Please wait while loading

IRG Working Set 2021v3.0

Source: Andrew WEST
Date: Generated on 2022-08-13

Unification

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02402
02402
犬 94.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00565
Unification
U+25855
Appears to be an error for U+25855 𥡕 in a single edition. Suggest postponing for additional evidence.
02424
02424
犬 94.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00588
Oppose Unification
I would tend to oppose a UCV for 間~閒.
01413
01413
心 61.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
KC-05106
Unification
U+2AB3A
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
01388
01388
心 61.13
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06249
UCV
Consider adding UCV for 解~觧. See also TE-3773 (⿱觧虫) and VN-F1B70 (⿱觧会).
01263
01263
广 53.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
TD-4B2A
广𤲅
UCV
The supplementary evidence provided by Eiso Chan shows the character to be a variant of 庵. It seems like 𤲅 is a common variant of 奄, and a possible candidate for a UCV.
01106
01106
山 46.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20038
Oppose Unification
Oppose unification as non-cognate. This character is used in China, and you have to apply two UCVs to change its shape to the G glyph form (⿱屮王), which is too dissimilar to ⿱山壬.
02054
02054
水 85.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20083
Oppose Unification
Based on the second evidence provided by Eiso Chan, ⿰氵架 is not a misprint but a known variant of 深. Therefore keep in M-set.
00764
00764
囗 31.3
6 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20835
Unification
U+211AE
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
03525
03525
艸 140.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20848
Unification
U+2C74B
Agree to unify to 𬝋 (U+2C74B).
02122
02122
水 85.16
19 · ㇔ (4)
UTC-03179
Unification
U+704B
The character shown is very unclear because it is so small, but it is obviously intended to be U+704B 灋. If ⿰氵⿸廌土 is not attested in any other source then this can be considered to be a one-off error in this particular telegraph code book. It seems unnecessary to encode this particular error form for this single usage. Therefore suggest unification with 灋 (U+704B).
01535
01535
手 64.12
16 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F18A1
UCV
Given the large number of V source characters which show variation of 手~扌 on the left, could we consider adding a UCV for 手~扌 where cognate?
01510
01510
手 64.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F18C5
𦰟
UCV
Given the large number of V source characters which show variation of 手~扌 on the left, could we consider adding a UCV for 手~扌 where cognate?
03754
03754
角 148.12
19 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1B70
UCV
Consider adding UCV for 解~觧. See also TE-3773 (⿱觧虫) and SAT-06249 (⿱觧心).


Attributes

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02128
02128
水 85.17
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00856
Residual Stroke Count
SC=16
Total Stroke Count
TS=19
02039
02039
水 85.9
13 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00957
𠫴
IDS
Keep IDS as ⿰氵𠫴 because the IDS is purely descriptive of the character's shape, and is not intended to provide any semantic information.
02673
02673
皿 108.6
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06800
IDS
If glyph form shown in Evidence 3 is accepted, ⿱⿳⿰一一一⿰一一皿 would be a better IDS. The component ⿳⿰一一一⿰一一 also occurs in U+23E79 𣹹.
04498
04498
馬 187.6
16 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7A76
Radical
IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:

"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."

