Based on 干祿字書, [⿰言⿱大干] is a variant of 誇.
However, if adding a new UCV=[⿱大干]/𡗢/夸, I think it is a bit dangerous, such as U+29A43 𩩃 is a variant of U+5E79 幹 or U+9AAD 骭, but it has no meaningful relationship with 骻 (U+9ABB).
Because of the common component(盁), TCA has agreed to change the proposed form to TC-7234. But EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.
Reading is a reference in the literature, but it is not suitable as a source of recognition in the use of names, as reading is a matter for the person concerned to decide.
According to new UCV #307c, TCA agrees to unify, and TCA wants to keep 01856 (TE-2360, ⿰木⿱竹𭅗).
Unification
Is it possible to add a new UCV rule or modify #307c, when the same component, different structure could unify?
TCA found some examples as below:
WS2021-2097 ⿰氵蒿 VS 薃 U+8583
WS2021-01288 ⿰霖彡VS 霦 U+9726
WS2021-04325 ⿱雨倪 VS 𪝷 U+2A777
CMEX does not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, we have found earlier BMP for the applicant. From the Changjie(倉頡) attribute provided, it was "日", not "月".
The pronunciation of " liú " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
The pronunciation of " dùn " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
Because of the common structure, if IRG can accept our new evidence, TCA will agree to change the proposed form to TC-473B (NOT TC-3927).
Because evidence is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP font printed by the MOI in 2004 as new evidence:
We do not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.
Because of the common structure, TCA has agreed to change the proposed form to TE-4239, so EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP glyph printed by the MOI in 2004 as new evidence.
Because of the common component, TCA has agreed to change the proposed form, so EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can only provide the BMP form used by the MOI in the early days as Evidence.
These two characters belong to different places of residence (as can be seen from the evidence provided by TCA) and the BMP shapes are also different. (printed by MOI in 2004):
Based on these evidences, the submitted character was originally from 化學指南(1873) by 畢利幹(Anatole Billequin). Could you provide the clear evidence of the original glyph in this book?
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: Conifer TSENG
Date: Generated on 2024-11-10
Unification
Based on 干祿字書, [⿰言⿱大干] is a variant of 誇.
However, if adding a new UCV=[⿱大干]/𡗢/夸, I think it is a bit dangerous, such as U+29A43 𩩃 is a variant of U+5E79 幹 or U+9AAD 骭, but it has no meaningful relationship with 骻 (U+9ABB).
Reading is a reference in the literature, but it is not suitable as a source of recognition in the use of names, as reading is a matter for the person concerned to decide.
These two characters are a good case in which reading is based.
TCA found some examples as below:
WS2021-2097 ⿰氵蒿 VS 薃 U+8583
WS2021-01288 ⿰霖彡VS 霦 U+9726
WS2021-04325 ⿱雨倪 VS 𪝷 U+2A777
WS2021-02950 ⿱𥫗⿰木𭅗 VS WS2021-01856 ⿰木⿱𥫗𭅗
Attributes
Prefer to use two IDSes (⿰子阝, ⿰孑阝) for this case.
Evidence
陳永正編,《中國方術大辭典》(廣東:中山大學出版社, 1991年)
p.369
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18574&page=9#box(302,293,1,2)
The submitted character might be a misprint form of 鏃?
https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/b3/6d.html
According to the context, the author quoted "教熊羆『貔』貅貙虎" in 史記.五帝本紀 as an explanation, and it is very likely that "貔" is wrongly written as "豸鼠".
Suggest pending for additional evidences.
正字通,吳源起清畏堂, 康熙24 [1685] 序].
the character at this position is also 註.
本草綱目 gives as “䴊”.
Agree with the comment #6325, suggest pending for additional evidences.
Because evidence is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP font printed by the MOI in 2004 as new evidence:
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
《後漢書》(金陵书局清同治八年[1869]), 卷三十三 朱馮虞鄭周列傳第二十三
The other edition gives 竑弢.
Agree with the comment #5171.
(武英殿本:1920頁)
(同文書局本:402頁)
Glyph Design & Normalization
Editorial
Other
Possibly, the reading given by 慧琳 was wrong.
Perhaps TCA could ask the experts to discuss the possibility of adding a reading (yǎ, because 𬚟 is a variant of 雅).
Thank you for the new evidence.
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%81%8F%E6%97%81%E5%90%8C%E5%8C%96/683399
元.龔瑨, 〈王會圖賦〉(《古今圖書集成本》)