Most of the CJK characters in Unicode are variants of another character as a large number of the characters proposed in WS2021. So, this is not an argument for unification.
The name comes from གཡག་ར་གཞུང་ཆུ (Yag-ra-xung-qu, gyag-ra-gšuń-cʰu by myself). Yag for ‘male yak’, Ra for ‘goat’, Xung for ‘main’, Qu for ‘river’. The correct translation should be ‘亚克惹雄曲’, ‘亚尔惹熊曲’ is a just-so-so translation. But ‘亚尔’ is definitely not a character.
According to 《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧𪊑》：“【正韻】經天切，𠀤音堅。【說文】鹿之絕有力者……”and 《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧麉》：“ 【字彙】同𪊑。” , which ⿸鹿寸 share the same meaning and pronunciation with 𪊑, the evidence seems to be：“極有力者曰：麉、𪊑。” Therefore, I doubt that ⿸鹿寸 is the misprint of 𪊑.
Eddie's unification comment is moot as IRG Working Set 2017 02960 was postponed and therefore no longer in the encoding pipeline. This ideograph effectively replaces it with better evidence.
Vietnam uses an identical character, V+60087 / VN-F0080, which is a variant of U+20C9D (⿰口対). If 00448 is not considered to be unifiable with 𠲝 (U+20C9D), then Vietnam will propose a horizontal extension of VN-F0080.
The title of this poem in the evidence is 《古意三首》. When we read this poem carefully, it's not hard to find out there are three parts based on the rhyme characters. The first part is 甕(옹)宋(송)洞(동)夢(몽), the second part is 隙(극)白(백)藥(약)獨(독) and the third part is 先(선)賢(현)全(전)年(년). The submitted character is in the second part. Notice that the real rhymes (vowels and the following consonants in the syllables) are different in Old Chinese, Middle Chinese (that means 平水韻 here) and Korean readings, maybe we should call it as 押鄰韻 (rhyme adjacently?). The previous verse “胡爲勞形役” is an interrogative question, so the verse with the submitted character should be the reply to the previous verse. This verse looks related to “哿矣富人，哀此惸獨。” in 《詩經·小雅·正月》. However, if we treated this character is the same as 哿 totally, the meaning is contrary to Confucian ideas and the spiritual style of this poem.
My suggestion to keep and encode this character as-is.
Despite there being a NUCV-343 [卻, 郤], historically ⿰木郤 and ⿰木卻 have been unified at U+3B9D, until Unicode 12.0 where the G glyph was corrected from ⿰木卻 to ⿰木郤.
It is suggested to change NUCV-343 to a UCV rule, as it appears such variation is not rare. The non-cognate rule can be invoked to separately code characters with 郤 and 卻 when actually required.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Agree with the unification and new UCV rule suggested by Henry Chan.
According to the paraphrase content [从谷害声], this character could be unified with 𭐋 (U+2D40B).
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The character is found in the context "或作⿰害各" immediately before, so the difference in the component must be intended.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
一切經音義 （唐）釋慧琳撰 日本明治十三至十八年（1880-1885）日本東京弘教書院鉛印本
Both 𭐋 (U+2D40B) and SAT-06008 are from SAT source, so SAT need to decide which edition of 一切經音義 should be the best source to dig the unencoded characters.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
As there has been no additional discussion, we still believe the shape should stand independent unless we have UCV.
One of the rationales is U+2D40B appears in a headword of 慧琳音義 (see below), which is a sign that suggests he sees it as a prescriptively acceptable form, as opposed to 非也. We rely on 大正藏 for printed form, and when it is suspicious, look for older versions. The evidence Tao Yang gives is from 縮刷藏 (弘教藏) from the late 19th century, but our evidence shows it consistent with the ultimate source of Tripitaka Koreana in the 13th c.
As a reminder of what we maintained in IRG #52 and #53, 慧琳's notation "非也" is not a reason for rejection alone, because we would likewise have to reject 擾 in favor of 𢺕, or 戯 of 戲 and so on by that standard.
unify to 㦍 (U+398D) as the new UCV accepted under WS2021-00534:SAT-06968.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree with Eiso's comment.
The first evidence mentions “說文云直言也 從心㖾聲或作遻……”
I think 01377(SAT-06250) should be the same as 㦍 (U+398D), and suggest unifying to 㦍 (U+398D).
[ WS2017-03505 ] Unify to WS2017-03505 (UK-10504)?