As R31 囗 is not the obvious radical, and would hamper the discoverability of this character, the radical should be kept as R187 馬.
01737
01737
月 74.6
10 · ㇒ (3)
TC-4A25
Radical
Could Lee or Eiso confirm that VN-F195D uses R74 'moon' radical?
02499
02499
玉 96.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20113
Residual Stroke Count
I thought that we counted the strokes of 宫 as if it were 宮, which is why the automatic attribute counts at the top right of this page are correct.
01752
01752
月 74.11
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20238
Radical
Keep R74 'moon'
01760
01760
月 74.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20488
UTC-03203
Radical
Agree to change to R130 'meat'
01269
01269
广 53.14
17 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F0191
广
IDS
Agree with #1531.
01365
01365
心 61.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F01CC
𭁈𰀁
IDS
Change IDS to ⿰忄𱑏 once Unicode 15.0 is released.
02042
02042
水 85.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0732
IDS
Change IDS to ⿰汫⿱⿵𠆢丶𰆊 if the rhs is not 令. If the rhs is a form of 令 then normalize the glyph to use the standard V form of 令.
01329
01329
心 61.6
10 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F1871
Radical
U+21756 𡝖 (entry above in the evidence) is under R38 女 so it would make sense for this character to also be under R38.
01249
01249
幺 52.16
19 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F187B
IDS
Change IDS to ⿰𱥯幾 once Unicode 15.0 has been published.
04237
04237
門 169.11
19 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F1BD9
𭁈𰀁
IDS
Change IDS to ⿰門𱑏 once Unicode 15.0 is released.
01278
01278
弋 56.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1CFE
Radical
I'm not sure what IRG rules you are referring to. However, IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:

"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."

Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.


Evidence

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
01792
01792
木 75.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00239
𰿖
Evidence
Please provide the source for the evidence image (title, publisher, year, page)
01811
01811
木 75.9
13 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00242
Evidence
Isn't there some question about the suitability of 汉字海 as a reliable source? I think it can be used as secondary evidence, but I would prefer to see additional evidence for ⿰木弯 as a place name.
02065
02065
水 85.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00248
New evidence
Add image of web page cited in #5128

02161
02161
火 86.2
6 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00333
Evidence
A list of local vulgar simplifications does not seem sufficient evidence for encoding. At the very least I would expect to see evidence of the submitted character in actual textual use.
02117
02117
水 85.16
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00255
Evidence
Whole page of evidence would be helpful.
01586
01586
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00293
Evidence
The evidence is insufficient. Firstly, please show the full page of the evidence. Secondly please show the original source that is being quoted so we can be sure that character shown in the modern source is not a mistake.
01408
01408
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00318
Evidence
It is difficult to trust the modern edition of the text as experience shows that modern editions often introduce glyph errors or create imaginary characters. Therefore, please show an image of the original text, apparently from 《明憲宗純皇帝實錄卷之六十八》.
03587
03587
虫 142.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00442
Evidence
Source of evidence image is 《多歲堂詩集》卷二
03599
03599
虫 142.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00464
Evidence
High resolution details of 順治河南通志 (top) and 雍正河南通志 (bottom):





Shunzhi version shows ⿰虫𦕅, but Yongzheng version shows ⿰虫聊. I suppose that ⿰虫聊 (liáo?) is the correct form as it likely rimes with 螬 cáo, and ⿰虫𦕅 is a contracted form due to the difficulty of writing ⿰虫聊 in the available space.

As 中华字海 and 雍正河南通志 both give ⿰虫聊 I suggest to accept the current glyph and IDS, and return GKJ-00464 to the M-set.
02330
02330
犬 94.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00538
New evidence
全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文九十六 gives 狂:



GKJ-00538 is clearly an error for 狂, so suggest China withdraw it.
02329
02329
犬 94.3
6 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00539
Evidence
Hand-written evidence alone is not satisfactory, especially when no evidence is shown of the character in actual textual use.
02353
02353
犬 94.6
9 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00547
New evidence
臺灣省通志稿.卷八:同冑志 (1965) p. 604:

02423
02423
犬 94.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00552
Evidence
The full reference for the source should be provided (author, title, publisher, year), as well as the name of the author and title for the piece in which this character occurs.
02390
02390
犬 94.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00555
TB-5027
New evidence
This character occurs in Japanese sources for the name of the Chuja Islands 楸子群島 in Korea (source twitter):

02410
02410
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00558
Evidence
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
02391
02391
犬 94.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00559
Evidence
Agree with Huang Junliang that ⿰犭⿱册止 is an error form for 𤠏. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
02457
02457
犬 94.16
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00560
Evidence
Current evidence is insufficient. Please provide complete page of the evidence so we can properly evaluate the proposed character.
02402
02402
犬 94.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00565
New evidence
集韻卷五 has U+25855 𥡕

