Please wait while loading

IRG Working Set 2021v3.0

Consolidated Comments
Filter By Source: Sort By: Show Deleted:

Unification

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
01038
01038
宀 40.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00312
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Also see WS2021-00138 and 01060.

I still think it is dangerous to make the UCV for 宀 & 山 for our future encoding works.
01186
01186
山 46.13
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00343
𤲞
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the pronunciation of ⿱山𤲞, it should be a variant of ⿰土𤲞.
04581
04581
魚 195.6
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00223
Unification
TAO Yang
China
Persuasive argument, agree with Eisoch.
02503
02503
玉 96.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00232
Oppose Unification
TAO Yang
China
Siku is a super copy of ancient books, we couldn't prove the original book wrong by a copy.
04691
04691
鳥 196.4
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00324
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6B4D
unify to 歍 (U+6B4D)?

The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
U+6B4D
It must be a variant shape of 歍, could be unified.
00217
00217
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00326
Unification
TAO Yang
China
Emmmm
Withdraw it.
03526
03526
虫 142.6
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00403
Unification
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
U+2726B
The right part seems like ⿱丿㘝 more. Maybe it is unifiable to 𧉫 (U+2726B).
Disunification
TAO Yang
China
U+8111
U+2726B
It's a variant shape of 脑, not unify to 𧉫.
03599
03599
虫 142.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00464
UCV
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Level 1 𦕅/聊.

See above comments for rationale. I don't think this character should be postponed.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
𦕅 is the variant of 聊, which is already appears in 北魏孝文弔比干文. So I agree to add 𦕅/聊 as a new pair of UCV.


蝍GKJ-00464 or 蝍蟟 are the ancient forms of 知了. Obviously, ⿰虫聊 should be the correct glyph.
03518
03518
虫 142.5
11 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00471
Unification
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
U+27283
Unifiable to 𧊃 (U+27283)?
Disunification
TAO Yang
China
U+27283
But what is the meaning of 𧊃?
04148
04148
金 167.12
20 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00487
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+2E8C3
U+2E8C3
Though G glyph is apparently more correct.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
If they got the same meaning, they should be unifiable.
04181
04181
金 167.14
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00497
𮭲
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
The evidence looks damaged. Is it possibly U+495D
?
02402
02402
犬 94.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00565
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
U+25855
Appears to be an error for U+25855 𥡕 in a single edition. Suggest postponing for additional evidence.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with the UK.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
Agree with the UK. No more evidence.
02412
02412
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00583
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with the UK.
02424
02424
犬 94.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00588
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
not unify to 𤡥 (U+24865)
U+24865


NUCV #325

This character is the variant of U+24865 𤡥, but we don’t have UCV unify them.

▲ 《廣韻》,四部叢刊本,上平聲卷第一


▲ 《龍龕手鑑》,早稻田大學藏本,卷二下

If any expert suggest unify them, we need to consider to change NUCV #325 to UCV.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
I would tend to oppose a UCV for 間~閒.
02417
02417
犬 94.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00628
UCV
Henry CHAN
Individual
⿱𣪊X miswritten as ⿱殸X is quite common in historical documents, while 𣪊 and 殸 have different etymologies. I suggest adding a new Level 2 UCV ⿱𣪊X & ⿱殸X, where ⿱𣪊X also unifiable with ⿹
𣪊X.

If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The unification comments from Henry (#6293) and Eddie (#3077) are different, and this character is related to the definition of the small seal character, I suggest TCA and China NB, the authors of WG2 N5191, could choose which one is better, that will be useful for the future digital dictionary works.

If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
01588
01588
手 64.16
19 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00651
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
U+64F8
Unify with 擸 (U+64F8) per China's 2021-09-15 comment?
04045
04045
釆 165.5
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00720
Unification
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
U+79E4
Per Huang's comment, should it be treated as a miswritten form of 秤 (and withdraw)?
04852
04852
鹿 198.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00802
鹿𣅀
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+2A2A8
Consider Unification to 𪊨 (U+2A2A8) and add new UCV rule of 𣅀 and 旨.
03222
03222
肉 130.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00935
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Evidence 1 and 3 show the character is the variant of 船, so the radical should be Radical Moon for these two cases. In my opinion, the character in Evidence 1 and 3 should be unified to 𣍬 (U+2336C).
U+2336C


Evidence 2 shows it is the possible variant of U+80C8 胈, and the meaning is related to human body, so the radical should be Radical Meat.

Evidence 4 shows it is used for the organic chemistry, so the radical must be Radical Meat as well.

Therefore, this character is not suitable to unify with 𣍬 (U+2336C), but Evidence 1 and 3 are not also suitable for encoding.
01090
01090
尸 44.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-3571207
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+3165C
unify to 𱙜 (U+3165C)

They are duplicates.
[This comment comes from H.W. Ho.]
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+3165C
As the Extension G snippets are not yet available, please see following snippet for U+3165C:
00969
00969
肉 130.3
9 · ㇠ (5)
GZ-3881102
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+21703
unify to 𡜃 (U+21703)?

The right component of U+21703 𡜃 is the variant of 肉.

If this unification has been accepted, the second RS for U+21703 𡜃 should be 130.3. The semantic element for U+21703 𡜃 is 肉, but Kangxi Dictionary and other ancient dictionaries moved it under Radical 女.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add a new UCV for U+8089 肉 and U+2054E 𠕎 (even U+2E307 𮌇?) as Level 2.

U+30924 𰤤 is the variant of 皺, but U+26686 𦚆 is the variant of 䏢. Both are submitted by TCA.
Unification
John Knightley
China
U+21703
If all agree to new UCV above be added, then withdraw as U+21703 𡜃 already has G.
01289
01289
彡 59.16
19 · ㇑ (2)
KC-05060
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
RE: WS2021-SN01289

- U+8668 虨 and WS2021-SN01289 (KC-05060) are two distinct chars.

- the two chars (one in a blue box, the other in red box) are two distinct persons' names

01413
01413
心 61.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
KC-05106
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Unification
ROK
U+65E5
On 2021-09-02, KR already mentioned that KR will change the glyph, IDS, SC, TS as suggested by Eiso (田 -> 日)
This is used in a personal name and therefore KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
> The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character ...
> Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) ...

==>
The evidence is "Passers List for Scholarly Degrees [司馬榜目, Sama bangmok]" published by the government during Joseon Dynasty and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is an error in the evidence. KR suggests that it not be unified to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A).
03175
03175
羽 124.9
15 · ㇑ (2)
KC-05601
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
03178
羽 124.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05603
unify to WS2021-03178:KC-05603, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601

The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛,熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).

The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.


▲ 李商隱:《李商隱詩集》,琴川書屋仿宋刻本,卷上 (shows 逈)


▲ 洪邁:《萬首唐人絶句》,四庫全書本,卷四十 (shows 迥)
Unification
ROK
Even though the right component of two chars could be unifiable, the entire chars are not necessarily unifiable.
KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
KR proposes a slight change of the decision regarding the unification of SN 3175 and SN 3178 as shown below:

(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178

==>

(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
03178
03178
羽 124.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05603
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
03175
羽 124.9
15 · ㇑ (2)
KC-05601
unify to WS2021-03175:KC-05601, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601

The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛,熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).

The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.


▲ 李商隱:《李商隱詩集》,琴川書屋仿宋刻本,卷上 (shows 逈)


▲ 洪邁:《萬首唐人絶句》,四庫全書本,卷四十 (shows 迥)
Unification
ROK
Even though the right component of two chars could be unifiable, the entire chars are not necessarily unifiable.
KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
KR proposes a slight change of the decision regarding the unification of SN 3175 and SN 3178 as shown below:

(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178

==>

(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
01898
01898
欠 76.5
9 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-04277
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Note: U+6B25 and SAT-04277 (eq. VN-F208B planned for the next Vietnam WS submission) are different in Nôm Tày usage and should not be unified. In the evidence provided by Eiso above, VN-F208B is read "hăn", meaning "to see". But U+6B25 is read "hất", which means "to work", "put effort into", etc.. Here is the entry for 欥 (U+6B25) from the same source (Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p 202):
03571
03571
虫 142.9
15 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-04360
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+273EC
unify to 𧏬 (U+273EC)

Kangxi Dictionary shows 𧏬 is the variant of 嗤, but the submitted character also shares the same meaning. And these two ones must share the same rationale.


▲ 《龍龕手鑑》,朝鮮本,卷第四


▲ 《可洪音義》,新集藏經音義隨函録,第十册
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
They do look similar, but our material only has occurrences in "螭" meaning, while evidence in #8872 all mean "laugh". We need to be cautious on the cognacy.

《獨斷・卷上》「天子璽以玉螭虎紐。古者尊卑共之。」
03463
03463
艸 140.16
20 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-04384
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
According to CNS11643, 𫇑 is pronounced as zhēn. Same with ⿱艹臻 (從草臻聲). Consider unify to 𫇑 by UCV #307c. SAT can HE if the shape is preferred.

U+2B1D1
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Agree to unify.
04941
04941
齊 210.4
16 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04670
&D10-01;丿
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+9F4C
Unify to 齌 (U+9F4C)?

Add new UCV:
03491
03491
虍 141.2
8 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05654
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+864E
unify to 虎 (U+864E)

We have one case to unify 虎 and ⿸虍人 in WS2015. WS2015-04676:GHZR74467.11 ⿰阝⿸𠂆⿸虍人 has been unified to U+28EC6 𨻆.


In the ancient books, ⿸虍人 is also common.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add a new UCV for 虎 and ⿸虍人 as Level 1.

U+202A4 𠊤 ^⿰亻⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4FFF 俿 ^⿰亻虎$(GJKT)

U+2200A 𢀊 ^⿰巢⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2720A 𧈊 ^⿰巢虎$(G)

U+2249C 𢒜 ^⿰⿸虍人彡$(GT)
U+5F6A 彪 ^⿺虎彡$(GHJKT)

U+238D5 𣣕 ^⿰⿸虍人欠$(GT)
U+238CD 𣣍 ^⿰虎欠$(GT)

U+249A3 𤦣 ^⿰𤣩⿸虍人$(G)
U+7425 琥 ^⿰𤣩虎$(GHJKTV)

U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)

U+2732D 𧌭 ^⿰虫⿸虍人$(GT)
U+45C2 䗂 ^⿰虫虎$(GKT)
* In Kangxi Dictionary, 𧌭 is only used as the variant of 螔, but we can find 䗂 is also used as the variant of 螔, such as 䗂蝓=螔蝓 (snail 🐌) and 䗂䗔=螔䗔 (gecko 🦎).

U+27A50 𧩐 ^⿰訁⿸虍人$(GT)
U+8AD5 諕 ^⿰訁虎$(GHJKT)

U+29CF0 𩳰 ^⿺鬼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4C27 䰧 ^⿺鬼虎$(GT) ^⿺⿱田儿虎$(U)

U+30C9A 𰲚 ^⿸𠂆⿸虍人$(G)
U+8652 虒 ^⿸𠂆虎$(GHJKT)

U+22290 𢊐 ^⿸广𰲚$(GT)
U+22280 𢊀 ^⿸广虒$(GT)

U+2240F 𢐏 ^⿰弓𰲚$(GT)
U+2240B 𢐋 ^⿰弓虒$(GT)

U+256D5 𥛕 ^⿰礻𰲚$(G)
U+79A0 禠 ^⿰礻虒$(GHT) ^⿰示虒$(K)

U+25C3D 𥰽 ^⿱𥫗𰲚$(GT)
U+7BEA 篪 ^⿱𥫗虒$(GHJKT)

U+273D5 𧏕 ^⿰虫𰲚$(GT)
U+8794 螔 ^⿰虫虒$(GHKT)

U+2792B 𧤫 ^⿰角𰲚$(GT)
U+46A6 䚦 ^⿰角虒$(GKT)

U+28ABE 𨪾 ^⿰釒𰲚$(G)
U+28A89 𨪉 ^⿰釒虒$(GT)

For U+2720E 𧈎, U+27F25 𧼥, U+28091 𨂑, U+28F6F 𨽯, we don’t have ⿲虎革彡, ⿺走虎, ⿰𧾷虎, ⿲阝虒虒.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Agree to unify, should add a UCV.
01926
01926
歹 78.12
17 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05686
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6BAB
unify to 殫

The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殫 clearly.

Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
01915
歹 78.4
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05862
𠬛
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
A new UCV is welcome.
01915
01915
歹 78.4
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05862
𠬛
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6B7F
unify to 歿

The evidence shows it is the variant of 歿 clearly.
UCV #149 for the right part.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add 歺 to UCV #92a as Level 2 when the component is the left part. Similar to UCV #397.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
A new UCV is welcome.
01610
01610
攴 66.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05880
𰏘
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+655D
unify to 敝 (U+655D)

See Comment #2984 and #4868 from Huang Junliang and Conifer.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
Needs discussion with 𰏘/㡀 UCV.
00001
00001
一 1.0
1 · N/A
SAT-05947
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+31C0
unify to ㇀ (U+31C0)?

The current script for U+31C0 ㇀ is common (Zyyy), but it also has the Script_Extensions value as Han (Hani).
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
We generally don't believe a standalone Han character can be unified with a stroke by design.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Additional information:

《説文解字》「孑:無右臂也。从了,乚象形。」
Thus we believe that character is just a reflection of 乚 based on the regular script shape, and not a mere stroke.
04497
04497
馬 187.6
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05996
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+99DB
unify to 駛 (U+99DB)

The evidence shows the fanqies are 師利反 and 師事反, that means the variant of 駛.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
史 vs 㕜 as Level 1
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+53F2
We need discussion about whether 史/㕜 should be unified, and the UCV level.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
劉悅墓誌
朱欣墓誌
Unification
TAO Yang
China
U+256C6
古今文字通釋 Variant of 𥛆.
八琼室金石补正
精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海
UCV level should be 2, it depends on whether it used individually or not.
03170
03170
羽 124.4
10 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06161
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+26409
unify to 𦐉 (U+26409) if they are cognates?

Also see WS2021-00138, 01038 and 01060
00138
人 9.5
7 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20577
𫵲
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Pending
Postponed for unification to 佇 U+4F47, pending possible UCV for right hand side component, IRG 57.
01038
宀 40.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00312
01060
宀 40.15
18 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20039


The evidence shows this character is the variant of 蚩, and shows the quotation from 《廣雅》, but the understanding looks questionable.


▲ 張揖:《廣雅》,叢書集成初編本,卷三
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
We need discussion about a new UCV mentioned in #8567.
01388
01388
心 61.13
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06249
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
Consider adding UCV for 解~觧. See also TE-3773 (⿱觧虫) and VN-F1B70 (⿱觧会).
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
We need discussion about the new UCV.
03496
03496
虍 141.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06257
𠔃
UCV
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Assuming the evidence of ⿰虗兮 is correct. If we accept the new evidence, please also consider expand the UCV #370 to include 虗.

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

U+271C0 𧇀 = U+8661 虡
U+271F2 𧇲 = U+271FA 𧇺
U+29D1B 𩴛 = U+29D25 𩴥
U+2D28C 𭊌 = U+5653 噓
U+2D3DF 𭏟 = U+589F 墟
U+2D7FC 𭟼 = U+6231 戱
U+2D889 𭢉 = U+22D2E 𢴮
U+2DB54 𭭔 = U+6B54 歔
U+2E17D 𮅽 = U+25CA4 𥲤
U+2EBD3 𮯓 = U+2A66B 𪙫
U+3102D 𱀭 = U+28F0B 𨼋
U+3103D 𱀽 = U+3103C 𱀼
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2E4E9
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.
03123
03123
糸 120.15
21 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-06436
𦋺
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
U+261A2
𦆢 (U+261A2)
reading, sense and shape are similar. Kangxi entry for U+261A2 quotes Quangyun: 居例切,音罽。○按从网之字,或省作冈,或變作四。This appears to be a variant using a form of 四.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+7F52
We need discussion whether 罒/冈 are unifiable.
01335
01335
心 61.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06518
𢩦
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+22677
unify to 𢙷 (U+22677)

The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add UCV for 丮, 𢩦, 𠃨 as Level 2.

In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
A new UCV is welcome.
01089
01089
尸 44.6
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-06635
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This character looks like U+21C53 𡱓, but the meanings are different. It is not better to unify them.
02673
02673
皿 108.6
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06800
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+76CA
unify to 益

The other method to handle this one is that it should be unified to 益 U+76CA. The evidence has shown it is the variant of 益 clearly. The people often write the Lishu style of 益 as the form in Evidence 3. Please see the following picture. 顺益兴四合院 is a real estate company selling courtyards in Beijing. The Tianyancha page is here. https://www.tianyancha.com/company/10425537 The official website is here. http://www.siheyuan.cc/


▲ 顺益兴四合院(东城分店)

If this character is encoded separately, and any type designer wants to design a Lishu style font to cover all the CJKUIs in UCS/Unicode, maybe the end users need to meet the duplicate pair, that is not good. This form is close to Lishu form and some seal forms, so I think there is no need to add a new UCV.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Agree to change IDS as per #8232.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
This involves total four strokes difference which is non-trivial. We need a UCV in the case of unification.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
樊川詩集
02885
02885
禾 115.12
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-07086
𠆴
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+258BC
unify to 𥢼 (U+258BC)

As Lee’s comment in #6740, this character is the variant of 𥢼. Evidence 2 shows the following glyph.