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?id=03505
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Not cognate to WS2017-03505, and form of top component is distinct in the two characters: SAT-06265 means a type of net, and must be written with the net radical; whereas UK-10504 means a pimple, and does not use the net radical. The two glyphs are not mutually acceptable, so oppose unification per PnP 2.1.3 Non-cognate Rule.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Needs discussion how much the top parts of WS2017-03505 and this are cognate.
Possibly cognate, but we would like to know the identity of U+2E8C9.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Unify to 𮣉 (U+2E8C9) by UCV #112. Not relevant if linguistically cognate or not.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The geometrical composition is rather different even though nearly unifiable (note that UCV #112 does not cover the U+2E8C9 shape). We would like to know if the two have developed via different paths (cognateness in shape).
No meaning is given, but the evidence shows that the reading of this character is identical to that of 誩, for which the "Guang Yun" gives the fanqie reading 渠敬 (*gjængH), Mandarin "jìng". This suggests that it is related to 𥪰 (U+25AB0), which is also read 渠敬 = Mandarin "jìng" and defined in Kangxi as a variant of U+7AF6, 競 read "jìng". Also, given the graphic relationship between 並 and 竝, this also appears to be the full form to U+2785F, another variant of U+7AF6. Seems like a strong argument for semantic identity U+7AF6 and possible unification with one of the encoded forms.
SAT-07087 is used to illustrate the reading in the definition of another character. The character being defined, appears to be a variant of U+258BC. SAT-07087 appears to have the same relationship to 𧵩 (U+27D69) as U+27D69 has to U+258BC, strongly suggestion that they are variants. Both appear to be ancient forms of 責 (古文責字)
It is suggested that the glyph 02098 should be unified with 薃 (U+8583).
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We need discussion because swapping of top-level radical is not consistently unifiable in the past practice.
Ucv
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
It looks we need to discuss if we add the following pairs to UCV when we know they mean the same characters. Maybe we need to do more studies on this type of characters later.
The evidence suggests that this is a variant of U+27A6F, which, according to Kangxi, is in turn a variant of 訴. The reading shown is 素, Mandarin "sù", which is the same as U+27A6F and 訴. The variants given, U+27A9C and 愬 are also similar to 訴 in meaning. The definitions overlap with those of 訴 (吿, 論, 譖, etc.), and the context shown would make sense written as 訴諸鬼神, "appeal to / have recourse to demons and spirits".
Support Lee's Comment #3915. The evidence shows the left part is the variant of 番 without any doubt. 𫿓 (U+2BFD3) itself is the variant of 播, but it shares the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
Ucv
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It's better to add the followings as UCVs if they share the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
(1)
e.g.
U+227F7 𢟷 vs U+61A3 憣
U+240F3 𤃳 vs U+2412B 𤄫
U+2839A 𨎚 vs U+8F53 轓
U+2E0EA 𮃪 vs U+2588C 𥢌
It seems to be an error for 䏣 in the head character only, and the entry actually uses 䏣 (肉中蟲謂之䏣蝇). Therefore this evidence is insufficient for encoding. Suggest unifying to 䏣.
This character appears to be an error for 舓 (this error form is also found in 蒙古字韻). As it is a common mistake to miswrite 易 as 昜 and vice versa, perhaps we should have a UCV rule for 易 and 昜 when cognate.
unify to WS2021-04158 TE-387B
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
Although we believe that TC-447C should related to 𪋿, but no evidence can prove it.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
There is no evidence for the meaning, but the reading "zā" is identical with that of U+9254, suggesting that they might be variants. There is one other pair similar to this already encoded, U+2341D and U+23459. U+2341D is used in Nôm with the meaning "soft" but it's not clear what the semantic relation, if any, is in Chinese. Should we consider UCV for ⿷匚帀 and 木匝?
Given that any character with a grass radical could be written with 艸 instead, I think it would be a good idea to define a UCV for 艸 = 艹 where cognate.
Possible variant of U+90FE. We should consider extension of UCV to cover 匽, ⿷匚晏, and ⿷匸晏 as components. There are already several possible pairs encoded, such as U+5043 and U+2037E. The proposed characters TB-5C5C and TD-7E57 are other examples
This appears to be a variant of U+9EB5 麵. There are other pairs already encoded, such as U+ 4D2C 䴬 and U+2D6A2 that show ⿺夌 as a simplification of 麥. Might be worth consideration of this component shape as UCV of the simplified form, U+9EA6 麦
unify to WS2021-04132 T9-7665
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
It is a wrong glyph of 掣, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree to withdraw if no additional evidence is produced.
The bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏 is obviously a turtle, so unification seems justified. Perhaps UCV #160 can be extended to include the bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
U+2C7CF 𬟏 is the modern transcription form of an oracle bone script character that means "autumn", and the original oracle bone script character it represents is thought to be a drawing of a grasshopper (which is active in autumn). The grass radical shown in the G-source glyph for U+2C7CF should correctly be 卝 as it actually represents the grasshopper's antennae.
On the other hand, UK-20437 is used in the evidence provided as an alternate way of writing the character 鱉 'softshell turtle' in the specific word 紫鱉, an ancient name for a type of plant. In this case it is obvious that the character is composed of a grass radical above a turtle.
Thus UK-20437 and U+2C7CF are non-cognate, and have significantly different glyph forms, and so cannot be unified.
https://baiyunju.cc/754
https://kknews.cc/culture/pega9j.html
This character comes from 老君碑, and in related inscriptions, it is written as 𢛣 or "⿰氵⿱民心". Therefore, should the glyph 02055 be unified with 𢛣 (U+226E3)?
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We don't object to unification if that is considered appropriate.
Unify to 佇
According to the evidece, 佇 means "to hope and wait for" and ⿰亻𫵲 means "to wait". Their meanings are very close. Meanwhile, it's normal that "宀" become "山":
So the new UCVs above can be added with meaning control.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The evidence shows the proposed character in contrast with 佇. I agree that it is probably a variant of 佇, but the evidence gives them slightly different meanings so it may be best not to unify.
Unify to 𰄔?
Since 出 can be written as 岀, so this can be unified to 𰄔.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
UK-20727 is composed of four separate 'mountain' characters, and so cannot be written as ⿰出出. It is not cognate with 𰄔 (U+30114), and the two characters have different glyph shapes, therefore we strongly oppose unification with U+30114.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
岀（U+5C80） is written as two mountain and it's a variant of 出.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
中文大辞典P4349
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
They are clearly distinguished in a book named 《同字符合体字汇》：
Page11:
Page35:
So they should be disunified.
In other texts, ⿰口𫆀 is written as 㖿 in the same sequences of syllables (example shown below). Therefore, unify to 㖿 (U+35BF) and create a new UCV for 𫆀 = 耶.
Including 榦:
U+26FAE 𦾮 ^⿱艹榦$(GT)
U+2DB15 𭬕 ^⿰木榦$(K)
Including 𠏉:
U+25DAD 𥶭 ^⿱𥫗𠏉$(G)
U+27040 𧁀 ^⿱艹𠏉$(GT)
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We don't object to unification with a new ucv if that is considered appropriate.
Ucv
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I suggest a new UCV of 榦 & 𠏉 only, with 幹 excluded. In that case it won't be unified with 澣 (U+6FA3), but it can be unified with ⿰氵榦 if we see it in the future.
It's not acceptable to unify this character to 丽 (U+4E3D), and I show the reasons as below.
1) The variant of 丽/麗 in 《篇海》 is ⿰𣄼𣄼 not ⿱一昍.
And ⿰𣄼𣄼 was included in 《字學三正》.
We can unify ⿰𣄼𣄼 to 丽 (U+4E3D).
2) The person mentioned in the evidence for UK-20897 was also written as 劉雨 in 《瓊州府志》 as below. This is why UK provides the variant relation between U+96E8 and it, and there is no any UCV to unify UK-20897 with 雨 (U+96E8).
Notice that 瓊州 or 琼州 here means 海南 (Hainan). Hainan had become province since 1988, which was a part of Guangdong Province before 1988.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
In 康熙《琼山县志》is the same with 《广东通志》
However, in 咸丰《琼山县志》,It's 丽.
What's more, as I know, there is no glyph of “雨” in ancient books is written as two parts. "丽", however, is much more likely to have one stroke on it's top.
（From zi.tools）
Two 点校本 also take this as “丽”：
（清）王贽修，关必登纂. 康熙琼山县志 康熙四十七年本 下[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P176
（清）杨宗秉纂修；王秀臣点校. 乾隆琼山县志[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P223
At last, 《琼州府志》 seems like 光绪本 or 民国本 which is later than 咸丰.
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree to unify with 丽. I suggest we add two UCV rules:
1) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / 丽 + VS17 are unifiable under UCV b-2 (like b-2 #123?)
2) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / ⿱一昍 are unifiable under UCV c-1 (like c-1#178)
Not unify to 𫭱 (U+2BB71) as this is not a unifiable variant (木 radical as opposed to 土 radical). Even if U+2BB71 should be the preferred form of this character, UK-20901 still needs to be encoded as this form is given in at least two major modern printed scholarly works. See also L2/21-101 for discussion of this character by Alexander Zapryagaev.