02440
02440
犬 94.14
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00567
New evidence
Better image of manuscript Pelliot chinois 2691

02361
02361
犬 94.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00570
Evidence
Seems probable that ⿰犭狂 is an error for 𢓯. In my opinion it is not appropriate to encode an error form on the evidence shown (rime tables are notoriously error-prone), and so suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
02458
02458
犬 94.17
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00572
Evidence
The current evidence is insufficient. Please provide an image from an edition of 禮記 which shows this character. Otherwise it should be postponed pending additional evidence.
01844
01844
木 75.12
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00575
𭸟
Evidence
Is it possible to see what other editions of 集韻 give? My suspicion is that ⿰木𭸟 is a corrupt form of some other character, perhaps U+23682 𣚂.
02459
02459
犬 94.17
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00577
Evidence
Please provide full page of evidence so we can understand the context. What are the characters shown in the evidence meant to represent? They look like a list of rime characters. If so, please provide an image of that shows the literary text where Li Yu uses the character ⿰犭斂.

Also, the character ⿰貝斂 is not encoded and not proposed for encoding. Why propose only ⿰犭斂 and not ⿰貝斂 immediately below it? It makes no sense.
02412
02412
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00583
Evidence
This appears to be a one-off error for 嫁. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
02334
02334
犬 94.4
7 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00592
Evidence
Evidence 1 appears to show an error for 彷徨.

Evidence 2 is suspect. What is the character supposed to mean here? A character with a 'dog' radical makes no obvious sense in this context, and I suspect that it is an error for some other character.

Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
02354
02354
犬 94.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00594
Evidence
Please provide full reference to the source, and full page image.
02357
02357
犬 94.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00605
Evidence
Babed on the additional evidence adduced by Huang Junliang, it seems probable that ⿰犭赤 is an error for 捇 in this one particular edition. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence for this form of the character.
02358
02358
犬 94.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00617
New evidence
woodblock edition of 狂夫之言 confirms the character shown in Evidence 1:

02351
02351
犬 94.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00619
Evidence
汉字海 would not seem to be an authoritative source for bronze inscriptions. Given that that the evidence shown by Huang Junliang transcribes the character as 荆, additional evidence should be provided before encoding this character.
02445
02445
犬 94.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00622
Evidence
Additional evidence for ⿰犭麽 is given in WS2021-02373 GKJ-00551 Evidence 1. Evidence 2 shows the variant form ⿰犭摩 which is not encoded or proposed for encoding.
01954
01954
毛 82.13
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00649
Evidence
Experience suggests that the modern edition may have an incorrect character, so please provide an image of the original text that is quoted here.
02127
02127
水 85.17
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00684
鹿
Evidence
Hand-written evidence alone is not satisfactory, and in this case the submitted character appears to be an error or idiosyncratic variant of 灑. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a widely-used variant form.
02131
02131
水 85.17
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00691
Evidence
The character is obviously a variant of U+6F09 漉, but the evidence is very insubstantial. It would be really nice to have additional evidence that this variant is not just used once in this one source.
02315
02315
牛 93.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00740
Unclear evidence
The left side of the character does not entirely look like 牜, and if it is a variant of 犙 it is not clear to me what it means in this context. Additional evidence would be helpful.
02626
02626
疒 104.10
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00798
New evidence
Not exactly the same, but we can see a very similar reduction of the 節 component of 癤 in 《番漢合時掌中珠》 where the bamboo radical has been reduced to two strokes (it may even be a printing error for ⿸疒莭):

02312
02312
牛 93.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00966
New evidence
A different edition of the same text, 《元亨全圖療牛馬駝集》(1891)