This glyph is similar to 𥢼 (U+258BC) very much.
UCV
Henry CHAN
Individual
Add new Level 1 UCV rule 𧵩 = ⿱𠆴貝
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
We need discussion whether unification and UCV are applicable, along with
03816
貝 154.5
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-07087
𠆴
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Pending
Postponed for unification to 𧵩 U+27D69, IRG 58.
.
03097
03097
糸 120.12
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-07097
𠆴
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ WS2017-03449 ]
U+31E8A
unify to WS2017-03449:SAT-04475 U+31E8A
[ {{WS2017-03449}} ]


See WS2021-02885:SAT-07086
02885
禾 115.12
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-07086
𠆴
04744
04744
鳥 196.10
21 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-07198
𣪊
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+9DC7
unify to 鷇 (U+9DC7)

The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
⿱𣪊X vs ⿰⿳士冖X殳 vs ⿰⿳士冖⿱一X殳

They are used as the same characters in general.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
We need discussion about the new UCV.
01419
01419
戈 62.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08594
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
U+2299F
Unify to 𢦟.

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



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

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

We may consider a level 2 UCV ⿰?戈/⿹戈.
01919
01919
歹 78.6
11 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08632
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6B89
unify to 殉

Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
01915
歹 78.4
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05862
𠬛
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
01917
01917
歹 78.5
10 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08699
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6B84
unify to 殄

The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殄 clearly.

Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
01915
歹 78.4
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05862
𠬛
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
01084
01084
尸 44.1
4 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-08816
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is dangerous to add 尸, 戶, 戸, 户 as extended UCV #7.
00172
00172
人 9.9
11 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08847
𠂉𧘇
UCV
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Unify to 偯.

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

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

U+2D206
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA

偯,於豈反。偯,哭餘聲也。(《龍龕手鑑.人部》)

偯 and ⿳𠂉口𧘇 have the same pronunciation and meaning, so agree with HUANG Junliang’s comment that ⿳𠂉口𧘇 could unify to 偯.
UCV
WANG Yifan
SAT
New UCV is welcome.
03965
03965
辵 162.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-08913
𭁄
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+9006
Unify to 逆 (U+9006), cf. UCV #447:
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+2D044
We need discussion whether 𭁄/屰 are unifiable.
01925
01925
歹 78.10
15 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08985
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6B9E
unify to 殞

The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殞 clearly.

Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862.
01915
歹 78.4
9 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05862
𠬛
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
01262
01262
广 53.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-09314
广
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+34F9
unify to 㓹 (U+34F9)?

The evidence shows it is the bottom of 罽, and the real bottom of 罽 should be 㓹.



▲ 《説文解字》,藤花榭本,第七下
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+34F9
We need discussion because it involves radical and structure differences with 㓹.
02005
02005
水 85.5
8 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-09363
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+6CD3
unify to 泓

When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017.
[ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
We agree that this is more like Taisho's misanalysis. Withdraw for further examination.
00535
00535
口 30.9
12 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-09431
𦮰
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
U+20D62
Needs discussion whether unifiable with 𠵢.
03459
03459
艸 140.15
19 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7D74
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
U+2E483
𮒃 (U+2E483): they look identical.
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
This is no UCV, if unified, need to add a new UCV rule.
01996
01996
水 85.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
TC-2C5B
𠤭
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+6CDF
Unify to 泟 U+6CDF with new UCV

Add new UCV
𠤭.

From the MOE Dictionary:
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Although 𠤭 is a variant of 正, but the shape of these two characters is too different. If to be a new UCV rule, whether there is over-unified?
01121
01121
山 46.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
TC-3A56
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
U+5CD5
Consider unify to 峕 if we accept the UCV proposed by Henry.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
Oppose Unification to 峕 U+5CD5, even though it matches a UCV rule.

峕 U+5CD5 is a miswritten form of 旹 U+65F9. Unless TC-3A56 is a variant form deriving from U+5CD5, it is better to keep them separated.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to Henry.
02021
02021
水 85.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
TC-4B4B
𠘧
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
This character, if encoded, would likely be unifiable with ⿰氵盁, which is currently coded in CNS11643 as TC-7234. Would TCA prefer to code (TC-7234 instead, then unify TC-4B4B to TC-7234?

Alternatively, both characters could be unified to 溋 U+6E8B, with addition of new UCV rule 盈 / 盁 / ⿱𠘧皿.

Data page for TC-7234 (Character Source: 財政部財稅用字):


Data page for TC-4B4B (Character Source: 內政部戶政用字):
00841
00841
土 32.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
TC-5371
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+55CC
The given pronunciation suggests it to be a variant of 嗌. Consider if unification to 嗌 U+55CC is appropriate.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Withdraw.
02836
02836
示 113.7
12 · ㇔ (4)
TC-5D40
𬉸
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2567F
unify to 𥙿 (U+2567F)

This character reads as yù, and U+2567F 𥙿 also reads as yù.

𬉸 is often used as the variant of 谷.
U+5BB9 容 ≈ U+21A10 𡨐
U+7D8C 綌 ≈ U+2602D 𦀭
U+8C41 豁 ≈ U+2BD13 𫴓
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Extend UCV #132 as 谷𧮫𠔌𬉸 as Level 2
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
U+2C278
U+8C37
If UCV is added, TCA agree. Because 𬉸 is often used as the variant of 谷.
03055
03055
糸 120.5
11 · ㇒ (3)
TC-5E47
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+25FEF
Consider unification to 𥿯 (U+25FEF) because of the pronunciation.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Withdraw.
03151
03151
羊 123.6
12 · ㇐ (1)
TC-5E5E
𦍌
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+7F97
Consider unification to 羗 (U+7F97) which has the same pronunciation.
03493
03493
虍 141.5
11 · ㇒ (3)
TC-5F73
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+8654
Consider unification to 虔 (U+8654). The provided pronunciation qián concurs.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The shape looks similar, but TCA can't find the variation relationship of the two component. TCA would like to keep separately.
02053
02053
水 85.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
TD-2B2D
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+6DC4
Unify to 淄 U+6DC4?

Based on the pronunciation provided, this character should be unified to 淄 U+6DC4. However the shape typically suggests it to be ⿰氵𡿺, which is not known to be an existing character.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The right component of 02053 has no variant relationship with "甾 ".
Instead, it is a common variant relationship with "𡿺". But "⿰氵𡿺" is not coded?
TCA would like to keep separately.
03358
03358
艸 140.8
12 · ㇒ (3)
TD-3170
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The similar character, 𦰁 (U+26C01), is read "lǐ" and the evidence for this character says "jì". Since shape and reading are different, no unification.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to Lee COLLINS.
02929
02929
竹 118.7
13 · ㇑ (2)
TD-4266
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2E155
Unify to 𮅕 (U+2E155)?

If Lee’s comment is right, we should consider to unify this character to 𮅕 (U+2E155) (also TD-5079).
https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E5%9B%B3%E5%BD%A2%E5%90%8D=MJ058270
03369
03369
艸 140.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
TD-4443
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2E40B
unify to 𮐋 (U+2E40B)?

As Lee’s comment, the submitted character is the variant of 篡/簒. U+2E40B 𮐋 is submitted by ROK. If ROK can confirm the meaning, we will be easy to confirm how to handle this character.
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
According to Taiwan MOE, this is actually a variant of 篡 (U+7BE1). If unified, need to add a new UCV rule.
01263
01263
广 53.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
TD-4B2A
广𤲅
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
There are two types of "𤲅", one is the original character (is a variant of "菴"), and the other is used as a component, "𤲅" and "奄" are common variants of the relationship.
In the past, these two components were coded separately.

▲U+83F4 菴≈ U+24C85𤲅

Variants Dictionary

▲U+9EE4黤 ≈ U+2923F𩈿
▲U+4046䁆≈ U+3097F⿰目𤲅

《漢語大字典》,P.2686.
▲U+26E55 𦹕
▲U+7F68罨 ≈ U+2630C 𦌌

《漢語大字典》,P.3121.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
TD-4B2A should not be unified to 庵 U+5EB5.

We should add new UCV 菴 and 𤲅, instead of unifying 奄 and 𤲅.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
U+83F4
U+5944
Consider those three component/characters(𤲅, 菴, 奄) have a variant relationship.
To be a character, 𤲅 is a variant of 菴.
To be a component, 𤲅 and 奄 are variant relationship.
Unified to 庵 U+5EB5, and consider a new UCV for 𤲅, 菴, 奄.
03256
03256
肉 130.11
15 · ㇠ (5)
TD-5C73
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The reading given is different from those for 䐸 (U+4438): guo2, huo4, so no unification.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to Lee COLLINS not unify.
03370
03370
艸 140.9
13 · ㇔ (4)
TD-7734
𠖇
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
U+84C2
This is very similar in reading and shape to 蓂 (U+84C2)
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
"𠖇" is a variant of "冥". TCA agree to be a VS of U+84C2 and add a new UCV rule.

01288
01288
彡 59.16
19 · ㇐ (1)
TE-2261
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
U+9726
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
RE: WS2021-SN01288

- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726

- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agree to be a VS of U+9726.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
I don't think TD-4B2A can be safely unified to 霦 (U+9726), because the pronunciation given by TD-4B2A is lín, which suggests that the character is composed of phonetic 霖 with radical 彡, while 霦 (U+9726) is radical 雨 with 彬 phonetic, pronounced as bin1. If TCA can confirm the pronunciation, then we can unify or disunify with confidence.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
TCA would like to use the new UCV (same components, different structure). Unified.
03428
03428
艸 140.13
17 · ㇔ (4)
TE-2776
𪧛
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
U+85D4
U+5C1E
Unify to 藔 (U+85D4), based on similarity of components ⿳大日小 and 尞
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add UCV for ⿳大日小 and 尞

U+2860E 𨘎 vs U+2708F 𧂏
U+2CAF4 𬫴 vs U+9410 鐐
U+2D777 𭝷 vs U+61AD 憭
U+2DE21 𭸡 vs U+7360 獠
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
"⿳大日小" and "尞" are common variants of the relationship when they are used as components. TCA agree to be a VS of U+85D4 and add a new UCV rule.
03418
03418
艸 140.13
17 · ㇑ (2)
TE-282D
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+21063
unify to 𡁣 (U+21063)?

UCV #305.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
U+21063
Agree to be unified to 𡁣 (U+21063) due to similar structures.
03472
03472
艸 140.17
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-4242
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
03654
虫 142.15
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-7B31
unify to WS2021-03654:TE-7B31?

The readings are the same.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It needs to be discussed together with the following character:
WS2021-03472:TE-4242
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31

Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
03654
03654
虫 142.15
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-7B31
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
03472
艸 140.17
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-4242
unify to WS2021-03472:TE-4242?

The readings are the same.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
WS2021-03472:TE-4242
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31
Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
01106
01106
山 46.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20038
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
U+37B7
Unify to 㞷 U+37B7? (UCV #1 & #96)
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
02879
02879
禾 115.9
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20042
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is better to treat UCV 奈/柰/𥘾 as Level 2.

U+6E3F 渿 vs U+3D0E 㴎
U+3B8F 㮏 vs U+3B88 㮈 vs U+235DF 𣗟
U+3CA1 㲡 vs U+23BA6 𣮦
U+217AB 𡞫 vs U+2178F 𡞏
U+24E0F 𤸏 vs U+24DC8 𤷈
U+25221 𥈡 vs U+251E7 𥇧
U+26CD0 𦳐 vs U+8418 萘
U+29236 𩈶 vs U+2922B 𩈫
U+29E5F 𩹟 vs U+4C5E 䱞 vs U+29E9A 𩺚
U+2D860 𭡠 vs U+637A 捺 vs U+2BF69 𫽩

U+6B40 歀, U+96B8 隸, U+236D2 𣛒, U+23729 𣜩, U+2B389 𫎉, U+2EA15 𮨕; U+20903 𠤃 and so on are not related to this UCV.
02054
02054
水 85.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20083
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
03018
03018
米 119.9
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20439
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
See WS2021-02879:UK-20042
02879
禾 115.9
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20042
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Pending
Postponed for further investigation, IRG 57.
01157
01157
山 46.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20468
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
U+2D5D9
Unify with 𭗙 (U+2D5D9).

𭗙 (U+2D5D9) is mapped to KC-05009, but the newest version of KC-05009 is ⿱山眉:


Suggest to update K glyph and also add new UCV 眉 ~ 睂.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
1) At the time of reviewing ExtF, KR did not apply Korea Normalization rules.
. Initially suggested KR glyph of U+2D5D9 was nearly the same as UK-20468 (shown below).
. During IRG discussion, IRG asked KR to modify the glyph to look as the evidence and that glyph is shown in U+2D5D9.
. Note. KR started apllying Korea Norm. Rules with ExtG.



2) KR wants to keep the current glyph of U+2D5D9.

3) KR suggests to disunify UK-20468 from U+2D5D9.
. 睂 is an old form of 眉.
. When the old form and modern form are much different, in many cases, two were separately encoded.
. Other examples: 㪅 - 更; 攷- 考; 叜- 叟
00764
00764
囗 31.3
6 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20835
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
U+211AE
Here are some evidences of 𡆮:


康熙字典(清內府刊本)丑集備考 folio 9b


五音篇海(明正德刊本)卷14 folio 4b

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

From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
U+211AE
Agree with Andrew's opinion. U+211AE provides a good example that authoritative dictionaries are not Bible, the mistakes existing in them should be replaced by other sources.
According to Professor YANG BaoZhong's textual research, ⿴囗土 and 磣\墋 are variants(heterogeneous characters), which still used in Northeast dialect of China.


So China would like to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土, and change the reference to 陝西通志.
03525
03525
艸 140.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20848
Unification
BAI Yi
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]

(汉语方言大字典 page 5293). misprint of 𬝋.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
U+2C74B
Agree to unify to 𬝋 (U+2C74B).
01087
01087
尸 44.5
8 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20862
Unification
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
U+5C40
The pronunciation shown on the evidence indicates that it is unifiable to 局.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The following comment is from the scholar Kin Tin Shek who lived in Hong Kong SAR.

“The source says this is a variant of 局 (U+5C40), but in Canton/Hong Kong the usage is different - ⿸尸可 is a variant of 屙 (to defecate), thus not unifiable with 局 (U+5C40).”

I agree with him, and please see the new evidence on #8904.
01719
01719
日 72.15
19 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20886
𡼙
UCV
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Here are some evidences of ⿰日𦻏:


臨汾縣志(清乾隆刊本)卷7 folio 15


貴州通志(清乾隆刊本)卷8 folio 8 (⿰日𦻏/⿰目𦻏);

⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙.
00486
00486
口 30.7
10 · ㇠ (5)
UTC-00332
𥁀
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Withdraw.
01514
01514
手 64.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
UTC-00459
𡨴
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+22D15
unify to 𢴕 (U+22D15)

For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.


▲ 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,2017.05,p. 277

This character was also used in the 庚辰本 of “A Dream of Red Mansions” (《紅樓夢》).


▲ 曹雪芹,無名氏,脂硯齋:《脂硯齋重評石頭記》,庚辰本,第八回

Other form was used in the other version in the same position.


▲ 曹雪芹,無名氏:《紅樓夢》,萃文書屋木活字本,第八回

The above evidence is not clear enough, and we check the same character in other position of the same version as below.


▲ 曹雪芹,無名氏:《紅樓夢》,萃文書屋木活字本,第二十八回

It is U+22D15 𢴕 in the above evidence.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
U+22D15
Agree to unify with 𢴕 (U+22D15).
03319
03319
色 139.12
18 · ㇑ (2)
UTC-00738
𣊔
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+4490
unify to 䒐 (U+4490)

Agree with Lee and Andrew, but there is no need to add any new UCV rule.

BTW, I do not think 䒐䒏 is a proper word form for the Cantonese word mang2zang2, but so many people and scholars use this form.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Withdraw.
02122
02122
水 85.16
19 · ㇔ (4)
UTC-03179
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
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).
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
Here is a clearer image of the evidence above.



Also, a near-identical form appears in the 1948 edition.



And this character also appears in CNS 11643.
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=739952
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Further discussion is necessary.
00785
00785
土 32.2
5 · ㇠ (5)
UTC-03190
𰆊
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Further discussion is necessary.
00397
00397
卩 26.11
13 · ㇒ (3)
UTC-03191
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Further discussion is necessary.
04223
04223
門 169.7
15 · ㇐ (1)
UTC-03192
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Withdraw.
00578
00578
口 30.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
UTC-03216
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2BAD5
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.
00150
人 9.7
9 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08559
𢌜
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Unified&Withdrawn
No change, IRG 58.
Unified to 侹 U+4FB9, add a new UCV rule of 廷 and 𢌜, IRG 57.
01465
手 64.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08486
𢌜
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Unified&Withdrawn
Unified to 挺 U+633A, add a new UCV rule of 廷 and 𢌜, IRG 57.
01466
手 64.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
TC-487C
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Unified&Withdrawn
Unified to 挺 U+633A, add a new UCV rule of 廷 and 𢌜, IRG 57.
02476
玉 96.7
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06673
𢌜
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Unified&Withdrawn
Unified to 珽 U+73FD, IRG 58.
02285
02285
父 88.5
9 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0BD9
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
U+2209E
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
The T-source character for U+2209E seems to be a variant of 希 xī, so not cognate with the Vietnam character ⿱父布. Therefore unification is not appropriate. Suggest to keep this character in WS2021, and remove the V-source reference (VN-2209E) from U+2209E.
01535
01535
手 64.12
16 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F18A1
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
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
Andrew WEST
UK
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
Andrew WEST
UK
Consider adding UCV for 解~觧. See also TE-3773 (⿱觧虫) and SAT-06249 (⿱觧心).
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Vietnam prefers to keep VN-F0547 and handle VN-F1B70 with IVS
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Note, comment above assumes that the IRG confirms UCV rule #457. If not, we prefer to keep both.