Unify to 𠴲?
The pronounciation of 沓 in 粤语 is tʰap22、tap22, which reads like "the noise of rain falling on hard substances", so the right part of this character should be a variant of “沓” and ⿰口㳫 and
𠴲 are congnate.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We do not oppose unification if a new UCV for 沓~㳫 is defined.
Ucv
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Add a new UCV rule 沓~㳫.
㳫 is a corrupted form of 沓 according to the Kangxi Dictionary.
Agree with Eiso. UTC-00441 was included in the UTC's submission for IRG Working Set 2021, because U+9FFD (MC-00134) is not yet encoded, but is expected to be included in Unicode Version 14.0, which will be released in September. Shown is U+9FFD from the Unicode Version 14.0 Beta code charts.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
According to the document that requested that this ideograph be added to UAX #45 for a future submission to the IRG, https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18064-add-uax45-chars.pdf, this ideograph is the simplified form of U+254DD 𥓝, and that U+2C483 𬒃 is the simplified form of 02778 of IRG Working Set 2021 (aka UTC-03169).
Unify to 虷 (U+8677). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+8677. Unify according to UCV principle a-1 (differences in stroke initiation direction).
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Evidence enlarged:
The first stroke of the right-hand component goes top-right to bottom-left. 千 and 干 are different components and thus not unifiable.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified. If we encode these two shape to one code point, the disunification is just a matter of time.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
It is ridiculous to say "“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified" without providing any evidence for the meaning of the ⿰虫千. The telegraph code book is not a dictionary but only lists characters in current use, so ⿰虫千 must be presumed to be a mistake/variant of 虷 unless reliable evidence that it is a separate character can be produced.
Disunification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
To my point of view, unifying “千” to “干” is ridiculous. Though their shape is similar to each other, they are definately different characters. If the componet "千" is written as “干”, we call it a wrong glyph but a variant. If “千” can be unified to “干” without any solid evidence, considering every character that contains a component of “千” can be written as “干”, should we unify them all? The answer is absolutely NO. That's why I oppose to unify the two characters but reject the evidence. Hence the new evidence is provided, I think there is no need to withdraw the character.
What's more, I believe UK said "As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters" and suggest to unify ⿰虫千 to 虷 (U+8677) based on this, I'd like to know which character should UTC-03171 be unified to.
Unify to 豻 (U+8C7B). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+8C7B. Unify according to UCV principle a-1 (differences in stroke initiation direction).
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Evidence enlarged:
The first stroke of the right-hand component goes top-right to bottom-left. 千 and 干 are different components and thus not unifiable.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified. If we encode these two shape to one code point, the disunification is just a matter of time.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
It is ridiculous to say "“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified" without providing any evidence for the meaning of the ⿰豸千. The telegraph code book is not a dictionary but only lists characters in current use, so ⿰豸千 must be presumed to be a mistake/variant of 豻 unless reliable evidence that it is a separate character can be produced.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 豻 (U+8C7B) can be considered
Unify to 魆 (U+9B46). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+9B46.
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Disagree. 戉 and 戊 are different components.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
In this case 戊 is an obvious and minor mistake for 戉. We should not enode error forms of characters just because a component is miswritten. Strongly support unification with 魆 (U+9B46).
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 魆 (U+9B46) can be considered
Unify to 偭 (U+506D). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the characters are. In this case, 靣 is well-known variant of 面, so it is best to unify UTC-03188 with 偭 and register an IVS for this glyph form.
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Not unifiable by NUCV #317.
Ucv
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I think we should remove NUCV #317. That rule was put there at a time when we did not have the Ideographic Variation Database. The form 靣 is sufficiently rare nowadays but was a common variant form of 面, which makes it a good candidate to be encoded as an ideographic variation instead of as a separate character.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree to unify with 偭 (U+506D); agree to remove NUCV #317
According to page 2 of WG2 N4008 (the first URL in my comment above) which in turn cites the source reference document for K2, 噕 is read 고 (go) or 하고 (hago).
But according to the evidence provided by Eiso, ⿱爲𰆊 is read 한 (han).
So it is not clear why the virtual row 93 of GB 12345 changed ⿱爲𰆊 to 噕.
Do not unify to 呣 (U+5463).
They are non-cognate. 呣 is used as a modal particle while UTC-03197 is used for negation.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Disagree to unify with 呣 (U+5463) per Henry's comments
Unification
TAO Yang
China
UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) share the same pronunciation.
According to the evidence, I doubt it means 不是(no), which is generally written as 唔是 or 唔系 in Cantonese, UTC-03197 and 唔 share the same pronunciation and meaning.
