710, pp. 157-158
▲ 金良年: 《中国神秘文化百科知识》, 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1994.12, ISBN 7-80511-682-0/G·167, pp. 232-233
▲ 陆锡兴: 《汉字民俗史》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-100-17227-1, p. 436
▲ 金柏东: 《温州名胜古迹》, 北京: 作家出版社, 1998.2, ISBN 7-5063-1391-X/I·1379, pp. 150-151
▲ 蒋叔南; 卢礼阳, 詹王美: 《雁荡山志》, 北京: 线装书局, 2009.12, ISBN 978-7-80106-878-1, p. 194
▲ 朱烈: 《温州地理论丛》, 2001.5, p. 423
China could do the horizontal extension as GXM-00170 in future.
ROK could do the horizontal extension in future as KC-07973.
In WS2017 review, I once mentioned WS2017-02193 could be unified with U+2DCA6 𭲦.
In the KC DB, there are three source reference related to this character.
KC-02163 ⿰氵⿳爫旧夂
KC-05266 ⿰氵⿱𦥝夂
KC-07515 ⿰氵夐
If we unify this character to U+2DCA6 𭲦, ROK should change the glyph to ⿰氵夐 and the source reference to KC-07515.
If we encode this character separately, ROK should change the source reference for U+2DCA6 𭲦 to KC-02163 and do the horizontal extension for this character as KC-07515 in future.
SAT could confirm if they are the same.
▲ 莙荙包 (https://chihe.sohu.com/a/573964363_120985024)
▲ 莙荙包 (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwOTc2MDkzOQ==&mid=2651955072&idx=6&sn=951f474d9d5496106aaf1dde3e52d881)
In fact, the local name is 猪乸菜 (vegetable for sow feeding), but the phonetic moral of 莙荙 is better than 猪乸菜.
▲ 莫熙穆, 陈定如, 陈章和, 广东省畜牧局, 华南师范大学固氮牧草研究中心: 《广东饲用植物》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1993.6, ISBN 7-5359-1064-5/S·132, pp. 147-148
This character should be treated as the local variant, not the local name. It is OK to keep it.
▲ 陳耆卿: 《嘉定赤城志》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十三
▲ 桂馥: 《説文解字義證》, 清同治九年湖北崇文書局本, 弟二冊
坏 is not the simplified form of 壞 or the variant of 坯 here. Mr. 钱松嵒 is a famous Chinese painting artist, who was born in 宜兴. In his article, he used 坏. It is impossible for the local persons call the mountain as “Big Bad Mountain”.
▲ 钱松嵒: 《学画溯源头》//北京大学中国名人丛书编委会: 《中国名人谈少儿时代 苦涩的梦》, 长春: 北方妇女儿童出版社, 1990.7, ISBN 7-5385-0602-0/I·88, p. 4
For 大岯山, there is a mountain called 大岯山 or 大伾山 in 河南省. I can’t find the local people call the 大～山 and 小～山 as 大岯山 and 小岯山 in 南京, 宜兴 and 溧阳. On the other hand, the pronunciation of 岯 doesn’t match 浮. Therefore, 岯 for this case is wrong.
This name is named after later 则拉乡 in 四川省凉山彝族自治州甘洛县, but 则拉乡 was merged into 玉田镇 June 12th, 2020. Now, Ersu people live in 四川省雅安市石棉县蟹螺藏族乡 mainly.
(The above is based on 《李星星论藏彝走廊》 and 《西南丝绸之路考察札记》.)
▲ 北董: 《卓越的力量》//北董: 《飞马烽火桥》, 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社, 2020.1, ISBN 978-7-5598-2340-3, p. 52
▲ 金玉廷: 《为革命而歌》//金玉廷: 《我是人民宣传员》, 沈阳: 春风文艺出版社, 1965.10, 统一书号: T10158·467, p. 47
▲ 胡沙: 《评剧简史》, 北京: 中国戏剧出版社, 1982.9, 书号: 8069·313, p. 51
On the other hand, 蜀葵 (Alcea rosea Linnaeus) is called as 牛屎～儿花 in somewhere.
Note: All the 儿 mentioned here should be the small form for retroflex suffixation.
ROK could do the horizontal extension as KC-07741 in future.
ROK could do the horizontal extension as KC-07746 in future.
ROK could do the horizontal extension as KC-07227 in future.