Attributes

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02878
02878
禾 115.8
13 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00230
𭖔
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 46.0 (山), SC=10, FS=3

See #8763, the RS should follow 嵇.
02750
02750
石 112.5
10 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00261
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
#1, IRGN954AR:
02581
02581
田 102.4
9 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00271
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=5, TC=10
#3, IRGN954AR:
04673
04673
魚' 195'.8
17 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00302
Residual Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
SC=9.
03365
03365
艸 140.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00319
丿
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Should the IDS be changed from ⿱艹⿲丨丿辛 to ⿱艹⿰&S2-01;辛?
02654
02654
白 106.8
13 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00338
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=5
#25, IRGN954AR:
02941
02941
竹 118.10
16 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00360
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3
00771
00771
囗 31.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00365
IDS
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Update IDS to ⿴囗𰁜, since it is a simplification of 圝.
04626
04626
魚 195.11
22 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00216
𢛢
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
IDS=〾⿰魚𢛢

The current IDS suggested in #5926 doesn’t match the glyph. And Tao Yang has explained the reason.
01934
01934
魚 195.10
21 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00254
𣪊
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Per Kangxi, the majority of characters with ⿹𣪊X structure by default have X used as the radical, so the second radical 79.0 (殳) is not necessary.
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Including 79.0 as a secondary radical will aid in discoverability.
04574
04574
魚 195.4
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00261
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
IDS=⿰魚天
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
FS=1
04579
04579
魚 195.5
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00262
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IDS=⿰魚卯 if Comment #4214 been accepted.

I support Henry's comment.
04606
04606
魚 195.9
20 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00280
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
The FS of 亟 (U+4E9F) is 1. Please confirm.
04510
04510
鳥 196.10
21 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00299
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 196.0 鳥, remove secondary radical 187.0 馬.
01408
01408
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00318
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical R=196.0 (鳥), remove secondary radical R(2)=61.0 (心).
02824
02824
鳥 196.13
24 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00336
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 196.0 (鳥), remove secondary radical 112.0 (石).
04783
04783
鳥 196.14
25 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00349
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿰截鳥
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
IDC⿰ cannot be shown normaly, please confirm.
02153
02153
鳥 196.14
25 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00353
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
There should be no second radical as per Kangxi the character 鸂 which is a type of waterfowl has radical 鳥.
04184
04184
鳥 196.12
23 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00363
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 196.0 鳥, remove secondary radical 167.0 金.
04709
04709
鳥 196.7
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00365
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1 or 3?
04283
04283
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00368
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 196.0 鳥, remove secondary radical 170.0 阜.
01587
01587
手 64.16
19 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00370
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change Radical to 196.0 (鳥), SC=8, FS=1 per Eiso's 2021-05-31 comments?
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Ken.
03565
03565
虫 142.8
14 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00400
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=9, TC=15
#3, IRGN2221:
01050
01050
虫 142.8
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00408
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep R=142.0 (虫), remove second radical R(2)=40.0 (宀).
03579
03579
虫 142.10
16 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00433
𤭃
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=11, TC=17
#12, IRGN2221:
03550
03550
虫 142.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00439
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
03647
03647
虫 142.14
20 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00449
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS =2
#36, IRGN954AR:
03522
03522
虫 142.6
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00465
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=7, TC= 13
#17, IRGN2221:
03551
03551
虫 142.9
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00469
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
04146
04146
金 167.11
19 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00506
IDS
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
⿰鍏刂
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It's not better to update the IDS to ⿰鍏刂 because of the semantics based on the evidences. Please keep ⿲金韋刂.
04187
04187
金 167.15
23 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00526
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
Should it belong to 69.0 斤 or 167.0 金?
02449
02449
犬 94.15
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00581
Residual Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
16
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
19
02831
02831
示 113.4
8 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00624
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=9
#31, IRGN954AR:
01793
01793
木 75.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00635
IDS
Henry CHAN
Individual
Per IRGN1183 Revised IDS decomposition principles, the IDS should be reverted to ⿲木犬木:
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Henry.
03191
03191
耳 128.2
8 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00727
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Given that the glyph has been updated, the IDS should be changed to ⿰耳𡿨 as suggested.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+21FE8

The kTotalStrokes value for 𡿨 U+21FE8 is 1, but the glyph on the evidence shows the SC should be 2 as the current value. Maybe the IDS should be ⿰耳⿱丿丶.

The glyph on the evidence looks like the following.
02845
02845
示 113.9
13 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00745
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=14
#31, IRGN954AR:
02850
02850
示 113.11
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00746
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=16
#31, IRGN954AR:
04682
04682
魚' 195'.12
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00757
Residual Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
SC=10.
Total Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
SC=10.
01935
01935
目 109.4
9 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00775
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 109.0 目 only, remove secondary radical 81.0 比.
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Keeping 109.0 as a secondary radical will aid in discoverability.
03436
03436
艸 140.14
18 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00778
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
02626
02626
疒 104.10
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00798
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2, SC=11, TC=16
#36, IRGN954AR:
02128
02128
水 85.17
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00856
Residual Stroke Count
Andrew WEST
UK
SC=16
Total Stroke Count
Andrew WEST
UK
TS=19
02746
02746
石 112.5
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00884
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Given that the glyph has been updated, the IDS should be changed from ⿰石⿱一帀 to ⿰石市.
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
FS=4
00447
00447
口 30.5
8 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00910
IDS
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
⿰口⿱𠘧口
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The current IDS is OK, there is no need to change.
03693
03693
行 144.14
20 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00914
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=15, TC=21
#31c, IRGN2221:
03687
03687
行 144.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00915
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=12, TC=18
#35, IRGN2221:
03694
03694
行 144.14
20 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00920
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
The IDS is yet to be changed from ⿲彳綠亍 to ⿲彳绿亍.
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Given that the glyph has been updated, SC=11, TC=17.
03677
03677
行 144.4
10 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00928
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=5
#25, IRGN954AR:
02841
02841
示 113.8
12 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00937
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=13
#31, IRGN954AR:
02551
02551
瓦 98.7
11 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00947
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=12
#12, IRGN2221:
02545
02545
瓦 98.3
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00948
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=8
#12, IRGN2221:
02569
02569
生 100.6
11 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00952
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
The IDS is yet to be updated from ⿰生亞 to ⿰生亚
00640
00640
口 30.13
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00956
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=4
02039
02039
水 85.9
13 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00957
𠫴
IDS
Henry CHAN
Individual
The IDS should be reverted to ⿰法少 because the character is composed of 法 + 少.
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
00113
00113
口 30.4
7 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00962
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=4
03372
03372
艸 140.9
13 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00978
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Alternative IDS for consideration: ⿱艹架
03743
03743
見 147.14
21 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00995
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
02555
02555
瓦 98.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00997
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=16
#12, IRGN2221:
04555
04555
鬼 194.6
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00998
UK-20785
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1



▲ IRGN954AR
04567
04567
鬼 194.12
22 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-01004
UK-20788
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
04117
04117
金' 167'.10
15 · ㇒ (3)
GXM-00433
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
01732
01732
肉 130.5
9 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-0092201
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 130.0 肉 only, remove secondary radical 74.0 月.
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Henry.
00727
00727
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-0252103
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical R=196.0 (鳥), remove second radical R(2)=30.0 (口).
01746
01746
肉 130.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-0381205
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Remove secondary radical.
03895
03895
足 157.10
17 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-1101103
𧾷
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
01753
01753
肉 130.12
16 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-1152104
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Remove secondary radical.
01748
01748
肉 130.10
14 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-1221201
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Remove secondary radical.
01741
01741
肉 130.8
12 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-1442201
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Secondary radical should be removed.
01620
01620
牙 92.4
8 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-1521506
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical R=92.0 (牙), remove secondary radical R(2)=67.0 (文).
03899
03899
足 157.11
18 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-1622410
𧾷
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
Maybe change Radical to 195.0 (魚), SC=7, FS=2?
02376
02376
犬 94.8
11 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-1691202
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The glyph and IDS should be changed to ⿰犭𮌈.
U+2E308 𮌈
01735
01735
肉 130.6
9 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-2081109
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 130.0 肉 only, remove secondary radical 74.0 月.
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Henry.
02590
02590
田 102.8
13 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-2141206
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=5
#12, IRGN954AR:
03376
03376
艸 140.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-2232101
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
If the missing dot is added to the 救 component, SC=11, TC=15.
01736
01736
肉 130.6
10 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-2382307
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 130.0 肉 only, remove secondary radical 74.0 月.
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Henry.
03160
03160
羊 123.8
14 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-2471202
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Change FS to 1.
01024
01024
子 39.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-2702102
FS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
FS=4
00419
00419
又 29.7
8 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-2902802
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=4
00398
00398
厂 27.6
8 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-3231202
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3
02996
02996
米 119.2
8 · ㇠ (5)
GZ-3252405
Radical
HKSAR
Hong Kong
As the character means a sharp knife as shown in the evidence, should the radical be changed to 18.0 刀?
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
If radical = 18.0 刀, FS=4, SC=6
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with HKSAR. #7647
02920
02920
立 117.18
23 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-3321510
IDS
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change IDS from ⿰亲墓 to ⿰亲暮.
01749
01749
肉 130.10
14 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-3461207
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Remove secondary radical.
04940
04940
鼻 209.10
24 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-3511102
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=5
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=5
01733
01733
肉 130.6
10 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-3781201
FS
Henry CHAN
Individual
FS=2
03595
03595
虫 142.10
20 · ㇠ (5)
GZ-3852202
Residual Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
SC=14
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=14
02740
02740
石 112.4
9 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-4232407
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
#23, IRGN1105:
02990
02990
竹 118.18
26 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-4402601
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=20
04030
04030
酉 164.7
14 · ㇔ (4)
GZ-4622501
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
00071
00071
乙 5.7
8 · ㇠ (5)
KC-00043
IDS
BAI Yi
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿸尾乙 describes the glyph better.
IDS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will modify the glyph to match the original IDS.
00085
00085
乙 5.11
13 · ㇐ (1)
KC-00081
Total Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TS=12
Total Stroke Count
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR does not agree to change TS=12. Keep TS=11. The middle component has 6 strokes. See U+7D2F below.
00732
00732
口 30.17
20 · ㇔ (4)
KC-00568
IDS
Kushim JIANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to evidence, ⿸廣叱 would be better.
00180
00180
人 9.10
12 · ㇐ (1)
KC-04818
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
With normalization, IDS should be ⿰亻卨
IDS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Since KR already proposed to change glyph ( ⿰亻卨), KR will also change IDS accordingly.
01162
01162
山 46.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
KC-05014
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
D10-01 in IRGN2225 maybe can applied to this issue.
IDS can be ⿱ D10-01山, instead of ⿳亠⿲刀丫?山, which contain a question mark "?".
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Consider using ⿱&D10-01;山
IDS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR would rather keep the current IDS.
01338
01338
心 61.8
12 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05079
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿱𢼄心
IDS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
IDS is not necessarily unique.
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
02469
02469
玉 96.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05376
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
#76, IRGN954AR
FS
ROK
KR agrees to chagne FS to 4.
02482
02482
玉 96.8
13 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05388
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿱𢼄玉
IDS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
IDS is not necessarily unique.
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
#76, IRGN954AR
FS
ROK
KR agrees to chagne FS to 4.
04169
04169
金 167.13
21 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05828
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=5
FS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR does not agree.
FS
WANG Yifan
SAT
For the indexing purpose, 彙 should be FS=5.
But the glyph has undergone normalization. May need discussion about this case.
FS
ROK
KR does not agree.
In KR, left-to-bottom (NOT top-to-right) stroke is written first in the right top component.
04489
04489
香 186.9
18 · ㇒ (3)
KC-07352
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
FS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR does not agree.
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Does ROK mean the first stroke of 咸 is 3 (撇) in the ROK conventions?
FS
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR agrees to chagne FS=1.
03773
03773
言 149.8
15 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04274
𠮷
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
03030
03030
米 119.11
17 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04276
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
02964
02964
竹 118.12
18 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-04392
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=13, TC=19
#11, IRGN2221:
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
#56, IRGN954AR:
03774
03774
言 149.8
15 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04579
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
04265
04265
阜 170.8
11 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-04584
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
04523
04523
骨 188.6
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-04597
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 139.0 (色), SC=10, FS=2

According to the evidence, the best radical should be 色 not 骨.
04941
04941
齊 210.4
16 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04670
&D10-01;丿
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Two horizontal strokes for the outside component 齊 is missing in this character, so, is it OK to use 齊 as the radical? If yes, the RS values for this character and 齌 are the same, but the TS values are different, that looks not better; if not, I suggest using 火 86.0 as the radical, and SC=12, and keep FS without change.
02693
02693
目 109.7
12 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05057
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
03491
03491
虍 141.2
8 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05654
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
03071
03071
糸 120.7
13 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05666
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
01252
01252
广 53.4
7 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-05684
广廿
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1.
01931
01931
殳 79.7
11 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05865
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
⿰⿱⿷匚二几殳
03806
03806
豸 153.5
12 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06072
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
02630
02630
疒 104.12
17 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06241
𤰅
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
03219
03219
肉 130.3
9 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06374
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Change FS to 1.
01254
01254
广 53.5
8 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06420
广
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1.
03123
03123
糸 120.15
21 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-06436
𦋺
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
01421
01421
火 86.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06465
𤆰
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 86.0 (火), remove secondary radical R(2)=62.0 (戈).
01094
01094
尸 44.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06471
𠂕
IDS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
IDS=⿸尸⿱氺𠂕(.);⿸尸⿱⿲二丨二𠂕(T)
03282
03282
臼 134.3
10 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06505
&P10-01;
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Alternative IDS for consideration: ⿳𦥑一八
03851
03851
走 156.4
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06508
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3
02345
02345
犬 94.5
8 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06646
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿰犭⿱大刀
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Per comment #1643, change IDS to ⿰犭⿱大刀.
01258
01258
广 53.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06647
广
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3.
02287
02287
爿 90.2
6 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06795
IDS
BAI Yi
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿰爿𠤎
02673
02673
皿 108.6
11 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06800
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
SC=5 and TS=10

See #8153
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew’s comment on IDS change. #8232 I withdraw my comment on #8154.
04024
04024
酉 164.5
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06822
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
01047
01047
宀 40.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06842
Residual Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
SC=10
Total Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
TS=13
FS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
FS=1
02881
02881
禾 115.10
15 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06845
𥝸
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#59, IRGN954AR:
01270
01270
广 53.20
23 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06884
广
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3.
01037
01037
宀 40.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06967
IDS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
IDS=⿱宀⿻丅龷
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
IDS might be ⿱宀⿻干艹.
03607
03607
虫 142.11
17 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-07153
巿
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The SC value of 11 suggests that the upper-right component is 市 (⿱亠巾), but the IDS uses 巿 (⿻一巾). Change IDS to ⿱⿰臣市虫?
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS =1
#33, IRGN954AR:
04229
04229
門 169.8
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08310
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1
03098
03098
糸 120.12
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08353
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=13, TC=19
#36, IRGN954AR:
03945
03945
車 159.9
16 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-08372
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿱⿲幺車幺⿺𠃊㐅
02243
02243
火 86.13
17 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-08382
𮘎
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
⿱⿲幺言幺灬
01715
01715
日 72.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08386
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
⿰日⿻𰰜⿱从丛
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
SC=15, FS=2, TS=19
01947
01947
毛 82.7
11 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-08488
IDS
BAI Yi
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿱⿰己殳手
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
We prefer the current one.
02083
02083
水 85.12
15 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08498
Residual Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
13
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
16
01802
01802
木 75.9
13 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08553
Residual Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change SC to 10.
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change TC to 14.
03172
03172
羽 124.8
14 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08561
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=7, TC=13
#18, IRGN2221:
01504
01504
手 64.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08577
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
If the current glyph is kept, the IDS should be 〾⿰扌莎
02901
02901
穴 116.8
13 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-08609
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
#58, IRGN954AR:
03368
03368
艸 140.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08693
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change IDS to ⿱艹⿷見厶.
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Should the IDS be changed from ⿺莧厶 to ⿱艹⿷見厶 or ⿷莧厶?
01233
01233
巾 50.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08700
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1.
03391
03391
艸 140.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08830
𧆨
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change TC to 15.
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=15
01261
01261
广 53.10
13 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08895
广𭮀
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add the secondary radical as 61.0 心 if my comment #6747 is right. And then, SC=9, FS=4.
03216
03216
耳 128.15
21 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-08942
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
03601
03601
虫 142.12
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08954
𦯧
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
02674
02674
皿 108.7
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-09012
FS
Henry CHAN
Individual
FS=2 for 艹.
04002
04002
辵 162.18
22 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-09259
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=1
02544
02544
瓜 97.11
17 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-10081
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
If the left component is 虛 (U+865B) as shown in Evidence 1 (though it looks like 虚 (U+865A) in Evidence 2), the IDS should be changed from ⿰虚瓜 to ⿰虛瓜.
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
If the left component is 虛 (U+865B) as shown in Evidence 1, SC=12
03841
03841
貝 154.18
25 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-10196
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
03387
03387
艸 140.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7658
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=13
02181
02181
火 86.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
T9-783E
IDS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IDS should be changed to ⿰火肜; 〾 is not needed as 肜 can be both ⿰月彡 and ⿰⺼彡. Plus there is UCV rule 53.
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Per the Version 2.0 comment, the IDS should be changed to ⿰火肜 (no need to prefix with 〾).
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree. IDS=⿰火肜
04498
04498
馬 187.6
16 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7A76
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
According to CNS11643, the pronunciation is mǎ.
Change Radical to 31.0 (囗), SC=13, FS=1

Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Keep Radical as 187.0 馬.
03381
03381
艸 140.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7C3F
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=12
02888
02888
禾 115.12
17 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7C5F
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Should the IDS be changed from 〾⿰禾巽to ⿰禾巽?
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change the IDS=⿰禾巽.
03458
03458
艸 140.15
21 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7C7C
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=17
02210
02210
火 86.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7D53
𤇾
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 94.0 (犬)

SC and FS should be kept.