02185
02185
火 86.7
11 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00974
Evidence
Other quotations of this text give "山茶嫩葉炸熟" or "山茶嫩葉煠熟" or "山茶嫩葉{⿰火棄}熟".
01636
01636
斤 69.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00976
Evidence
Based on the additonal evidence produced by Huang Junliang, it would seem that the submitted character is an error for 斸. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
01612
01612
攴 66.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-01011
𰗣
Evidence
The glyph in the original evidence is unclear, and the evidence produced by Conifer Tseng indicates that the character should be 敘. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error for 敘.
02206
02206
火 86.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
GXM-00267
Evidence
Evidence image in #2964 is from 《東漢會要》(edition not specified). The text is a quotation from 《後漢書・應劭傳》 which reads "逆臣董卓,荡覆王室,典宪焚燎,靡有孑遗...". Therefore ⿰火秦 here should be a corruption of 燎.
01720
01720
日 72.15
19 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05180
Unclear evidence
The left side of the glyph is unclear. Is there any additional evidence?
01248
01248
幺 52.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
TD-2632
Evidence
I agree completely with Ken Lunde's comments on TCA-submitted ideographs with insufficient evidence (there is an implicit "agree" comment from me on all of Ken Lunde's repeats of this comment for other TCA characters).
04488
04488
香 186.9
18 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20006
New evidence
{{https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/175765/1/000000166241.pdf 담정(藫庭) 김려(金鑢) 문학 연구}} p. 221

04239
04239
門 169.11
19 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20007
Evidence
Text in 山東通志 seems to be derived from 《水經注》 which has "又按《管子》:齊桓公二十年,征孤竹,未至卑耳之溪十里,闟然止,瞠然視...". It seems that ⿵門离 is an erro form of 闟, therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error in this one particular edition of 山東通志.
01184
01184
山 46.13
16 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20009
New evidence
02088
02088
水 85.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20013
Evidence
Google search finds mostly "冬積柴水中為霖以取之", and Wikisource has "冬積柴水中為罧以取之", so it seems likely that ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is a corrupt form in this edition. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is correct or is a stable error.
00119
00119
亠 8.10
12 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20014
Evidence
From context the character should be a variant or error for U+6548 效. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error in this one source.
03032
03032
米 119.12
18 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20018
Evidence
This place name is given as 米{⿰米犀}橋 with the note 昔有富人積米{⿰米屖}建此故名. {⿰米犀} and {⿰米屖} should be the same character, and the way the note is written, it should be a common character that does not need an explanation. The two characters could be corruptions or variants of U+7CCF 糏 'rice grits left after hulling' which would fit the sense here. Regardless, additional evidence is needed to determine which of {⿰米犀} and {⿰米屖} is the correct glyph, so suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
04014
04014
邑 163.9
16 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20019
Evidence
The character ⿰香邑 looks suspicious to me, and could be an error form. Additional evidence for this character would be useful.
02140
02140
水 85.18
21 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20032
Evidence
Based on the comment by Huang Junliang, it seems possible that the submitted character is an error form for 㶖. It may be prudent to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error in this single source.
01106
01106
山 46.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20038
New evidence
《湖州府志》卷95 folio 20

00335
00335
力 19.7
9 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20040
Evidence
It would be helpful to see additional evidence. Google Books shows that this text is recorded in 《地方志人物傳記資料叢刊: 華北卷》 (2002) vol. 27 p. 911 and 《中國地方志集成: 河北府縣志輯》 (2006) vol. 45 p. 557, but I do not have access to these.
01918
01918
歹 78.5
9 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20069
New evidence
《汉语方言大词典》 p. 7321 (evidence image from UK-02874)
02081
02081
水 85.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20085
𠅤
New evidence
《武強縣新志》 appears to have 漁, although I cannot confirm this.