▲ 袁世全: 《誉称大辞典》, 上海: 汉语大词典出版社, 2002.3, ISBN 7-5432-0656-0/H·181, p. 657
▲ 杨柏如: 《中国分省交通图集》, 北京: 人民交通出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-114-02900-4/U·02067, p. 86
▲ 薛慧林: 《醋乡特色——太原“三名”杂说》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-203-03753-3/G·1625, p. 20
▲ 郭裕怀: 《山西社会大观》, 上海: 上海书店出版社, 1999.12, ISBN 7-80622-544-7/K·64, p. 184
▲ 袁世全: 《誉称大辞典》, 上海: 汉语大词典出版社, 2002.3, ISBN 7-5432-0656-0/H·181, p. 657
▲ 杨柏如: 《中国分省交通图集》, 北京: 人民交通出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-114-02900-4/U·02067, p. 86
▲ 薛慧林: 《醋乡特色——太原“三名”杂说》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1998.9, ISBN 7-203-03753-3/G·1625, p. 20
▲ 郭裕怀: 《山西社会大观》, 上海: 上海书店出版社, 1999.12, ISBN 7-80622-544-7/K·64, p. 184
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=74268
The English version is “There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&version=NIV)
One of the modern Chinese version gives “他们把用苦胆他们把用苦胆搀杂的酒给耶稣喝；耶稣尝了尝，不愿意喝。” (https://zyesu.com/xinyangbaoku/Bible/LZZ/gb/mat/27.htm)
It is easy to know the meaning is “to taste”. There are three use cases for the Chinese Hakka word “to taste” in 江西省赣州市 and 广东省梅州市, and the they all use “尝下” or “尝一下” directly. It looks the character is the related character of 尝, but it is not related to U+4459 䑙 “to lick”.
▲ 温昌衍: 《石城（高田）客家话的否定词》//陈振宇, 盛益民: 《汉语方言否定范畴研究》, 上海: 中西书局, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5475-1746-8, p. 247
(This is a use case for 江西省赣州市石城县高田镇.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《客家方言词语考释》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2019.10, ISBN 978-7-218-13543-4
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市梅县区.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《五华客家话研究》, 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2010.6, ISBN 978-7-5623-3299-2, p. 393
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市五华县.)
The most common form for “to lick” is 舐 in Chinese Hakka-dialects, and some places use one word which has the corresponding word in Chinese Yue-dialects, which the final consonant is still -m, not -n for 丹 in Hakka.
▲ 张维耿: 《客方言标准音词典》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 978-7-306-04342-9, p. 239
If IRG experts have comments on this character, I should ask other Chinese Hakka-dialects researchers to get their comments.
现代客语汉字马太福音27:34佢等拿掺苦胆个酒给耶稣啉；耶稣一下，就毋啉。
现代客语全罗马太福音27:34 Kì-têu nâ chhâm fú-tám ke chiú pûn Yâ-sû lîm; Yâ-sû tâm yit-ha, chhiu m̀ lîm.
They show the reading is tâm, but I can’t read this Romanization scheme. Yi Bai shows the reading as tʰiam44陰平 in 广东省韶关市新丰县, tʰiam31上聲 in 广东省梅州市梅江县.
舔 is not included in 廣韻, but Kangxi Dictionary gives the fanqie as 他點切 cited from 《篇海》. I check the reading for 点 in 《客赣方言调查报告》, all the dialectal places give the head of final vowel as -i-, and I check the reading of 点 in above page, they show the Romanization form is tiám which the -i- is still here, that means this character is still not related to 舔 or U+4459 䑙.
ROK could do the horizontal extension as KC-07676 in future as I mentioned in WS2017.
Data for Unihan
▲ 王宁, 商务印书馆辞书研究中心: 《通用规范汉字字典》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2013.7, ISBN 978-7-100-05961-9, p. 223
In TGH-2013, the geographical name of this place was recorded as 圪𪤗.
This is the variant of 隅 as the second stage simplified form. It is very easy to find 阳隅, 西北隅, 东南隅 via the map apps.
See #9391.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ 王家胜: 《阳城县志（1978-2008）上》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 2015.1, ISBN 978-7-203-08917-9, p. 76
▲ 范文澜: 《〈群经概论〉（节选）》王凛然: 《范文澜文集》, 天津: 南开大学出版社, 2019.9, ISBN 978-7-310-05828-0, p. 94
kCantonese caang1
Based on the fanqie, the character should be the variant of 鴦 U+9D26.
▲ 《頻伽精舍大藏經》, 方等部, 玄六, 《寶星陀羅尼經》, 卷第六, 《陀羅尼品第六之一》
CBETA page is here. http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/zh-cn/T13n0402_006 (search [0564c13])
kJapanese ものがたり (Is that a serious comment?)
kFanqie 衣罌
kMandarin fó
kCantonese fat6
kMandarin bó
This character is very common used in Guangdong Province for the geographical names, Yue-, Min nan-, and Hakka-dialects included.
～岗 is a place under current 广东省深圳市宝安区. This character has not been encoded, so they sometimes use 壆, sometimes use 坣, that will make the information confused.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
The pronunciation follows 琵. This place is under current 广东省广州市海珠区新港东路. ～潖洲, 琵琶洲, 潖洲 and 琶洲 mean the same place. Currently, there are one pagoda named 海鳌塔 or 琶洲塔, which the corresponding English name is Whampoa Pagoda (黄埔塔). Currently, there is the Guangzhou Pazhou International Convention and Exhibition Center (广州琶洲国际会展中心) near there, which is the main venue of the China Import and Export Fair (aka Canton Fair, 中国进出口商品交易会, 广交会).
kMandarin fó
kCantonese fat6