The radicals of ⿱𤇾X should be the bottom component.

U+52DE

U+584B

U+5AC8

U+5D64

U+69AE

U+6ABE

U+6ECE
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 94.0 (犬).
00375
00375
十 24.7
9 · ㇒ (3)
TC-3051
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=4
01770
01770
木 75.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
TC-3452
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 88.0 (父), SC=4 (no change), FS=1

If the reading is mù provided by TCA, the better radical should be 父 not 木.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 88.0 (父).
03956
03956
辰 161.2
9 · ㇒ (3)
TC-4254
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
Any idea about this 字理?
Maybe Change Radical to 4.0 (丿), SC=8, FS=1 ?
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The radical of "九" is 5.0乙. Since R5.0(乙) is not an obvious radical, the radical should remain as 161.0 辰. Same as WS2021-04498:T9-7A76.
01737
01737
月 74.6
10 · ㇒ (3)
TC-4A25
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
Could Lee or Eiso confirm that VN-F195D uses R74 'moon' radical?
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The meaning of this character based on the Vietnamese use means "the light shines, the sky is bright" (general meaning). So I think the radical must be R74.
03278
03278
至 133.4
10 · ㇑ (2)
TC-4F45
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 42.0 (小), SC=7, FS=1

The reading provided by TCA is zhì, so it is better to choose the radical of 少 as the radical.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 42.0 (小).
04009
04009
邑 163.3
6 · ㇠ (5)
TC-766C
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IDS should be ⿰孑阝

The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Keep ⿰子阝, like U+273C4, U+2EB2A.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
At least, this case is different from U+273C4 𧏄. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the left part is the real 子. So, it’s OK to use 子 as the left component in the IDS.

For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.

According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
FYI: We suspect that U+2EB2A 𮬪 is a malformed glyph of 鳩 in the SAT context.
03456
03456
艸 140.15
21 · ㇑ (2)
TC-7C61
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=17
02548
02548
瓦 98.6
11 · ㇒ (3)
TC-7D38
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=7, TC=12
01790
01790
木 75.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
TC-7E60
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change IDS to ⿲木彡木, because the first and third components are the same.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add the secondary radical as 59.0 (彡), SC=8, FS=1 based on the new evidence under #5339.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change IDS to ⿲木彡木.
02849
02849
示 113.11
16 · ㇐ (1)
TD-612B
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=12, TC=17
#17, IRGN2221:
04487
04487
香 186.6
15 · ㇐ (1)
TD-665D
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 135.0 (舌), SC=9, FS=3

The pronunciation is xiāng.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 135.0 (舌).
03397
03397
艸 140.11
15 · ㇔ (4)
TD-7E22
𣶬
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=12, TC=16
#25, IRGN2221:
01392
01392
心 61.13
17 · ㇔ (4)
TE-2562
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 130.0 (肉).

The pronunciation is sī provided by TCA, so the semantic element should be 育.
02948
02948
竹 118.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
TE-2655
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=12, TC=18
#17, IRGN2221:
03083
03083
糸 120.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
TE-2725
𧆠
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Given that the glyph has been updated, SC=11, TC=17.
The IDS should be changed from ⿰糹𧆠 to ⿰糹虖.
02250
02250
火 86.14
18 · ㇔ (4)
TE-2D68
𤇾𡬠
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 41.0 (寸), SC=15

FS should be kept as-is.

See WS2021-02210:T9-7D53
02210
火 86.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7D53
𤇾
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 41.0.
03437
03437
艸 140.14
18 · ㇑ (2)
TE-2F7C
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹閣. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹閣 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹閣 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝閣 the primary IDS and ⿱艹閣(or 〾⿱艹閣) as the secondary IDS.
03450
03450
艸 140.14
18 · ㇠ (5)
TE-3024
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹綾. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹綾 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹綾 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝綾 the primary IDS and ⿱艹綾(or 〾⿱艹綾) as the secondary IDS.
03440
03440
艸 140.14
18 · ㇒ (3)
TE-302C
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹毓. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹毓 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹毓 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝毓 the primary IDS and ⿱艹毓(or 〾⿱艹毓) as the secondary IDS.
03441
03441
艸 140.14
18 · ㇒ (3)
TE-302D
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹𥠺. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹𥠺 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV #152 & #320, ⿱艹𥠺 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝⿰禾昷 the primary IDS and 〾⿱艹𥠺 as the secondary IDS.
03445
03445
艸 140.14
18 · ㇔ (4)
TE-3048
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹旗. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹旗 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹旗 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝旗 the primary IDS and ⿱艹旗(or 〾⿱艹旗) as the secondary IDS.
02862
02862
示 113.15
20 · ㇔ (4)
TE-3828
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Should the IDS be changed from 〾⿰礻蔑 to ⿰礻蔑?
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree. IDS=⿰礻蔑
02892
02892
禾 115.14
19 · ㇑ (2)
TE-3A42
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 196.0 (鳥), SC=8, FS=3

The reading is hé. If the radical is 禾, it looks the better reading is related to míng.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 196.0 (鳥).
00963
00963
大 37.13
16 · ㇔ (4)
TE-7141
𦥯
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3
02893
02893
禾 115.14
19 · ㇠ (5)
TE-7865
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=16, TC=21
#32, IRGN2221:
02978
02978
竹 118.14
20 · ㇠ (5)
TE-7A49
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=16, TC=22
#32, IRGN2221:
03742
03742
見 147.14
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-7B35
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
Change Radical to 128.0 (耳), SC=15, FS=2
supposed from the pronunciation.
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to change Radical to 128.0 (耳).
04049
04049
田 102.17
22 · ㇒ (3)
TE-7B76
Radical
Henry CHAN
Individual
Keep primary radical 102.0 田, remove secondary radical 165.0 釆.
04020
04020
邑 163.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
UK-10803
IDS
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Based on the 魏書 evidences, I think we should encode ⿰⿱旦來阝 instead, with ⿰⿱日來阝 being a unifiable variant of ⿰⿱旦來阝.

Change IDS to ⿰⿱旦來阝and update the glyph accordingly.
03799
03799
豆 151.9
16 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20024
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=4 According to IRGN954AR.
01106
01106
山 46.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20038
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3.
02580
02580
田 102.3
8 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20046
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=5
00810
00810
土 32.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20059
𣲆
IDS
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Based on the evidences mentioned above. I think we should encode ⿱氾土, with ⿱𣲆土 and ⿱汜土 being its variants.

The original has ~銅爲之, ⿱氾土 is likely a variant of 笵. 「範銅爲之」appears in 清史稿:

Attached PDF file

清史稿(1942) pp. 211

change IDS to ⿱氾土 and update the glyph accordingly.
02499
02499
玉 96.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20113
Residual Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The glyph and IDS shown are for 宫, which TC=9. SC=10, is this a conscious normalization of the stroke count, or should it be SC=9?
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=9, TC=13
Residual Stroke Count
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
04885
04885
麥 199.5
16 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20183
SAT-09217
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
02512
02512
玉 96.12
16 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20196
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
03900
03900
足 157.11
18 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20221
𧾷
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=4 according to IRGN954AR.
01829
01829
木 75.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20223
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change IDS to ⿲木豆木, because the first and third components are the same.
01752
01752
月 74.11
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20238
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
Keep R74 'moon'
04417
04417
頁 181.10
19 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20410
𠂤
FS
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3
02709
02709
目 109.12
17 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20411
𣈆
IDS
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change IDS to ⿰目晉 per new evidence and the new UCV 晉/𣈆 discussed in IRG #58, update the glyph accordingly.
01110
01110
山 46.4
7 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20417
FS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2.
02539
02539
玉 96.20
24 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20450
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
01760
01760
月 74.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20488
UTC-03203
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change Radical to 130.0 (肉), SC=14, FS=1
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
Agree to change to R130 'meat'
01988
01988
水 85.1
5 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20514
𰛅
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
⿻水丨
03048
03048
米 119.23
29 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20533
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=5
#72, IRGN954AR:
03247
03247
肉 130.10
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20535
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
00142
00142
人 9.6
8 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20541
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Given the meaning, it is highly probable that the structure is meant to be ⿰亻⿱𠤎天 (i.e. ⿸化天)
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
According to the new evidence, it is now clearer that IDS should be ⿰亻⿱𠤎天 or ⿸化天.
00935
00935
夕 36.3
6 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20567
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Given the glyph based on comment #4927, ⿹⺄⿺𠃊夕?
01799
01799
木 75.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20573
𠃛𠃛
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
〾⿲木𠃛𠃛
04654
04654
魚 195.15
26 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20591
Residual Stroke Count
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=14 as there is 龷, which isn't 廿, in the first piece of evidence and the glyph.
Total Stroke Count
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TS=25
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
All 廣 components (with 黃 or 黄) should be counted as 15 in IRG WS to KX. The real glyph shapes and the regional conventions are not important for the stroke counts. The SC and TS should be kept as the submitted ones.
Total Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please see #4105.
02737
02737
石 112.4
9 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20611
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
03154
03154
羊 123.7
13 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20618
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
01114
01114
山 46.5
8 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20626
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
⿱山冊.
03047
03047
米 119.18
24 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20828
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
04471
04471
食' 184'.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20859
IDS
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I agree with Eddie that ⿰饣穸 is an error form, 穸 and 𡨝 is non-cognate.



▲ 汉字海(华语教学出版社, 2018) pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.

汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.

I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.

U+2972F
02588
02588
田 102.7
12 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20909
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=3
#21, IRGN954AR:
02111
02111
水 85.15
18 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20910
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3
02863
02863
示 113.16
21 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20944
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
#67, IRGN954AR:
02847
02847
示 113.9
13 · ㇠ (5)
UTC-03173
𫨻
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=14
#31, IRGN954AR:
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with HKSAR
01212
01212
工 48.9
11 · ㇠ (5)
V4-4725
Total Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TC=12.
02566
02566
生 100.5
10 · ㇔ (4)
V4-4E2B
Total Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
TS=11

According to IRGN954AR #13, the left part of 礼 is counted as 5 strokes:
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=6, TC=11
#31, IRGN954AR:
03285
03285
臼 134.13
19 · ㇒ (3)
V4-525E
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Change FS to 2
03389
03389
艸 140.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
V4-532B
𫇰
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Change FS to 2.
00086
00086
乙 5.11
12 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0013
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2 is correct
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
00104
00104
二 7.8
10 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F0019
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3 according to IRGN954AR

FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=3 according to IRGN954AR
00153
00153
人 9.7
9 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F0026
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1 or 4
00556
00556
口 30.10
13 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F00AA
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=5
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree FS=5
02866
02866
禸 114.17
21 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F0167
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4, TC=22
#11, IRGN2221:
01269
01269
广 53.14
17 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F0191
广
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿸广⿱殸夊 will be better

This character is the variant of 慶, and the bottom of 慶 is 夊 not 夂.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I think the IDS should be keep as ⿸广⿱殸夂 based on the glyph.
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with #1531.
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
Agree with #1531.
01365
01365
心 61.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F01CC
𭁈𰀁
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
Change IDS to ⿰忄𱑏 once Unicode 15.0 is released.
02137
02137
水 85.18
21 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0304
IDS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IDS should be changed to ⿰氵𧢄.
IDS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Not opposed to changing IDS, but it's not clear what the benefit is. The current IDS, 漂見, follows the analysis of the dictionary compiler, as he notes "(phiêu kiến)". Historically, 漂 was used first alone, then the component 見 was added to distinguish it.
02304
02304
牙 92.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F033B
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
SC=8
02645
02645
疒 104.15
20 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F038F
广
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿸疒廠
IDS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Evidence shows 欠 on the right side of 尚, so ⿸疒廠 is not an accurate IDS
02649
02649
癶 105.2
7 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F0392
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
#13, IRGN954AR:
02688
02688
目 109.4
9 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F03A0
𫜵
IDS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Agree to change of IDS.
02834
02834
示 113.7
11 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F03DF
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=12
#31, IRGN954AR:
03238
03238
肉 130.8
12 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F04AB
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR:
03874
03874
足 157.4
11 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F0577
𧾷
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
SC=5, TS=12.
以 is counted as 5 strokes by Kangxi.
Residual Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Agree with Henry, I thought we were following Kangxi.
04043
04043
酉 164.21
28 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F05BC
𧃲
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
04703
04703
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0694
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=4
04779
04779
鳥 196.13
24 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F06AE
Residual Stroke Count
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=12, TS=23
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The SC should be counted as 粵 U+7CB5 not 粤 U+7CA4, so keep the current data for SC and TS.
02042
02042
水 85.9
12 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F0732
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
00530
00530
口 30.9
13 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F077D
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Might be ⿰口⿷匚⿱口田?
01074
01074
小 42.5
8 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F0B84
Residual Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=4.
Residual Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to the Unihan data, 巴 is 4 strokes and 少 is the radical 42 with 1 residual stroke, so it seems that SC=5 is correct.
03068
03068
糸 120.7
13 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F0B89
IDS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
IDS would change to ⿰糹别
03576
03576
虫 142.9
15 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F0B9E
𤇮
Residual Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
SC=8
Total Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
TS=14
00036
00036
丿 4.11
12 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F0BE9
𠂊丿𰀁
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Suggest alternatively ⿳⺈𠔿𠂡
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Suggest IDS change to ⿳⺈囚⿲丿𰀁㇂.
02604
02604
疒 104.4
9 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F0CFD
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change IDS to ⿸疒內.
02984
02984
竹 118.16
22 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F15FE
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
04385
04385
非 175.5
13 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1638
Radical
WANG Yifan
SAT
Suggest secondary radical 1.0 (一), SC=12, FS=1
00130
00130
人 9.2
4 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F163D
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=3 according to IRGN954AR

00339
00339
力 19.10
12 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F169D
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=2
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree, FS=2
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
FS=2
01079
01079
小 42.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F16AB
Residual Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=8.
03296
03296
舛 136.4
10 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F17AF
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS should be 3
01221
01221
己 49.13
16 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F1828
Residual Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=10.
Total Stroke Count
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TC=13.
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
爲 and 為 are unifiable, and they should be counted as 爲 for SC. There is no need to change.
01329
01329
心 61.6
10 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F1871
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
I'm fine with changing the radical to 女, which seems more natural, but note that 女 is phonetic and 忍 is semantic, so by current IRG rules, it has to be 61 in 忍.
01249
01249
幺 52.16
19 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F187B
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
Change IDS to ⿰𱥯幾 once Unicode 15.0 has been published.
02572
02572
生 100.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F1902
𦉼
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=8
01809
01809
木 75.9
13 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1987
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
04438
04438
風' 182'.8
12 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1992
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=1
02031
02031
水 85.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F19B9
IDS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Could the IDS be ⿲氵扌⿻冖丸 despite the position of the dot?
02546
02546
瓦 98.4
9 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1A29
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=2
02635
02635
疒 104.12
17 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1A40
Residual Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
SC=13, TC=18
#29, IRGN2221:
02610
02610
疒 104.6
11 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1A4C
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
02679
02679
皿 108.10
15 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1A5C
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
盗 and 盜 are unifiable, it may be better to count by 盜 per Kangxi for consistency. In that case, SC=11, TS=16.
02683
02683
皿 108.19
24 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1A5D
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
盗 and 盜 are unifiable, it may be better to count by 盜 per Kangxi for consistency. In that case, SC=20, TS=25.
02716
02716
目 109.13
18 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1A62
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
03096
03096
糸 120.11
17 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F1ABE
𤴔
IDS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
Should the IDS be changed from ⿰糹⿰𤴔吏 to ⿲糹𤴔吏?
03066
03066
糸 120.7
13 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1AD0
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS should be 5
03114
03114
糸 120.13
19 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F1AD7
IDS
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change IDS to ⿰糹𦁀.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It's better to keep the current IDS because of the rationale, which the semantic element is 絲 and the phonetic element is 貝.