Evidence
Based on #7499, ⿰氵𠅤 is probably an error for U+6F01 漁, therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not an error form in this one source.
02121
02121
水 85.16
19 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20114
New evidence
《潛研堂金石文跋尾卷十五》



This shows the correct character to be U+2402B 𤀫. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that ⿰氵辦 is correct or is a stable error.
01626
01626
文 67.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20120
Evidence
⿰文我 here could plausibly be an error for 斌. Is there any other source which lists this person's name so that we can check whether ⿰文我 is correct?
02214
02214
火 86.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20127
Evidence
The glyph is not very clear in the provided evidence, and I suspect that it may be a corrupt form of another character. Is there any additional evidence to support the exustence of ⿰火規 ?
02237
02237
火 86.13
17 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20132
Evidence
The character ⿱暗灬 seems unlikely in the context, and is probably a mistake for some other character. Google books finds "只為一人長期翠裙羅费似烟" in 《天津圖書館孤本祕籍叢書: 史部》 but does not show me the actual text, and "费" does not seem plausible either. However, it does indicate that there is a source for the text shown in the evidence, so I think we need to find other examples of the text in order to confirm what the actual character is. Therefore suggest to postpone pending addditional evidence.
New evidence
啽囈集 confirms that ⿱暗灬 in the first evidence is indeed a variant of 黯:



This and the additional evidence provided by Eiso Chan indicates that it is OK to keep UK-20132 in the M-set.
02078
02078
水 85.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20146
New evidence
Screenshot of web page cited in #7235

00855
00855
土 32.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20148
New evidence
《欽定四庫全書》:《{{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR2k0081/003#16a 籌海圖編}}》巻三 folio 12b:
04392
04392
革 177.9
18 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20165
Evidence
Possible error for U+97BE 鞾 (靴). Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
00346
00346
力 19.15
17 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20166
Evidence
It should be possible to find additional evidence for this person's name. Google Books suggests that he is mentioned in 《地方志人物傳記資料叢刊》 (華北卷) Vol. 21 p. 747, but I cannot access it.
00811
00811
土 32.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20170
New evidence
《定山堂古文小品》(1883) 上47 has the phrase "皆掉鞅詞場", suggesting that UK-20170 may be a variant of corruption of 場. Additional evidence would be useful.

01148
01148
山 46.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20172
Evidence
Probable variant or corruption of U+5803 堃 (his brother, listed above, is 笪教堅). Additional evidence would be useful.
02426
02426
犬 94.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20178
Evidence
弇州續稿卷一百二十三 has 撮. Quite probable that ⿰犭最 is a one-off error for U+64AE 撮. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
01795
01795
木 75.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20181
Evidence
This is a list of Song dynasty officials in a Qing dynasty book. There is a high probability that the character ⿱直木 is a mistake. 《景定建康志》卷二十四 gives the name as 趙汝末. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence for the correct form of this person's name.
01609
01609
攴 66.5
9 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20192
Evidence
It is not clear to me what ⿰末攵 should mean here, and it seems quite possible that it is a one-off error for some other character (maybe 救). It would seem prudent to postpone pending additional evidence to confirm that this is not an error character.
01370
01370
心 61.12
16 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20195
Evidence
The evidence seems insufficient. The character is quite possibly a mistake for some other encoded character, and the single occurence of this name in a note is not sufficient to determine whether this is a genuine character or an error character. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
01193
01193
山 46.15
18 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20230
Evidence
Agree with Toshiya Suzuki, the evidence is insufficient. We agree to withdraw this character if there is no additional evidence.
00900
00900
土 32.13
16 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20265
New evidence
《光緒六年庚辰科會試同年齒錄・一》p. 32:
New evidence
《道光庚子恩科直省同年譜·四川、廣東、廣西、雲南、貴州羽》p. 715:
02064
02064
水 85.10
13 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20337
New evidence
《高僧法顯傳》[T2085] gives "三千僧共揵搥食"



Therefore ⿰氵追 is a variant of or error for U+6425 搥.
01743
01743
月 74.8
12 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20338
Evidence
Other versions of this text give "急蘭亦䚟" (e.g. 《元史》卷二百一十), so ⿰月㝵 is likely an error for 䚟. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error in this edition.
02073
02073
水 85.11
16 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20398
Evidence
It appears to be a variant of 慕. It remains postponed, pending additional evidence that ⿱莫氺 is not an idiosyncratic form used only in this one source.
01264
01264
广 53.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20424
广
Evidence
Other editions have "其妙聲,則清靜厭瘱", so the character here (which is not very clear anyway) should be an error/corruption for 瘱. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Evidence
The additional evidence shown by Huang Junliang is much clearer. If it is an error then it can be considered a stable error.
04522
04522
骨 188.4
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20427
Evidence
Based on the comment by Eiso Chan UK-20427 seems to be a one-off error for U+4BCB 䯋, and therefore not appropriate for encoding. Therefore we WITHDRAW this character.
03800
03800
豆 151.19
26 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20440
Evidence
I agree that ⿰豊豊 corresponds to 艷體 in the form of the poem quoted in #7485. However, here we have "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" which preserves the five-character poetic metre, so ⿰豊豊 cannot be an accidental mistranscription (I think it is impossible to accidentally mistranscribe 艷體 as ⿰豊豊). It is possible that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" is the original form of the poem, and "艷體餐瑤華" is a revised version which expands the unusual character ⿰豊豊. But even if "艷體餐瑤華" is the original version, I believe that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" must have been a deliberate revision. Therefore, I think the evidence for ⿰豊豊 is satisfactory, and the character should be kept in the M-set.
02760
02760
石 112.7
12 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20478
New evidence
《欽定四庫全書》:《{{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR2k0081/003#16a 籌海圖編}}》巻三 folio 16a:
02207
02207
火 86.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20481
New evidence
《晉乘蒐略》卷之三十上・七十七
01158
01158
山 46.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20510
Evidence
Agree that the evidence shown is insufficient. I have been unable to find other examples of this character, therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
01297
01297
彳 60.8
11 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20640
Evidence
Other editions have "寬以濟猛,嚴而不殘" so the submitted character should be a mistake for 猛. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
03765
03765
言 149.4
11 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20679
New evidence
Further investigation shows that this character is used in other Daoist texts, for example 《道法會元》卷九十四:

04374
04374
雨 173.22
30 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20703
𡅗
New evidence
《道法會元》卷九十四

04295
04295
雨 173.4
12 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20811
Misidentified glyph
I agree with the comment by Wang Yifan. Based on the reading and definition given in the evidence, this should be an error for U+9713 霓. Therefore we WITHDRAW this character.
01707
01707
日 72.12
16 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20958
Evidence
The correct name of this Song dynasty person is 林瞪 (1003-1059), therefore ⿰日登 is certainly an error for 瞪. If this is a one-off error in this source then the character should not be encoded. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
00486
00486
口 30.7
10 · ㇠ (5)
UTC-00332
𥁀
New evidence
Confirmation that the correct form of the character is ⿰口⿱刀臼 (unifiable with U+5557 啗).

Source: Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe, "The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary" (3rd ed., Hong Kong, 1947) p. 626 (taâm)
03319
03319
色 139.12
18 · ㇑ (2)
UTC-00738
𣊔
New evidence
I suspect that ⿰𣊔色 is a printing error for U+4490 䒐. 《粤語詞匯溯源》(香港:商務印書館,2019年) p. 176 gives the word 䒐䒏:



Cf. WS2021-01385 which writes the same word as {⿰忄盟}𢛵.

I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
01721
01721
日 72.16
20 · ㇒ (3)
V0-3962
Misidentified glyph
The evidence shows U+232F1 𣋱.
02254
02254
火 86.14
18 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F0329
Evidence
It looks like someone mistakenly analysed 蒙 as the simplified form of ⿱𤇾⿱一豕, analagous to 萦~縈 etc. Is the ⿱𤇾⿱一豕 form used in other sources? It would be prudent to see actual textual examples of this character before encoding it, especially as the evidence page also shows this form of 蒙 with 月, 氵, 虫, and 木 radicals which I suppose would be submitted for a future working set.