If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
01065
01065
宀 40.22
25 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1AE9
Residual Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
SC=21. There is no dot inside 者.
Total Stroke Count
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
TS=24
03215
03215
耳 128.15
19 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F1AF9
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=21
03230
03230
肉 130.6
12 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1AFE
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=1
04562
04562
鬼 194.8
18 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1B02
Radical
LI Yuan
SAT
Suggest to change the Radical to 130.0 (肉), SC=14, FS=4.
03413
03413
艸 140.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1B13
Total Stroke Count
HKSAR
Hong Kong
TC=16
#36, IRGN954AR:
03478
03478
艸 140.17
21 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1B34
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
02669
02669
皮 107.12
17 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1B65
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
SC=13, TS=18.

According to IRGN954AR, the left hand side of 補 should be counted as 6 strokes, so SC=13, TS=18.
Residual Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Our original submission was SC=13. Suggest changing back.
03803
03803
牙 92.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1B7E
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
SC=12, TS=16.
04237
04237
門 169.11
19 · ㇑ (2)
VN-F1BD9
𭁈𰀁
IDS
Andrew WEST
UK
Change IDS to ⿰門𱑏 once Unicode 15.0 is released.
01904
01904
欠 76.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
VN-F1BDD
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change Radical to 169.1 (门), SC=11, FS=3
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Note: 169.1 (门) is phonetic, 欲 is semantic, but I agree that it is much more helpful to assign radicals based on form than meaning.
02728
02728
矢 111.12
17 · ㇒ (3)
VN-F1CE4
FS
HKSAR
Hong Kong
FS=4
01278
01278
弋 56.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
VN-F1CFE
Radical
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Change Radical to 126.0 (而), SC=5, FS=1
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
126.0 (而) would be a natural way to look this up and should be an alternate radical. However, the meaning of this character is "two" and 而 is phonetic, so based on IRG rules, the best radical might be 7.0 (二), SC=9, FS=1
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
01017
01017
子 39.5
8 · ㇠ (5)
VN-F1F45
FS
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
FS=1? Unless it is written from right to left


Evidence

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
03506
03506
虫 142.3
9 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00223
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
青岛市地名志 黄岛区分册
02878
02878
禾 115.8
13 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00230
𭖔
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The mountain mentioned in the evidence is located at the junction of what is now Yuelu District (岳麓区), Wangcheng District (望城区) and Ningxiang County (宁乡县), and the main part is in current Jijiashan Village, Yuchangping Town (雨敞坪镇) which is now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and 黄金镇 (also 黄金乡) mentioned in the evidence is disassembled into 黄金园街道, 白马街道 and so on. Jijiashan Village is the geographical name in the evidence related to the submitted character. There is a folk tale that the original name of this mountain is 鸡叫山, and the people changed the name to 嵇家山/嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 (so many forms) because the reading of 鸡 and 嵇 are similar, 叫 and 家/珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 are also similar. This behaviour is called as 地名雅化, but the folk tale is very unbelievable. Current Jijiashan Village uses 嵇家山 as the official county name, because 家 is a common character. This is not a good choice. For the mountain, people use 嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 in the daily life. We can know the phonetic elements of 珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 is 加 easily. For the submitted character, the component 禾 and 山 come from 嵇, and 加 is also the real phonetic element. Therefore, the current glyph is acceptable.

01792
01792
木 75.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00239
𰿖
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Please provide the source for the evidence image (title, publisher, year, page)
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《汉字海》P1008,华语教学出版社
01810
01810
木 75.9
13 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00240
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the source names.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
甘肃省平凉市地名普查资料汇编
甘肃方言土语集
01811
01811
木 75.9
13 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00242
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
For this case, it's reliable enough to encode because it a simplified form of a tranditional character. There is no need to provide a reliable evidence of place name.
01008
01008
女 38.13
16 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00244
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please correct the source name. The evidence is not cited from 《全宋文》.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
吉巷乡 and 卓洋乡 are both in 福建省宁德市古田县.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
福建省地名全册
02065
02065
水 85.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00248
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Add image of web page cited in #5128

01109
01109
山 46.4
7 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00250
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
《湖北省郧县地名志》 will be better as the evidence.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
湖北省郧县地名志,P4
01146
01146
山 46.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00251
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The place mentioned in the evidence should be 山底村.

The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.


▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)


▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)


▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)

The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).


▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China


▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China

So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It may be a stable error. There are different versions of 1958/1964/1966/1971/1980 陕西省公路里程表, I will check some of them. And I suggest we keep it in main set for now.
02744
02744
石 112.5
10 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00258
UTC-03168
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The China submitted evidence is not 《五音集字》. Please confirm the source names.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
浙江省龙游县地名志
02823
02823
石 112.9
14 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00268
𬙔
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the evidence source name.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
易县地名资料汇编
00901
00901
土 32.13
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00293
𤲞
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《江西地名》1996年第2期,江西省地名方言用字读音、含义及区域表,P37

04672
04672
魚' 195'.8
16 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00300
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Where does the only one evidence cite from? 闽侯县地名录 or 福建省地名全册?

Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
福建省地名全册
01038
01038
宀 40.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00312
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It looks the variant of 崁.

The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to comment #6670.
In addition, regarding the content of the evidence, in Taiwan, there is only "崁" in place names, "嵌" is rare, but there is no "⿱宀坎".
According to 陳正祥's statistics quoted in the evidence, the font should be "崁".

陳正祥,《臺灣地名手冊》(臺灣省文獻委員會,1959年),P14.
https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=007_101_000009&lang=chn
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
I suggest China to withdraw the character.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It is included in 《八辅》

And the article doesn't say 赤崁 is written as 赤⿱宀坎 but 赤嵌. As to this article, the anthor just list all characters used as same meaning and then give statement about all of them .
What's more, it's used in Fujian Province too.
03404
03404
艸 140.12
16 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00321
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The village mentioned in the evidence is under current 贵州省黔东南苗族侗族自治州黎平县水口镇. Is it the same place related to WS2017-03819 ⿱茨⿰次次?

[ {{WS2017-03819}} ]


Maybe two place names are both used in the same village, this is OK. I just consider how to add the language tag. If this village is the same the one mentioned in WS2017-03819, that means the name is derived from Kamese 侗语.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It is just the ⿱茨⿰次次洞 as well as the ⿱次⿰次次洞.
03323
03323
艸 140.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00325
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence source is not 《汉字海》, please confirm the real source name.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
宁波市鄞州区地名志
00099
00099
二 7.3
5 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00330
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ Chan Sui Ki 陳瑞祺, 道漢字音. Hong Kong: 道字總社. 1939. Vol. 2. p. 36


▲ 王澤/王家禧:《老夫子·猛鬼庙》
(https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/19775339)
02161
02161
火 86.2
6 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00333
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
It is difficult to preserve such characters in written materials. They are the products of historical times. They only circulate in specific periods and regions, and will disappear with the process of standardization. They were usually used in daily writing, such as slogans, ground or wall drawings, etc. with the change of buildings, the carrier of such characters will also disappear. Documents can preserve this kind of characters occasionally, but the usage of them is difficult to rediscovered.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
In Andrew's opinion, does 《宋元以来俗字谱》seem reliable enough? I don't think the comment is reasonable. Besides, all other corresponding relationships in the evidence is clear and right.
For example,赣 and 㶥
01186
01186
山 46.13
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00343
𤲞
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
江西省广昌县地名志,P226-227

According to the evidence, ⿱山畬 and ⿱山𤲞 has the meaning of 斜坡. They are congnate but have the different meaning of 畬.
In place names, 畬、畲 and 𤲞 can be used as each other. But there are not too many pairs.
As I know,
For radical 土, there are 𰊮(U+302AE), ⿰土畲 and ⿰土𤲞;
For radical 山, there are ⿰山畬、⿰山𤲞、⿱山畬(WS2017)、⿱山𤲞.
However, 𤲞 is also a variant of 番 which means ⿰土𤲞 can be a variant of 墦, ⿰山𤲞 can be a variant of 嶓.
Considering people will more likely to think 余 and ⿱人米 as different characters, I suggest we encode them seperately.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70922
I think here is a case that ⿰土𤲞 is a variant of a 墦 (坟):
00368
00368
十 24.2
4 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00350
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
古今錢略
04314
04314
雨 173.8
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00355
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
This evidence is a little unclear in the bottom part. It'd also look like ⿱雨孔, for example.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
1:50000 map.
02989
02989
竹 118.17
23 · ㇑ (2)
GDM-00358
𨗩
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
As what I wrote for WS2021-02878, the administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The town mentioned in the evidence, 九江乡, now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District (岳麓区) based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and the name was changed to 含浦街道 (the previous name is 含浦镇) , and 学士街道 was also disassembled from 含浦街道. The geographical name related to the submitted character is written as 作肖/作硝/笮筱, and the material show the original name should be 筰筱. (See the entry of 作肖 and 笮筱大屋 on National Database for Geographical Names of China, and 作硝 is used in AMAP/高德地图.) I have not found the picture included the country name used in the country, so I can not confirm which names are proper.

The evidence is clear, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale of the submitted character.
02927
02927
竹 118.6
12 · ㇠ (5)
GDM-00359
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The image is not clear, though the reading "lèi", does suggest the component 厽. Is it possible to get clearer evidence?
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual

The tone could vary in different dialect.
04633
04633
魚 195.11
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00213
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the whole page of this evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Since 中華大典 is not a reliable source, hence I provide a new evidence:



雄乘(明嘉靖刊本)卷上 folio 27b
04628
04628
魚 195.11
22 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00214
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 《通州志》,天一閣藏明萬曆刻本,第四卷

Note that 通州 here means current Nantong City (南通市) in Jiangsu Province, not Tongzhou District in Beijing City.
04587
04587
魚 195.7
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00222
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
丙 and 两 have a close relationship between each other. The paper below discusses etymology and diachronic changes of 丙 and 两. Therefore, ⿰魚两 appearing in Evidence 1 韻經五卷, after 蛃, is reasonable. I don't think we can immediately say ⿰魚两 is an error here.

““丙”与“两”二字形音义关系密切,使用时代互补,皆可证金文“两”为“丙”的分化字,
其量词用法继承自量词“丙””(p.36)
李建平、龙仕平2018 量词“丙”“两”的语源及其历时演变《古汉语研究》2018年03期,pp.32-38.
https://www.cnki.com.cn/article/cjfdtotal-ghyy201803004.htm

《韻經》五卷,成書于嘉靖十七年(1538),張之象編輯。全書正文包含了古韻和今韻兩部分内容,其古韻參照吳械的《韻補》和楊慎的《轉注古音略》,繼承中又有自己的創見,今韻依據詩韻,并結合實際語音,分韻為一百一十六部。
https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10394-1015720357.htm
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
Thanks for demonstration from LI Yuan.
Although ⿰魚两 is obviously the variant of 𩶁, there is no rule for unification of 丙 and 两. As a head character of a dictionary, it has an independent status other from the ones occasionally appear in the text.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Here is another printed version of 韻經:



韻經(明萬曆刊本)卷3 folio 7a

Suggest to move this character in M-set.
04581
04581
魚 195.6
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00223
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is the the variant of 鯁 based on Evidence 1, 鮫 based on Evidence 2.


▲ 張芹:《備遺錄》,豫章叢書


▲ 張芹:《備遺錄》,四庫全書本


▲ 《續文獻通考》,明萬曆刻本,卷二百三十六


▲ 《松江府志》,嘉慶二十二年明倫堂刻本,卷六
04630
04630
魚 195.11
22 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00231
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the whole page of the evidence.
02503
02503
玉 96.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00232
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This poem is 《青草湖即事》, and 四庫全書 gives 魚.



▲ 薛瑄:《敬軒文集》,四庫全書本,卷一
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
文清公薛先生文集 is a compilation of 薛瑄(1389—1464)'s work.

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

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


薛文清公全集(明刊本)卷18 folio 14b


薛文清先生全集(明刊本)卷23 folio 15a (pp38).

I suggest China provide additional evidence to prove that ⿰王魚 is a stable error / used in other texts.
04660
04660
魚 195.17
28 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00236
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The second source should be 《野記》 written by 祝允明 (aka 祝枝山).

He recorded the seafood he had eaten in the Lingnan (嶺南) in this book. Maybe Lingnan here means Guangdong.
04612
04612
魚 195.9
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00238
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
The character circled in Evidence 2 is wrong. The next character is the right one.
04637
04637
魚 195.12
23 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00239
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Under the entry of 鰈 in 《正字通》, the other name of 水晶魚 should be 鱵 which is cited from 《臨海志》. It looks it is a modern type for 鱵.


▲ 張自烈:《正字通》,清畏堂原板,卷十二

Note that 水晶魚 means 銀魚 (salangid) currently, and which is called as 白飯魚 in HKSAR. It is different from 水晶魚 mentioned in 《正字通》.
04659
04659
魚 195.17
28 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00240
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the whole page of the evidence.
04642
04642
魚 195.12
23 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00242
𰕎
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The poem mentioned in the evidence means the 梁太子蕭統’s work 《大言》: “觀脩鯤其若轍鮒,視滄海之如濫觴。經二儀而跼蹐,跨六合以翱翔。” All the version of this poem in the ancient books show that position is 轍. Here is a modern typo, so we should remove this character.


▲ 謝榛:《詩家直説》,明萬曆刻本,卷二


▲ 謝榛:《詩家直説》,清光緒刻本,卷二
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
⿰魚𰕎 is observed in another two 藝文類聚 versions, so it is not a modern (but rather ancient) misprint.


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


藝文類聚(明嘉靖胡纘宗刊本)卷19 folio 2a


藝文類聚(明萬曆王元貞刊本)卷19 folio 3a gives 轍

I suggest keep it as-is.
04634
04634
魚 195.11
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00243
宿
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
類化字 of 縮?


▲ 劉學箕:《方是閒居士詞》,民國彊村叢書,一卷

The whole poem is shown as below.

漁家傲 白湖觀捕魚

漢水悠悠還漾漾,漁翁出没穿風浪,千尺絲綸垂兩槳,收又放,月明長在煙波上。
釣得活鱗鯿縮項,篘成玉液香浮盎,醉倒自歌歌自唱,輕嫋纜,碧蘆紅蓼清灘傍。

鯿縮項 means 縮項鯿, which is 武昌魚 (Bluntnose black bream) in modern Chinese.
04588
04588
魚 195.7
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00244
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence shows this kind of fish is related to 鮓魚, so it should be related to 海蜇 (jellyfish) as well.

Maybe it is a modern typo for 蜇.
04631
04631
魚 195.11
22 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00246
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the whole page of the evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
02117
02117
水 85.16
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00255
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Whole page of evidence would be helpful.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
04574
04574
魚 195.4
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00261
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The full page is shown as below for Evidence 1 & 2. It is easy to know the right phonetic component is 天 not 夭, because the pronunciation is 填. So the glyph should be changed to ⿰魚天 not ⿰魚夭.

𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.



⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.

04608
04608
魚 195.9
20 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00268
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
As mentioned in the comments by Huang Junliang and Eiso, Evidence 1, 6 7 and 8 for this character appears to be for 顦 (U+9866). It should be removed.

Also, the source names for the remaining evidences should be given.
02993
02993
竹 118.24
30 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00271
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Tao Yang has not provided the full unclipped evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China

04592
04592
魚 195.7
18 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00282
Unclear evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
04680
04680
魚' 195'.11
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00288
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Chongwu is a town under Hui’an County, Quanzhou City (泉州市惠安县). I don’t have the materials on the Chongwu dialect, but we can see the Nan’an dialect which is one Min nan dialect of Nan’an City, Quanzhou City (泉州市南安市).

In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
My friend whose mother comes from Hui’an County and has always lived in Minnan dialect area tole me that 笨 reads as pun¹¹ there. This character shares the same pronunciation.
04718
04718
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00291
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, Please show the whole page of this evidence1.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
01586
01586
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00293
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the full page of the evidence.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
04757
04757
鳥 196.11
22 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00294
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
U+9D85


Variant/misprint of 鶅? Note that 笛 is very similar to ⿱𡿧田 (甾 + VS19).

See 鶅 on ctext:

太平御覽(靜嘉堂藏宋刊本)卷917 folio 5:「西方曰鷷,東方曰緇(音緇衣之緇)」緇/鶅 share the same phonetic element.

春秋左傳正義(清同治刊本)卷48 folio 8:「西方曰鷷雉,東方曰鶅雉,南方曰翟雉」

An original evidence from 寶慶本草折衷 would help to ensure it is not a modern misprint.
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of Evidence1.
04759
04759
鳥 196.11
22 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00297
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence is insufficient to judge if it's a typo.
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of Evidence1.
04770
04770
鳥 196.12
23 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00304
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
What does the second evidence cite from?
03487
03487
艸 140.21
25 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00306
𠂤
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
The comment from Huang Junliang suggests that this character should be withdrawn.
04739
04739
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00309
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The character is not included in the first evidence. The scholar mentioned the second evidence was a famous historian in Japan. The followings are his books.


The name was written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 岩波書店 in 1935.
https://book.kongfz.com/535541/4390005805/


The name was written as 桑原隲藏 by 商務印書館.
https://book.kongfz.com/565592/4500160884/


The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 岩波書店 in 1968.
https://book.kongfz.com/271942/4788602597/


The name was also written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 臺灣商務印書館 in 1971.
https://book.kongfz.com/446938/4381053120/


The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 中華書局 in 2007.
https://book.kongfz.com/517/4421072712/


The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 中華書局 in 2009.
https://book.kongfz.com/351791/4657623042/


The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 科学出版社 in 2019.
https://book.kongfz.com/268892/3685037725/

All the books are not related to the submitted character, so it is not better to encode it.
03499
03499
虍 141.11
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00314
Misidentified glyph
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The annotated ideograph in the evidence looks like it includes 烏 as a component, whereas the ideograph below it definitely includes 鳥 as a component.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the whole page of this evidence, as it difficult to understand the meaning of the character from this small extract.
01408
01408
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00318
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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》.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》,紅格鈔本,卷之六十八


▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》,梁鴻志影本,卷之六十八
04768
04768
鳥 196.12
23 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00320
&P9-01;
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
12 pieces of evidence but only one source name.
04691
04691
鳥 196.4
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00324
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Evidence 2 and Evidence 3 are one piece.

4 pieces of evidence, but only one source.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA

https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAxOTI5LTAwMg
04719
04719
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00325
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, Please show the whole page of this evidence1.
00217
00217
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00326
Evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
misprint of “鵝” ?
“天鵝,鵠也。”
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The supplementary evidence for Comment #3020 is showed as below.



▲ 《字課圖説》,光緒三十年澄衷蒙學堂石印本,卷三
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Very probable that it is a misprint of 鵝 from the evidence.
04731
04731
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00327
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The character looks like the variant of 鰂 in the first evidence, which the word means 烏賊/烏鰂 (squid). It is not related to the Cantonese word zak1 (e.g. 鰂魚涌 in HKSAR). If my understand is reasonable, the current radical is questionable.

In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.


▲ 《爾雅疏》,四部叢刊本,卷第十
03179
03179
羽 124.11
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00328
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]

宋版史记一百三十卷本
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The new evidence shows an error form. The quoted poem actually has "白鳥翯翯". My personal rule is not to accept for encoding error forms only attested in a single edition (cf. my comment to UK-20004). I would only accept this character for encoding if additional evidence could be supplied that demonstrates that it is not an error form or that it is an error form that has been transmitted widely enough to be considered a "stable error".
04775
04775
鳥 196.13
24 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00335
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
4 pieces of evidence, but only one source name.
02824
02824
鳥 196.13
24 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00336
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 《集韻》,寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本,卷之十,入聲下,二十二昔

鸊 is also included in this version of 《集韻》.


▲ 《集韻》,寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本,卷之十,入聲下,二十一麥
02664
02664
皮 107.11
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00348
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is better to show the full page.

Evidence 2 shows this character is under 祲 with 子. It looks like fanqie. If yes, it should be the variant of 鴆 and the radical should be changed.
04725
04725
鳥 196.8
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00356
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
Pictures of Evidence1 and Evidence2 are reversed.
04786
04786
鳥 196.15
26 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00361
Unclear evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of Evidence1.
04752
04752
鳥 196.10
21 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00369
Evidence
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=9021&page=135
《埤雅》,《四庫全書》
04706
04706
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00374
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Please provide the whole evidence, as the author may have stated the relationship between ⿰宇鳥 and 𪁔.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This character looks related to 𪁔 without any doubt, but it is also common. It is better to keep it.


▲ 李昉、李穆、徐鉉:《太平御覽》,嘉慶仿宋刻本,卷第九百二十八


▲ 穆希文:《蟫史集》,萬曆刻本,卷之三
04707
04707
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00376
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The following evidence shows other meanings, pronunciations or uses. Lee's comment is reasonable, but it could also be used for other meaning based on the first following. So, it is better to keep it in M-set.


▲ 黄道周:《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》,明崇禎刻本,十二卷


▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》,明嘉靖刻本,卷之三
04516
04516
馬 187.20
30 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00378
New evidence
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076730.cn/page/n42/mode/2up
00675
00675
口 30.15
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00385
UK-20677
New evidence
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
華英通語

https://dcollections.lib.keio.ac.jp/sites/all/libraries/uv/uv.php?archive=FKZ&id=F7-A01-02#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=47&r=0&z=1048.314%2C1832.5365%2C691.408%2C531.18
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/898727/147

04777
04777
鳥 196.13
24 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00387
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
The glyph does not match the evidence4.
04814
04814
鳥' 196'.10
15 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00393
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Misprint of 骘? What is the main entry for 陰~ in this source?
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
not misprint, but variant
03657
03657
虫 142.16
22 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00397
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Could this be a variant of 鱷 (U+9C77)? It's paired with another dangerous aquatic creature, 蛟. It would be good to see more of the context in the evidence.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
This is what Baidu says about 蛟鱷:
蛟鱷是漢語詞彙,讀音為jiāo è,出自《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》,解釋蛟龍與鱷魚。亦泛指兇猛的水中動物。

They quote a passage from 宋·陸游《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》: “濤瀾洶湧,蛟鱷出沒。”
03519
03519
虫 142.5
11 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00401
New evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
CNS11643 中文全字庫
03526
03526
虫 142.6
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00403
Unclear evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Can clearer evidence be supplied?
03604
03604
虫 142.11
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00404
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It would be useful to see the complete image of the evidence, not just a tiny clip.
03521
03521
虫 142.6
12 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00410
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 張璐:《本經逢原》,清康熙長洲張氏刻本,卷三

It looks the variant of 虺.


▲ 張璐:《本經逢原》,醫學初階本,卷三
03548
03548
虫 142.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00415
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
In Evidence 1, the character is the error form of 啞.


▲ 《職方典》,古今圖書集成本,第六百八十一卷(《蘇州府物産考》)
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual

婺源縣志(民國刊本)卷11 folio 19b

I agree with Eiso that in evidence 1 ⿰虫亞 is a variant of 瘂. Can China provide the full page of evidence 2.
03570
03570
虫 142.9
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00416
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the full page.
03605
03605
虫 142.11
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00422
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please show the full page.
03606
03606
虫 142.11
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00425
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
U+8729


Misprint of 蜩?

Attached PDF file

宋景文公筆記(文淵閣四庫全書本)卷下葉6:「鶬鶊鳴春,蟋蟀唫夏,蜩蟧喝秋,螘子戰隂。」
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Seems to be an error form for 蜩 (cf. https://baike.baidu.hk/item/%E8%9C%A9%E8%9F%A7/4697910). DO not encode without additional evidence that the character is correct or is a stable error.
03586
03586
虫 142.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00426
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It looks the error form of U+874D 蝍. 蝍蛆 means 蜈蚣 (centipede).

Please show the full page.
03516
03516
虫 142.5
11 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00428
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the full page for the evidence in order to better understand the meaning of the proposed character.
03549
03549
虫 142.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00429
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
03608
03608
虫 142.11
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00430
Unclear evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Can clearer evidence be supplied?
Unclear evidence response
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
只恐双溪舴艋舟,载不动许多愁。
——李清照《武陵春》
Unclear evidence response
Eiso CHAN
Individual
For the submitted evidence, the current common form is 蚱蜢 (grasshopper, also 蝗虫, 蚂蚱), so the submitted form is acceptable.

For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
03559
03559
虫 142.8
14 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00435
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The Ningpo Syllabary(宁波方言音节),P28
03550
03550
虫 142.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00439
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence shows this character is cited from 《蒼頡篇》. It is better to check the original source.
03587
03587
虫 142.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00442
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Where is the other evidences?
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Source of evidence image is 《多歲堂詩集》卷二
03563
03563
虫 142.8
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00443
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
螟&⿰虫府; looks like the the other form of 螟蜅, which the current name is 墨鱼鲞 (salted dried cuttlefish). The variant is acceptable.

Please confirm the evidence source name.
03666
03666
虫 142.19
25 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00448
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It would be helpful if the complete evidence was provided, not just a tiny clip.
03599
03599
虫 142.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00464
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
03518
03518
虫 142.5
11 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00471
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the full page for the evidence in order to better understand the meaning of the proposed character.
03660
03660
虫 142.16
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00473
Unclear evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Can clearer evidence be supplied?
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The character is obviously a mistake/variant of U+8811 蠑 in the word 蠑螈 'salamander'. Is this single piece of evidence sufficient for encoding?
03667
03667
虫 142.19
25 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00477
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It would be helpful to see the whole page of the evidence, in order to better understand the meaning of the character.
04388
04388
革 177.6
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00481
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Highly suspected to be misprint(?) of 鞿鞅. Is there also 史记集解 source?
04074
04074
金 167.7
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00492
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the source name.
04068
04068
金 167.5
13 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00494
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
6 pieces of evidence, but only one source name. At lease, the last one evidence is cited from 《補註洗冤録集證》.
04111
04111
金 167.10
18 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00495
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
The text 鉤行之陳…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)·論政論兵之類·十陣》and the text 左右旁伐以相趨…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)·論政論兵之類·略甲》. I don't know why 文史 combine them as if they were from the same source. Note that the text is incorrectly included in 孫臏兵法 on the Internet.



▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)文物出版社2010 pp. 197

Here is the bamboo slip for reference:


▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)文物出版社2010 pp. 68
04076
04076
金 167.7
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00496
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
The evidence is not sufficient to understand the context. Do you have a full page evidence?
04181
04181
金 167.14
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00497
𮭲
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The first piece of evidence is wrong.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
The evidence from 詞林韻釋.
04069
04069
金 167.6
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00504
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The first evidence is not cited from 《中華字海》.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
The first evidence from 《疑难字续考》.
04127
04127
金 167.11
19 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00516
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
This is a passage of 蜀都賦 cited by 輶軒使者絶代語釈別国方言箋疏.
《蜀都賦》:「藏鏹巨萬,䤨摫兼呈。」
Could you check if the original evidence is correct?

https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko19/bunko19_f0021/bunko19_f0021_0001/bunko19_f0021_0001_p0081.jpg
04196
04196
金 167.17
25 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00520
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Do you have a larger image?
04103
04103
金 167.9
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00522
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Either evidence is not very clearly showing the shape. Do you have better images?
04105
04105
金 167.9
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00525
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Is the evidence really from 一切經音義? The description style looks not very typical of that. Could you provide which volume this part is from?
04187
04187
金 167.15
23 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00526
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Here is the full evidence and the complete source:


衛生家寶產科備要(十萬卷樓叢書本,第60冊)卷6 folio 20

and another new evidence:


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第60冊)卷6 folio 26
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
Here is the evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 from the same book, a variant of ⿰鏁斤 (See below for rationale).


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷2 folio 19


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷3 folio 2


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷4 folio 5

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

The 淳熙 version consistently gives ⿲金⿱甾廾斤:


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

U+28C09
02330
02330
犬 94.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00538
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
I agree with Andrew that ⿰犭五 is an error for 狂. For reference here is an older evidence:



▲ 中華再造善本//陸士龍文集(慶元六年華亭縣學刻本)卷8 folio 9b(Also in 明正德覆宋本
02329
02329
犬 94.3
6 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00539
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Hand-written evidence alone is not satisfactory, especially when no evidence is shown of the character in actual textual use.
02370
02370
犬 94.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00546
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


▲ 三晋文字编. pp. 616

The character is a transcription of the seal script form from 《中國古印:程訓義古璽印集存》.
02353
02353
犬 94.6
9 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00547
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
臺灣省通志稿.卷八:同冑志 (1965) p. 604:

02423
02423
犬 94.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00552
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew. Does it also cite from 残雪’s works?
02390
02390
犬 94.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00555
TB-5027
Unclear evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Missing Evidence.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
This character occurs in Japanese sources for the name of the Chuja Islands 楸子群島 in Korea (source twitter):

02400
02400
犬 94.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00557
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is also used for Taiwanese Hokkien as shown in {{https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/download/files/WSL_TPS_Huibian.pdf 新編台灣閩南語用字彙編}} p. 196:
02410
02410
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00558
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew. 残雪 is a famous writer in Contemporary Chinese Literature. Mr. Goran Malmqvist (马悦然) once once recommended her to participate in the selection of the Nobel Prize for literature. I can’t believe a character like 狭 and 窄 used in a modern Chinese novel.
02391
02391
犬 94.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00559
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
五音集字 is authored by 汪朝恩, the earliest known published version is 道光十三年(1833年)刊本.

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



𤠏……本作㺁或作𧳦𧳺, quoted from 集韻.

I suspect ⿰犭⿱册止 is a misprint of 𤠏, consider pending more evidences.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Can you provide the full evidence? The only complete text is 「……包肚皮,係用~皮所製」, what is made of ~皮? Which year of 中国经济年鉴?
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Current evidence is insufficient. Please provide complete page of the evidence so we can properly evaluate the proposed character.
02378
02378
犬 94.8
11 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00563
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It looks it is the misprint / error form of 倄.

The evidence shows some Chinese syllables by fanqie. There are two 韻母, and the 韻母 are stable, one is 猥, the other is 倄.

More evidence will be better.
02402
02402
犬 94.10
13 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00565
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
集韻卷五 has U+25855 𥡕

02335
02335
犬 94.5
8 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00566
𡗕
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
The wrong ideograph is highlighted in Evidence 3.
New evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
02440
02440
犬 94.14
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00567
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence shows this character is cited from the Dunhuang manuscripts. The following is the original manuscript which is collected in France. The original manuscript shows the character should be ⿰犭盖 not ⿰犭蓋. It is a misprint form in the modern publishing books.


▲ 沙州城土境

⿰犭盖 is also included in other source.

▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》,明萬曆己丑本,卷二

Please not encode ⿰犭蓋 and change to ⿰犭盖 or encode ⿰犭盖 in future.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Better image of manuscript Pelliot chinois 2691

02361
02361
犬 94.7
10 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00570
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This evidence is cited from 《四聲等子》.

In the evidence, we can get the following information.
聲母: 見 the same as 光
韻母: 陽 (宕攝) the same as 匡, and the tone is 平聲, 開合 is 合, 等第 is 三等
So, this Putonghua and Cantonese pronunciation of this character is the same as 光 here (different in middle Chinese).

Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𢓯 is 巨往切 and the pronunciation should be 狂上聲, so the 聲母 is 羣, the 韻母 is 宕攝陽韻合口三等.

The 聲母 and 聲調 are different. I think they are different character, but it is better to get more useful information on the definition.
02458
02458
犬 94.17
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00572
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence is quote from 《禮記・樂記》, however I didn't find any version of 禮記 that gives ⿰犭優.

Attached PDF file
附釋音禮記註疏(元泰定, 致和間刊 明遞修)卷39葉1 gives 獶.

Attached PDF file
纂圖互註禮記(南宋刊 (建安))卷11葉16 gives 優, in the annotation it gives 獶.

Attached PDF file
禮記注䟽挍勘記(清嘉慶刊本)卷39葉1

Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.

I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
02434
02434
犬 94.13
16 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00573
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Any update?
01844
01844
木 75.12
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00575
𭸟
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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
Eiso CHAN
Individual
What do the characters on the evidence mean?
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
02430
02430
犬 94.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00579
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
U+733C


I suspect it is a misprint of 猼.

The evidence is quote from 《史記·司馬相如列傳》. 說文字母集解 is authored 井上夬菴 by published in 寬保01年(1741).

Attached PDF file
史記(南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本)卷117 folio 6 gives 猼.

Attached PDF file
史記(宋刊本)卷117 folio 4 gives 猼.

史記(清武英殿刊本) also gives 猼.

According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.

Consider pending more evidences.
02412
02412
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00583
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Which version of 廣雅 does the evidence come from? I checked both 畢效欽明刊本、文淵閣四庫全書本、寶曆07年刊本, all of them give 嫁.

Attached PDF file
廣雅(畢效欽明刊本)卷3 folio 2

Attached PDF file
廣雅(文淵閣四庫全書本)卷3 folio 3

Attached PDF file
廣雅(寶曆07年刊本)卷3 folio 15

BTW, the character is used in 反切, which should be a common character.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
This appears to be a one-off error for 嫁. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
New evidence
TAO Yang
China

New evidence from 贵州通志.
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual


民國37年貴州通志 土民志1 folio 26b.

The new evidence provided by Tao Yang is from its table of contents. 猔⿰犭家、⿰犭仲家、仲家 are exonyms of the Bouyei people (Buxqyaix).
02407
02407
犬 94.10
13 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00590
New evidence
KWAN Ching Kit
Individual Contributor
Found in https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/稲荷山古墳出土鉄剣.
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
02334
02334
犬 94.4
7 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00592
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 顧藹吉:《隸辨》,玉淵堂,卷第五


▲ 朱駿聲:《説文通訓定聲補遺》,道光刻本,豐部


▲ 洪适:《隸釋》,四部叢刊本,卷第十七

This character is used as the variant form of 彷彿.


▲ 過庭訓:《本朝分省人物考》,明天啟刻本,卷之三十八


▲ 何喬遠:《名山藏》,明崇禎刻本,卷之一百七
02354
02354
犬 94.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00594
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Please provide full reference to the source, and full page image.
02450
02450
犬 94.15
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00599
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The third evidence does not match IDS, instead it gives ⿰犭腎. Based on current evidence, ⿰犭腎 is a variant of ⿰犭賢.
02357
02357
犬 94.7
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00605
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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
Andrew WEST
UK
woodblock edition of 狂夫之言 confirms the character shown in Evidence 1:

02351
02351
犬 94.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00619
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
02443
02443
犬 94.14
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00621
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual


▲ 乾隆大理府志卷12 folio 7 // 故宮珍本叢刊 v. 230

玀⿰犭舞 is same with 玀⿰犭武(雍正廣西通志90:2). Alternative words are 羅武(康熙楚雄州志1:40) and 羅婺(乾隆雲南通志24:30).
02371
犬 94.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00582
Evidence accepted, IRG 57.
02445
02445
犬 94.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00622
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
03279
03279
至 133.8
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00626
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence appears to show that these three characters are vulgar forms of some other character, but the extract does not show what it is. Can the full page for the evidence be provided so we can better understand the meaning of these characters ?