Glyph Design & Normalization

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02440
02440
犬 94.14
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00567
Glyph design
Based on the original Dunhuang manuscript, change the glyph and IDS to ⿰犭盖.
01954
01954
毛 82.13
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00649
Glyph design
The glyph does not conform to PRC conventions for 毛 on the left side (final stroke should be hooked up). Suggest to modify the glyph to conform to PRC conventions.
03694
03694
行 144.14
20 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00920
Glyph design
The last stroke of 綠 should be modified to accord with PRC conventions for 录 on the left (i.e. like the stroke in the v. 1.0 glyph).
01732
01732
肉 130.5
9 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-0092201
Glyph design
The 2.0 glyph is not an improvement. The top of the vertical stroke of 巾 does not conform to PRC conventions, and the left shoulder of 巾 should not protrude. Cf. the G-source glyph for U+4F48:
01483
01483
手 64.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-4422409
Glyph design
The 2.0 glyph is not an improvement, as it does not match the evidence or conform to PRC conventions for 礻 (should not show the final stroke protruding on the left). Therefore suggest reverting to the 1.0 glyph.
02237
02237
火 86.13
17 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20132
Glyph design
The glyph should be modified to make the 日 component taller.
01097
01097
尸 44.11
14 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20163
Glyph design
We could consider changing the Glyph and IDS to ⿱⿸尸皮肉, but I think that based on the first example shown in the evidence that the current glyph and IDS are acceptable.
04377
04377
雨 173.23
31 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20743
Normalization
Suggest to normalize the bottom component to 玃 with 又 on bottom right.
01374
01374
心 61.12
16 · ㇑ (2)
UTC-00630
Glyph design
The UTC glyph uses the G form of 跋. The H form of 跋 is as shown in the evidence. Therefore suggest changing the glyph to match the evidence (i.e. use expected H glyph form).
01285
01285
彐 58.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1A08
Glyph design
The form of 灵 used for almost all V-source characters is the same as the G-form (i.e. no protruding horizontal stroke). Only U+306FB (Ext. G) and U+31ADF (Ext. H) use the same form of 灵 as shown for this character (VN-F1A08). It would be nice if Vietnam could use a consistent form of 灵 for all characters.


Other

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
04246
04246
門' 169'.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00366
Other
Yes, GDM = "Place name characters from the Public Order Administration, Ministry of Public Security, People's Republic of China" ({{https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/ TR38}})
02360
02360
犬 94.7
10 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00548
Comment
The character ⿰犭周 also shown in the evidence is WS-2017-02528 V-F1A1E. China should consider horizontal extension for it (Ext. H U+31B85).
02385
02385
犬 94.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00549
Comment
The character is a variant of 獟 in the word 獟駻.
02336
02336
犬 94.5
8 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00586
Comment
GKJ-00586 should not be "postponed for evidence" but rejected or withdrawn. Any character submitted without evidence at the time of submission (unless due to a technical error) should be rejected as not meeting the required IRG standards for submission.
02363
02363
犬 94.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00607
𠂉
Comment
{⿰犭⿱𠂉奇}{⿰犭⿱𠂉尼} seems to be a variant of 旖旎.