Also, why are ⿰至及 and ⿰至支 not also proposed for encoding? It seems pointless to encode ⿰至戾 but not the two other characters in the same extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Support Andrew’s comment #4696. Is it the vulgar variant of U+81F4 致 and U+2693A 𦤺.
U+81F4

U+2693A



▲ 邢准:《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》,金刻本,卷第二十六
04825
04825
鹵 197.4
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00631
New evidence
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076735.cn/page/n46/mode/2up
03132
03132
缶 121.4
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00633
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with Huang Junliang that this is probably a corruptyed form of 缺. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
04935
04935
鼠 208.10
23 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00636
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Per IRG PnP 2.1.1: "The supporting evidence for submitted characters in printed form
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."

IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.

Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
04907
04907
鼠 208.4
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00642
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
The character is not attested in other 南部新書 versions. Based on the earlier 南部新書 version, I believe it should have been ⿺鼠丰, which is a variant / error of 𪕅.


南部新書(明刻本)卷辛 folio 14a gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬


南部新書(商務印書館,1936) pp. 86 also gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬.


▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR3l0026/008#16b 南部新書(文淵閣抄本)卷8 16b}} gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.

Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:



唐書(宋紹興刊本)地理志30 folio 8b gives 𪕅鼥鼠, which according to 李時珍, is what he called 土撥鼠 in Ming:



So ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬 is corrupted form of ⿺鼠丰鼣, which is variant / error of 𪕅鼥. As for ⿰鼠斗, I suggest pending more evidences.
04922
04922
鼠 208.7
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00643
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
There are two pieces of evidence, but there is only one book name. Please confirm the sources.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01

The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余(旁舟)(又馬旁鼠旁) literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
01954
01954
毛 82.13
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00649
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The context in the evidence looks incomplete and incorrect.


▲ 《邊裔典》,古今圖書集成,第八十四卷
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Experience suggests that the modern edition may have an incorrect character, so please provide an image of the original text that is quoted here.
04927
04927
鼠 208.8
21 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00656
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿰鼠戻. In PRC rule, 戾 and 戻 are different characters based on 《说文解字》, which is different from Japan. It looks a typo, because the real ⿰鼠戾 is shown in the same page. The following is a piece of new evidence for normalized ⿰鼠戾.


▲ 李昉:《太平御覽》,四庫全書本,卷四十
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
Agree with Eiso Chan's comment #6309.
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.

04933
04933
鼠 208.9
22 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00657
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence shows “或讹作”, so, is there any another more sufficient evidence for this character?
03813
03813
豸 153.13
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00659
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Since this is a modern book, it is probably a misprint of 貔.
《史記》「軒轅乃修德振兵,治五氣,藝五種,撫萬民,度四方,教熊羆貔貅貙虎」
04928
04928
鼠 208.8
21 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00660
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
04924
04924
鼠 208.7
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00662
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Is there any other evidence for this character? We have found so many typos in 《中华大典》 during the previous meetings.
04932
04932
鼠 208.9
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00667
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


廣韻(四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏宋刊巾箱本)卷3 folio 10

廣韻 has 「鸓。飛生鳥。名飛且乳。一曰鼯䑕。毛紫赤。色似𮕙蝠而長」



重修政和證類本草(四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏金刊本)卷18 folio 14

本草 has 「陶𨼆居云。鼺是鼯䑕。一名飛生」

I suspect it is a misprint of 鼺, suggest pending more evidences.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 陳耆卿:《嘉定赤城志》,四庫全書本,卷三十六


▲ 陳耆卿:《嘉定赤城志》,清嘉慶刻本,卷三十六

The glyph looks stable in 台州.
01301
01301
彳 60.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00668
鹿
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
《八編類纂》 shows the name is 徐應鏕.


▲ 陳仁錫:《八編類纂》,明刻本,卷之二百六十
04881
04881
鹿 198.15
26 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00669
鹿
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Other evidence shows the character should be 麌 as well.


▲ 《御製詩四集》,四庫全書本,卷九十二


▲ 董誥:《皇清文穎續編》,武英殿刻本,卷首二十六(高宗純皇帝聖製詩)

BTW, does the evidence cite from 《道光承德府志》 really?
04851
04851
鹿 198.6
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00678
鹿𠂎
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
Corrupted form of 麑? Consider withdrawing or encoding via IVS.
03789
03789
言 149.19
26 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00680
鹿
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Corrupted form of 讒. The original evidence is from 宋四名家詩選 published in 1875.



劎南詩稾(明崇禎汲古閣刊本) 卷9 folio 7b gives 讒.

Consider pending more evidences.
03483
03483
艸 140.19
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00681
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It would be nice to see the whole page for the evidence in order to better understand the usage of this character.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Likely a misprint of 麕. 隨五草 is authored by 尹嘉銓(1711-1781).

The evidence has 「江汜野⿱艹麕諸篇……」, where 江汜 is 《召南·江有汜》 and 野⿱艹麕 is 《召南·野有死麕》. Consider pending more evidences.
02127
02127
水 85.17
20 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00684
鹿
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence is from 竹齋詩集(清嘉慶刊本) authored by 王冕.



▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR4e0061/002#1a 竹齋集(文淵閣本)卷中 folio 42a}} gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
04847
04847
鹿 198.6
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00688
鹿
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of Evidence1.
02131
02131
水 85.17
20 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00691
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
03782
03782
言 149.11
18 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00696
鹿
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
This is from another unknown version of 正字通, where the character at this position is 註 and looks reasonable.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?

01307
01307
彳 60.14
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00721
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence has 「⿰巾晝,霍𱶎切,音⿰彳蒦,裂帛聲」*

⿰巾晝 should be ⿰巾畫 = 𢄶

⿰彳蒦 should be ⿰犭蒦 = 獲

The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.

* 𱶎 is [ {{WS2017-03148}} ]
.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Per Huang's 2022-01-03 comment, I agree that more evidence should be provided.
00288
00288
冫 15.11
13 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00732
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
同音字辨
石笥山房文集
皇朝文典
南湖詩文集
04824
04824
鳥' 196'.16
21 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00738
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Huang Junliang's comment (#2650). If we don't have other evidence, it's not better to encode this character.
04730
04730
鳥 196.9
20 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00739
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
As Hou Man mentioned, this character is related to U+2A13B 𪄻. The followings are the relative entries in different version of 《廣韻》



符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.


龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.


覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.


宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.


古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.


四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.

However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
02315
02315
牛 93.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00740
Unclear evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
04475
04475
食' 184'.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00743
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
What the evidence described is related to 岳王庙 in Hangzhou City (杭州市). The four sinners in front of Yue Fei’s (岳飛) tomb are 秦桧/秦檜, 王氏, 张俊/張俊 and 万俟𫧯/万俟卨. ⿰饣善 is a typo here. The current evidence is insufficient for the encoding.

I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 何尔斯泰:《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》,《实用外科杂志》,1988年第8卷第9期

要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
04536
04536
髟 190.9
19 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00776
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please identify the proposed character. It's hard to tell where it appears in the document.
03366
03366
艸 140.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00780
𣆀
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Error form for U+451C 䔜. Do not encode on this evidence.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 董斯張:《廣博物志》,四庫全書,卷四十二
03383
03383
艸 140.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00784
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
03384
03384
艸 140.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00785
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
03322
03322
艸 140.4
8 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00787
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
A quick search on the internet confirms that "黄芪" is also known as "芰草", therefore it is extremely likely that the proposed character is an error form for 芰. In this light, the evidence shown is not sufficient for encoding, and the character should be withdrawn.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
I agree with Andrew's comment.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew and Lee. If there is no other sufficient evidence, this character should not be accepted.

It is also SAT-04688.
03399
03399
艸 140.12
16 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00788
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
03386
03386
艸 140.10
14 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00790
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please confirm the evidence source name.
03359
03359
艸 140.8
12 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00791
𬮠
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The evidence sources are not right.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
中華大典醫藥衛生典
02924
02924
竹 118.5
11 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00796
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The source name of the evidence is not right.
02626
02626
疒 104.10
15 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00798
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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):

02625
02625
疒 104.9
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00800
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


▲ {{https://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/islandora/object/cuhk%3A655073 本草求原(清道光刊本)卷1}}
04852
04852
鹿 198.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00802
鹿𣅀
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
急就篇
國事
鉅宋廣韻
初學記
埤雅
04916
04916
鼠 208.6
19 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00804
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence is certainly not from 類音/集韻. Please provide the 類音 / 集韻 evidence, I suspect ⿰鼠回 is a misprint of 𪕍. I do find 𪕍 in 集韻:



集韻(南宋潭州刊本)卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.

U+2A54D
04661
04661
魚' 195'.2
10 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00806
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual

Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).

We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
04685
04685
魚' 195'.17
25 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00807
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It's hard to make that image out as 霜
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
P236 of the same book.

If experts think this to be unclear, I'd like to buy a hard copy and take a picture myself.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The online Bing dictionary shows Microgadus tomcod is 大西洋霜鳕, so the current glyph looks reasonable for me.

https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
03130
03130
糸' 120'.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00808
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The ideograph appears in the fourth column on the first page of the first piece of evidence, but is not highlighted.
03367
03367
魚' 195'.8
16 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00815
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The photo in Evidence 2 was taken in Beijing Workers Stadium Richina Underwater World (北京工体富国海底世界).
00743
00743
口 30.18
21 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00817
𪖙
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
《中國藥學大辭典》(世界書局,1935年),P494.
This dictionary also gives 𪖙.
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=416&bid=17310.0


Other medicinal materials, such as "榆白皮", also mention "𪖙". Does 中药大辞典 also use "⿰口𪖙"?
04182
04182
金 167.14
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00821
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
04201
04201
金 167.20
28 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00822
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blur, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
04205
04205
金 167.29
37 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00828
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版

The glyph should be changed accordingly.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Is it ⿰名無 or ⿰各無?
04114
04114
金 167.10
18 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00830
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
04107
04107
金 167.9
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00833
Evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Missing Evidence
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
If the evidence won't be provided, this character should be removed.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I believe this character should be 𬒘(U+2C498)
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
化学原质新表(附表),《亚泉杂志》1900 年,第1期,P3
04204
04204
金 167.28
36 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00836
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Same comment as above
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IDS and glyph should changed accordingly.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
化学原质大同表,《商务报》,1900 年第10期,P6
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
化学原质新表(附表),《亚泉杂志》1900 年,第1期,P3
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Only the last evidence by Wang Xieyang matches the glyph.
04071
04071
金 167.6
14 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00837
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
04115
04115
金 167.10
18 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00839
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The current evidence is not cited from 《化學初皆》(化學初階?).
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The posted evidence is 王琳. 近现代化学元素名称研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2015,P21-22


李丽:近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究,北京:中央民族大学出版社,2012年6月,P44

New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
As above.
04100
04100
金 167.9
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00840
Unclear evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence from 近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究 is very blurry, can you provide better evidence?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From 《化学阐原》,民国上海同文馆出版
04116
04116
金 167.10
18 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00853
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
What does it mean here? The character only appears once in this page unlike other terms, so need to confirm that this character is not an incidental mistype.
02797
02797
石 112.12
17 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00880
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
It's very difficult to make out what this character is. Is it possible to get a larger / clearer image?
00434
00434
口 30.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00911
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Did the character exist? Current Taiwanese terminology seem to use 唉.
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
02915
02915
立 117.9
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00955
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
It's difficult to make out the shape from the image provided. It would help to get a clearer image.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Other characters in Table 2.B of the evidence are shown as below. They are once common used, but I can not find the actual using cases for the submitted character.

U+25AB3 𥪳 U+7AD3 竓
U+25A58 𥩘 U+7AF0 竰
U+25A7B 𥩻 U+7AD5 竕
U+7AD4 竔
U+41C6 䇆 U+7ACD 竍
U+41C9 䇉 U+7AE1 竡
U+25A95 𥪕 U+7ACF 竏
02312
02312
牛 93.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00966
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
A different edition of the same text, 《元亨全圖療牛馬駝集》(1891)

03280
03280
至 133.11
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00973
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
As far as I can tell, the original quote given in all other sources is 至於桑野,是謂晏食。至於衡陽,是謂隅中。What is the reason that 至 is here written as ⿰至竟? Is this a weird mistake, or is there some reason for writing it this way.
02185
02185
火 86.7
11 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00974
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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".
01409
01409
心 61.18
22 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00975
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The text is a list of movable types (活字), which should only consist of common characters.



農書(四庫全書本)卷22 gives 鬷.

U+9B37


As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The submitted evidence is a character list, but it's not used by the movable types. This has been confirmed by the typography history scholar Prof. Sun Mingyuan who is from Macao Polytechnic Institute.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
(元)王禎撰,《農書.農器圖譜卷二十二》(明嘉靖九年(1530)山東布政司刊本) gives ⿰愚㚇.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
> The submitted evidence is a character list, but it's not used by the movable types.

I don't think so. The text before this list clearly indicates that it is a list of samples of movable types (活字板式):

「今載立號監韻活字板式于後。其餘五聲韻字俱要倣此」



農書(文淵閣四庫全書本)卷22
01636
01636
斤 69.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00976
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The text is quote from 《農書》. 三農紀 was published in 乾隆25年.



農書(明嘉靖刊本)卷1 folio 28 (p30) gives 斸.



農書(四庫全書本)卷2 folio 14 also gives 斸.

Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
01243
01243
干 51.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00977
𠮷
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The text is quote from 《至正河防記》. 三農紀 was published in 乾隆25年.

Attached PDF file

河防一覽(明萬曆刊本)卷6 folio 5 gives 舡.

Attached PDF file

至正河防記(中國水利工程協會, 1936) gives 舡.

Attached PDF file

新元史(中国书店, 1988)志 pp. 269 gives 船, variant of 舡.

See also {{https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%E7%9F%B3%E8%88%B9%E5%A0%A4 Google books search results: 石船堤}}.

I guess 并 is a corrupted form of 舟, and 𠮷 may be corrupted form of 㕣. Based on these evidences, I suggest pending more evidences of ⿰并𠮷.
03372
03372
艸 140.9
13 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00978
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
From context this appears to be an error form of 葉. 《三農紀》 seems to have many error forms, and so is not a reliable source. I would not like to see this character encoded on the basis of this evidence alone.
03410
03410
艸 140.12
16 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00983
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The text is a quote from 《管子》(See 農政全書(明崇禎初刊本)卷1 folio 6)



管子(四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本)卷19 folio 4 has 蘟.



▲ The evidence also gives 蘟 in subsequent text.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Error for U+861F 蘟. Do not encode on this evidence.
02313
02313
牛 93.7
11 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00987
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Any update?
02874
02874
禾 115.8
13 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00989
Evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Missing Evidence
02555
02555
瓦 98.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00997
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It seems that both 𤭌 and ⿰第瓦 are used in different sources, and as 弟 and 第 are not unifiable, it is acceptable to encode ⿰第瓦 based on the original evidence and the additional evidence provided by Huang Junliang.
04486
04486
香 186.5
14 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-01001
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Maybe it is the variant of U+9ECF 黏.


▲ 周嘉胄:《香乘》,四庫全書本,卷二十
04036
04036
酉 164.11
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-01005
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The submitted evidence looks like 《居家必用事類全集》(明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本).

This character is the variant of U+9175 酵.


▲ 朱翼中:《北山酒經》,清知不足齋叢書本,卷下


▲ 朱翼中:《北山酒經》,續古逸叢書本,卷下

This form is stable in 《居家必用事類全集》, it is OK to encode it.


▲ 《居家必用事類全集》,明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本,巳集
01612
01612
攴 66.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-01011
𰗣
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
敘?

《新鋟抱朴子內篇四卷外篇四卷.釋滯卷八》(明萬曆間刻本)


抱朴子內篇(《平津館叢書》本)
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
04424
04424
頁' 181'.6
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-01020
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This character should be U+310A5 𱂥 according to the original context in 《方言》.


▲ 揚雄:《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》,四部叢刊本,卷第十

Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
02947
02947
竹 118.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-01022
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This character looks like the error form of 筐 or 匾.


▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)


▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
00302
00302
刀 18.5
7 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-01027
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The glyph on the evidence looks like ⿱分干.
02206
02206
火 86.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
GXM-00267
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
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.
04259
04259
阜 170.7
10 · ㇑ (2)
GXM-00303
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
汉印文字征·卷十 P1
04117
04117
金' 167'.10
15 · ㇒ (3)
GXM-00433
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The second piece of evidence is lost in Internet.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
See {{https://web.archive.org/web/20151212165149/http://fj.sina.com.cn/news/s/2015-12-05/detail-ifxmhqaa9963366.shtml Web Archive}} and {{http://dzb.hxnews.com/2015-12/05/content_334883.htm 海峽都市報}} for the second evidence.
01798
01798
木 75.8
12 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-1522413
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
The wrong ideograph is highlighted in the evidence image.
02376
02376
犬 94.8
11 · ㇑ (2)
GZ-1691202
New evidence
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The top of the LHS should be 止

00827
00827
土 32.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-3531208
UK-20080
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual


[開慶]四明續志(宋開慶元年刊本)卷1 folio 16b

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

For reference, see also the UCV 奈/柰 proposed by Eiso in WS2021-02879.
00287
00287
冫 15.10
12 · ㇒ (3)
GZ-3832302
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The glyph does not match the evidence(⿰𪞘(U+2A798)尼), but judging from the other characters and meaning of the evidence, it seems that the evidence is wrong? Is there any other evidence written as "⿰冷尼"?
02331
02331
犬 94.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-4812502
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 陳凌千:《潮汕字典》,汕頭育新書社,1935,p. 265
00055
00055
乙 5.5
5 · ㇑ (2)
KC-00020
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


段甜: 《韩国固有汉字分析》, 洛阳: 中国人民解放军外国语学院(Luoyang: PLA University of Foreign Language), 2007, P. 14
New evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thanks for your additional evidence.
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It is different glyph to U+3414 㐔.
We consider that 㐔 is changed from 高/乙
00808
00808
土 32.6
9 · ㇒ (3)
KC-00623
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
New evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thanks for your additional evidence.
01166
01166
山 46.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
KC-05016
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ Samuel Wells Williams, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (英華分韻撮要). Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository (羊城中和行). 1856. p. 92


▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 50


▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 131
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 虞學圃、溫岐石輯, 江湖尺牘分韻撮要合集. 1825 (道光 5 年)
01413
01413
心 61.14
17 · ㇔ (4)
KC-05106
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The ROK submitted evidence shows this character is used for a person's name which the person belong to 密陽朴氏 (밀양박씨). 密陽 here means the 밀양시 in 경상남도 (慶尙南道). 밀양박씨 is a very large clan in ROK, and there are many famous people in the Joseon Dynasty history, such as 중종 (中宗)'s wife 경빈박씨 (敬嬪朴氏) who was a character in a famous ROK drama Women All over the World (여인천하/女人天下). I also believe this book doesn't include the error, but we can't confirm if this one is the 避諱字 of any other character. So, it is better to check the genealogy of 밀양박씨, such as https://www.zupu.cn/zhpk/10188 to judge how to handle this one.
01720
01720
日 72.15
19 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05180
Unclear evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
The left side of the glyph is unclear. Is there any additional evidence?
Unclear evidence
ROK
KR tried to find another evidence only to fail.
02004
02004
水 85.5
8 · ㇒ (3)
KC-05231
TC-3E43
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》,天一閣藏本,卷十

This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
03361
03361
艸 140.8
12 · ㇠ (5)
KC-05646
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]


白氏長慶集(四部叢刊景江南圖書館藏日本活字本)卷64 folio 5

The text gives 九~燈炫轉,七寳帳熒煌. A more popular version to date is 九微燈炫轉,七寳帳熒煌, yet I don't think ~ is a variant of 微.
New evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will provide a new evidence showing that SN 03361 is not unifiable U+5FAE 微.
~夷爭笑.
03858
03858
走 156.9
16 · ㇔ (4)
KC-05746
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
ROK said "KR will add a new KR Norm rule regarding the middle component" in #2716, but maybe it is better to normalize the whole inside component (⿰扌⿱𠂉子) to 斿, not normalize 扌 to 方.
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR agrees to add a new Norm rule as suggested by Eiso CHAN.
04578
04578
魚 195.5
16 · ㇑ (2)
KC-05933
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It looks the variant of U+9B67 魧. The fanqie 何廣切 mentioned in the evidence matches 魧 basically.


▲ 《爾雅注》,四庫全書本,卷下
Evidence
ROK
Not all char with the same fanqie are unifiable.
00115
00115
亠 8.9
11 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-04260
Unclear evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Wrong citation, the original glyph should be 褢 U+8922 in every version of 说文.


00599
00599
口 30.11
14 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-04265
𠙼
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
说文解字
01898
01898
欠 76.5
9 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-04277
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p. 410
04267
04267
阜 170.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-04369
𡿺
Evidence
Eddie LI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
pic2 shows ⿰阝𡿺, but pic1 shows ⿰阝⿱巛㐫 which is not matched the IDS.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
We believe those shapes are unifiable under Annex S.1.5.c and common in this literature, and we take the printed form as a glyph.
00249
00249
儿 10.15
17 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-04406
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Wrong citation from 爾雅.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
This word is also written as 𡯥尵. Considering both characters have variants with ⺏ radical, we don't believe that this formation is totally unreasonable.
03373
03373
艸 140.9
13 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05114
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
It looks like part of the evidence for this character's equivalence to 𧯷 (U+27BF7) is based on the quote from the Yi Li: 四爵而合𧯷. But, it's not completely clear that the last character is U+27BF7. Is it possible to get a clearer image?
00266
00266
冂 13.6
8 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05651
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]

慧琳一切經音義

希麟一切經音義
03071
03071
糸 120.7
13 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05666
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Vietnamese character with identical shape, meaning a reel, device used in handicrafts, from "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt", p. 436



03762
03762
言 149.4
11 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-05834
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Other meaning in Chinese ancient books as below.



▲ 黄道周:《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》,崇禎藜光堂刻本,卷之十五
02282
02282
爪 87.21
25 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-05859
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It is unclear that if the is a dot here.

01610
01610
攴 66.9
13 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-05880
𰏘
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
01610 is a varuant of 敝.
龍龕手鑑(《欽定四庫全書》本)

https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=56026&page=182
New evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
FYI: 高麗版《龍龕手鏡》 (from 藤本幸夫『龍龕手鏡(鑑)研究』 p. 530)

01538
01538
手 64.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06125
丿
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The glyph on the right bottom seems to be the corruption of 乑(U+4E51),not 求.
00341
00341
力 19.11
13 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06152
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
慧琳一切經音義

玄應一切經音義
03496
03496
虍 141.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06257
𠔃
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 《洪武正韻》,四庫本,卷二

The same head entry in the Ming versions shows 𧇾. It is not better to unify 雐 with 虛/虚.
New evidence
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
> HUANG Junliang, Individual, 2022-10-05 10:19 +0900, #9060
> ... KC-03744 (⿰虗兮). However I don't know how to find the original evidence.
> Can Korea provide the original evidence of ⿰虗兮?

You will find the evidence for KC-03744
01254
01254
广 53.5
8 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06420
广
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
慧琳一切經音義
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The glyphs on the new evidence in Comment #5013 are all related to 㽽 (U+3F7D), which are not suitable for this character.
03283
03283
臼 134.6
12 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-06466
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is hard to identify if the glyph is ⿰臼叒 or ⿰白叒 in Evidence 1 and 2. The glyph in Evidence 3 looks like ⿰𪠨㕛.

Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
I think the evidence 2 is clearest on the left component. You can see a slit in the middle of 臼, compared with 白 on the same page.

For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
00258
00258
八 12.7
9 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06676
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]

Quite different in 說文.
01047
01047
宀 40.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-06842
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
慧琳 一切經音義

The glyph looks so strange, evidence 1 is not a good source.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The glyph is not very clear. According to the context and the evidences, it is hard to decide whether the vertical stroke should be out of the bottom bar or be out of the upper bar. So I suggest we pending this character for further investigation.
00251
00251
儿 10.18
20 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06900
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Citation may come from two sources, 說文 or 聲類. 䰫 is not exist in the current versions of 說文, it is speculated that it is from the version of the Tang Dynasty, analysed by 說文逸字. According to
the versions of 一切經音義 the author saw at the time, 廣雅疏證 records quotations from 聲類.
No matter what source is the original one, SAT-06900 is a wrong glyph of 䰫 (U+4C2B) indeed.

廣潛研堂說文答問疏證

小學盦遺書

說文逸字

廣雅疏證
02475
02475
玉 96.6
10 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06937
𬼉
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the second evidence, the character is identical to 𤥖 (U+24956). So the character in the first evidence may be a one case error.
02724
02724
矛 110.27
32 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-06996
&P15-01;
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The two evidences show different glyph. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.
02967
02967
竹 118.12
18 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-07036
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 李文鳳:《越嶠書》,明藍格鈔本,卷之十六

This is a Chinese ancient book to record Vietnamese history in Ming dynasty. It looks this is a character used for a Vietnamese person name.
00145
00145
人 9.6
8 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-07051
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Wrong citation from 说文.


04449
04449
食 184.8
16 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-07200
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The current evidence is OK, and I found this character used in other books. I still have a question. What book is 説文聲集 mentioned in the evidence? Does it mean 《説文聲系》 written by 姚文田?
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
I don't think I see the book name 説文聲集 in the evidence. Could you elaborate more?
03769
03769
言 149.7
14 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08272
𠯓
New evidence
BAI Yi
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
《和製漢字字典》
00272
00272
冖 14.4
6 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08359
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA


In 一切經音義, we can find 3 ways of writing: 廣雅, 廣疋, and 廣⿱冖龰. Therefore, ⿱冖龰 should consider unifying with 疋 U+758B.
03945
03945
車 159.9
16 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-08372
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Since ⿺𠃊㐅 and ⿺𠃊人 can't be unified, more evidences are needed to confirm the glyph.
01715
01715
日 72.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08386
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the second evidence, there seems to be a bar under the 艹. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.
02083
02083
水 85.12
15 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08498
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual


盛京通志(清乾隆嘉慶間刊本)卷126 folio 8b

Text is from 朱佩蓮《聖駕東巡盛京恭謁祖陵大禮慶成詩(癸亥)》:「風馬飛揚來掩⿰氵葢,雲旂搖曵下褊𮖽」
00763
00763
囗 31.2
6 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08642
丿
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
玄應一切經音義
04550
04550
鬼 194.4
14 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08653
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual

▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263

The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
01299
01299
彳 60.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08688
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence mentions “說文(⿰彳待)待也儲(⿰彳待)具也”. Based on any version of 說文解字 gives 偫 (U+506B) .
《說文解字》藤花榭本.卷八上
(http://www.guoxuedashi.net/kangxi/pic.php?f=swjzzb&p=270)



I think it is a variant of 偫(U+506B), and suggest pending other evidence.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with TCA's comment dated 2022-01-05.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》 includes all three characters at the same time. 《國語辭典》 also includes the submitted one.


▲ 黄道周:《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》,明崇禎刻本,第一卷


▲ 黄道周:《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》,明崇禎刻本,卷之十六


▲ 黄道周:《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》,明崇禎刻本,卷之四


▲ 《國語辭典》,民國37年重印本,p. 42
00252
00252
入 11.12
14 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08844
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]

玄應一切經音義
00581
00581
口 30.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08851
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Derivative of ⿰口盖. According to the words 方言厮⿰口盖噎楚曰厮 on the left, SAT-08851 must be redundant.
玄應一切經音義
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
As it only lists variants here, it could be 慧琳's amendment. Such situations are not uncommon in 慧琳音義.
01261
01261
广 53.10
13 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08895
广𭮀
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The entry of 揭路荼 (गरुड/𑖐𑖨𑖲𑖚?) in 《一切經音義》(獅谷蓮社刻本) shows the name of this bird is 龍惌 (⿱𭓩心 could be unified to 惌). The entry of 金翅鳥 shows 龍怨.



▲ 釋慧琳:《一切經音義》,獅谷蓮社刻本,卷第一


▲ 釋慧琳:《一切經音義》,獅谷蓮社刻本,卷第五十三

Please confirm which one is the proper one.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
Tripitaka Koreana has a rather ambiguous shape.

03965
03965
辵 162.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
SAT-08913
𭁄
New evidence
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
03822
03822
貝 154.7
14 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08945
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
責-related glyphs in SAT database:

責: 責 (majority) vs 𧵩 (5 occurrences) vs ⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-03816]] (1) vs ⿳宀大貝 SAT-06862 (1) vs SAT-08945 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [[WS2017-03449]] (1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝 [[WS2021-02808]] (1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)



Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
責: 責 (majority) vs 𧵩 (5 occurrences) vs ⿱𠆴貝
03816
貝 154.5
12 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-07087
𠆴
IRGN2549WS2021v3.0Pending
Postponed for unification to 𧵩 U+27D69, IRG 58.
(1) vs ⿳宀大貝 SAT-06862 (1) vs SAT-08945 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [ {{WS2017-03449}} ]
(1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝
02885
禾 115.12
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-07086
𠆴
(1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝
02885
禾 115.12
17 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-07086
𠆴
(1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝
02808
石 112.14
19 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-06454
Glyph to be updated, SC=14, TS=19, IDS=⿰石⿱束貝, IRG 57.
(1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)
00535
00535
口 30.9
12 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-09431
𦮰
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Variant glyph of 嚇. Minor differences from 𠵢 (U+20D62).
玉篇殘卷
大方便佛報恩經·惡友品第六
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
慧琳一切經音義
玄應一切經音義
00373
00373
十 24.6
8 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-10114
𪢴
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
慧琳一切經音義
03841
03841
貝 154.18
25 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-10196
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The evidence is unclear to decide the glyph is ⿰貝蹙 or ⿰貝⿱戚𤴓.
04244
04244
門 169.14
22 · ㇠ (5)
T11-2123
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03474
03474
艸 140.17
21 · ㇒ (3)
T9-755C
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
00968
00968
女 38.5
8 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7569
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
說文長箋
古文字诂林
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
The evidence submitted by Tao Yang suggests this is another form of 妓 U+5993, but the pronunciation from CNS11643 database is tán.

Is there more evidence for this character, including evidence of the pronunciation, which can substantiate that this character is non-cognate to 妓? It seems highly unlikely that 妓 would be used in a person's name.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Currently, TCA has not found any other evidence.
02270
02270
火 86.20
24 · ㇔ (4)
T9-757C
𩕆
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
I am responding in passing to the UK Activity Report about handwritten form transitioning to computer font create an erroneous font glyph.

The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.

This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
03387
03387
艸 140.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7658
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
04541
04541
髟 190.13
23 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7661
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03281
03281
至 133.13
19 · ㇑ (2)
T9-772B
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01684
01684
日 72.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7734
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
02043
02043
水 85.9
12 · ㇑ (2)
T9-773B
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
02180
02180
火 86.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7756
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01875
01875
木 75.15
19 · ㇒ (3)
T9-782D
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
00484
00484
口 30.7
10 · ㇠ (5)
T9-783F
𡥘
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
03207
03207
耳 128.11
17 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7847
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
04355
04355
雨 173.14
22 · ㇔ (4)
T9-784F
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
00128
00128
亠 8.16
18 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7869
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
02059
02059
水 85.10
14 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7925
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
00140
00140
人 9.5
7 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7971
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
03072
03072
糸 120.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7A38
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03101
03101
糸 120.12
18 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7A52
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01532
01532
手 64.12
16 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7A70
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
02152
02152
水 85.21
25 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7A7B
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01445
01445
手 64.5
9 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7B30
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01265
01265
广 53.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7B39
广
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01622
01622
文 67.6
10 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7B5D
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
00380
00380
十 24.11
13 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7C26
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546
03176
03176
羽 124.9
15 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7C2A
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03381
03381
艸 140.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7C3F
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03453
03453
艸 140.15
19 · ㇐ (1)
T9-7C4F
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
02839
02839
示 113.8
13 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7C74
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03458
03458
艸 140.15
21 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7C7C
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03336
03336
艸 140.6
10 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7D28
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01990
01990
水 85.2
6 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7D2E
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
02833
02833
示 113.6
11 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7D30
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03084
03084
糸 120.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7D3A
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
04708
04708
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇠ (5)
T9-7D48
𢆶
Unclear evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Shape and reading, "sī", suggest this may be a variant of U+9DE5 鷥. But, what is the evidence that justifies this reading? In other cases, such as U+2A028 𪀨 , a variant of 鴉 according to Kangxi, the component 𢆶 represents another phonetic.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card. According to ancient book(重訂直音篇), this character is a variant of 鷥.


(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
01189
01189
山 46.14
17 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7D51
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
02210
02210
火 86.10
14 · ㇔ (4)
T9-7D53
𤇾
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01070
01070
寸 41.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7D7B
New evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Evidence shown is not primary source. Need new evidence.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
03297
03297
舟 137.3
9 · ㇒ (3)
T9-7E3E
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
02266
02266
火 86.17
21 · ㇑ (2)
T9-7E7D
𰌼
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
00247
00247
儿 10.13
15 · ㇑ (2)
TB-4945
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
00723
00723
口 30.17
20 · ㇐ (1)
TB-4978
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
04268
04268
阜 170.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
TB-4B2C
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01623
01623
文 67.6
10 · ㇐ (1)
TB-4B39
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01695
01695
日 72.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
TB-4B46
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01824
01824
木 75.10
14 · ㇠ (5)
TB-4B6E
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
03411
03411
艸 140.12
16 · ㇔ (4)
TB-4C58
𣸹
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
03401
03401
艸 140.12
16 · ㇐ (1)
TB-4C5C
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01001
01001
女 38.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
TB-4E63
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
03426
03426
艸 140.13
17 · ㇔ (4)
TB-4F2D
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
01018
01018
子 39.6
9 · ㇒ (3)
TB-4F75
𠂢
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
古文奇字
水仙亭詞集
02072
02072
水 85.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
TB-5021
浿
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
01312
01312
心 61.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
TB-5067
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.


What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
00985
00985
女 38.9
12 · ㇑ (2)
TB-522D
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
01828
01828
木 75.11
15 · ㇐ (1)