⿰犭⿱𠂉奇 is not encoded or proposed for encoding, but it is recorded as a family name in 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》 and 《中华千家姓氏录》 so it could be a candidate for inclusion in a future submission.
02312
02312
牛 93.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00966
Comment
Possibly a variant of U+3E30 㸰 which means "牛無角也", but the reading is 徒和切 tuó or 苦禾切 kē, which does not match the reading of 利 lì for GKJ-00966.
02386
02386
犬 94.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-01016
Comment
Probably the same as {{https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8B%A6%E8%81%AA%E4%BA%BA 苦聪}}, but 夷人圖說目錄 has separate descriptions for "古宗" people (no. 7) and "苦葱" people (no. 30). The former is written as "狜猔" in 《滇省迤西迤南夷人圖説》.
02673
02673
皿 108.6
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06800
Comment
Evidence 2 shows ⿰卩⿱⿳⿰一一⿰一一⿰一一皿 = 隘 on the same page (also written as ⿰卩⿱⿳一一一皿 in the small character text), so I think we need additional evidence to demonstrate whether the middle horizontal stroke should be broken or not.
02775
02775
石 112.9
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20002
Comment
Looks like a variant of U+7830 砰 in the phrase "砰然有聲"
03799
03799
豆 151.9
16 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20024
Comment
{⿰豆扁}豆 is presumably a variant of 扁豆, which can also be written 萹豆, 稨豆, 藊豆.
02446
02446
犬 94.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20026
Comment
《民國樂昌縣志》 has "先是有猴如狨大陡至樹...", so ⿰犭榮 should be a variant of 狨 róng.
02247
02247
火 86.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20095
Comment
Other versions of this text have "周环十三里有奇,炮台六十有二", indicating that ⿰火駁 should be a variant of 礟 pào (礮炮砲).
02051
02051
水 85.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20175
Comment
The evidence text implies that ⿰氵冠 may be a variant of 滱.
02321
02321
牛 93.11
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20190
Comment
Other versions of this text give "雞公、鹿母、黃麞、鹿犘,以鳥獸名". The character in the evidence is 犘 with the 'ox' radical moved to the side.
00745
00745
口 30.19
22 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20207
Comment
The following character (⿰氵𥬡) is WS2021-02079 UK-20208. The fact that both characters in his retirement sobriquet are unencoded suggests that he deliberately created two novel characters.
02079
02079
水 85.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20208
𥬡
Comment
The preceding character (⿱興同) is WS2021-00745 UK-20207. The fact that both characters in his retirement sobriquet are unencoded suggests that he deliberately created two novel characters.
00029
00029
丿 4.4
5 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20538
Comment
See this SCMP article for additional background discussion of the "X也" gender-neutral 3rd-person pronoun. Refusing to encode this character would be doing a great disservice to the user community who want to use this gender-neutral pronoun form.
Comment
Additional discussion on twitter showing a glyph form similar to that proposed by the UK with 㐅 rather than X:
00142
00142
人 9.6
8 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20541
Comment
Agree to change glyph and IDS.
02068
02068
水 85.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20797
Comment
The new UCV allows for the character to be normalized to ⿰氵害 and use this IDS. The character should be kept in the M-set.
01087
01087
尸 44.5
8 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20862
Comment
局 is first attested with the meaning of 'to steam' or 'to bake' in Robert Morrison's 1828 《廣東省土話字彙》; and first attested as 焗 in 《粵語全書》 (1905). UK-20862 certainly seems to be the same meaning and Cantonese pronunciation as 局 in this sense. The ⿸尸可 form shown in the evidence may be a mistake for 局, but potentially it is a specific variant of the character used only for the culinary meaning, in which case it should not be unified. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.


Data for Unihan

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02382
02382
犬 94.8
11 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00542
Semantic variant
U+27CD9 𧳙
02385
02385
犬 94.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00549
Semantic variant
U+735F 獟
02446
02446
犬 94.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20026
Semantic variant
U+72E8 狨
02247
02247
火 86.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20095
Semantic variant
U+791F 礟
01498
01498
手 64.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20107
Semantic variant
U+69BA 榺
02237
02237
火 86.13
17 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20132
Semantic variant
U+9EEF 黯
02321
02321
牛 93.11
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20190
Semantic variant
U+7298 犘
03754
03754
角 148.12
19 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1B70
Semantic variant
VN-F0547 (⿱解会)
04221
04221
門 169.6
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20185
Simp variant
U+3223C 𲈼
02074
02074
水 85.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20665
Simp variant
WS2021-00245 GDM-00245
01362
01362
心 61.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20252
Trad variant
U+6197 憗
01435
01435
手 64.4
7 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20266
Trad variant
U+22B72 𢭲
04664
04664
魚' 195'.4
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20804
Trad variant
U+311A7 𱆧
Evidence provided for G_Z3862201 indicates that U+311A7 is a Zhuang word meaning 'pond loach' (泥鰍). UK-20804 also means 'pond loach', but in the Minnan language, which is a strange coincidence as Zhuang and Minnan are unrelated languages.