In addition, 呣 have a variant shape which is much more similar to UTC-03197.
On the whole, the characters are created for language, people could give a pronunciation multiple ways of writing. Considering the randomness of ordinary people's writing, it is not unreasonable to link UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) as synonym in this case.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
In Min, 母 does not have initial M and theoretically cannot be used as phonetic of this word.
Note that the Taiwanese Minnan Dictionary does list 呣 as a variant of 毋. https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/
Existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
While the semantic relationship is clear, structurally, the overall effect is different from the other variants and we see no need to unify.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
As Henry mentioned, there are 5 existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
1. The quality of this character is questionable.
2. A similar glyph has already been encoded in 𫠦 (U+2B826).
3. There would be no end for this issue, for the discovery of variants would be a endless trip.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Most of the CJK characters in Unicode are variants of another character as a large number of the characters proposed in WS2021. So, this is not an argument for unification. Neither is there new information added since the previous IRG #57 decision to not unify.
Do not unify to 沔 (U+6C94) by UCV #326 as not cognate (reading of cái indicates rhs must be 丐 not 丏)
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Andrew is correct. This character, read "cái", is the name of a river in Vietnam. 沔 (U+6C94) read "miền" means "area" or "region". They need to be kept separate.
[ WS2017-00525 ] unify to WS2017-00525 VN-F1D5E
VN-F1D5E has still been kept in WS2017 after the discussion at online IRG #56. Vietnam has provided new explanation on this character.
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
SC=16 if the radical been changed to 195.0.
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
FS=4 if the radical been changed to 195.0.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 195 魚
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
SC=16 if the radical been changed to 195.0.
FS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
FS=4 if the radical been changed to 195.0.
Radical
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
Follow comment #2161, 《莊子注》 annotated that 阿鮭蠪 doesn't relate with fish, which is much more like a legendary creature. Therefore, ⿱龍魚 should maintain its radical in 212 龍.
As the evidence of WS2017-04940 , which probably simplify to ⿰鼠鳥, shows that it is a kind of bird. It seems that the radical should be changed to 196 鳥.
The left component is the phonetic element, which the tail vowel has been -t from -n like common sub-dialects of Yue-dialects, and the right component is the semantic element because of the meaning.
IRG Working Set 2021v2.0
Unification
The name comes from གཡག་ར་གཞུང་ཆུ (Yag-ra-xung-qu, gyag-ra-gšuń-cʰu by myself). Yag for ‘male yak’, Ra for ‘goat’, Xung for ‘main’, Qu for ‘river’. The correct translation should be ‘亚克惹雄曲’, ‘亚尔惹熊曲’ is a just-so-so translation. But ‘亚尔’ is definitely not a character.
Single example of an idiosyncratic way of writing 窓, not sufficient evidence for encoding. Unify with 𥦗 by UCV #22.
unify to 𱆮 (U+311AE)?
This character looks like the variant of 鮮.
Agree with Eiso that the character unifies to 𱆮 (U+311AE), but it isn't the variant of 鮮. According to 《揅經室集》, ⿰魚芊 shares the same meaning with 斯.
《揅經室集》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=41001&page=23
Unify to 𮬮 (U+2EB2E)
蝶？
unify to 𰽕 (U+30F55)
Agree. Add a extension to 𰽕 (U+30F55).
unify to 𤡮 (U+2486E)
unify to 𭷸 (U+2DDF8)
Agree. Add a extension to 𭷸 (U+2DDF8).
unify to 猍 (U+730D)
unify to 𰡜 (U+3085C)
unify to 𤞢 (U+247A2)
02356 and 𤞢 (U+247A2) are the same character.
https://www.kangxizidian.com/v2/index.php?page=3405&dpy=2
unify to WS2017-02513 UK-10799
Agree. Add a extension to WS2017-02513.
misprint of 𤠼?
similar to 鼵, which 鵌鼵 are always mentioned together.
The complete sentence of evidence 1 is “鼵～同處穴”. According to 《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鼠部‧鼵》：“【爾雅‧釋獸】鳥鼠同穴，其鳥為鵌，其鼠為鼵。”It seems that ⿰鼠余 is the misprint of 鵌.
《舒蓺室詩存》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=41995&page=28
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鼠部》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1529
Is it a misprint of 鼪？
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鼠部‧鼪》:「【爾雅·釋獸】【註】江東呼鼬鼠爲鼪，能啖鼠。俗呼鼠狼。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1528
Unify to 擸 (U+64F8)
Agree to unify it to 擸 (U+64F8). This word 擸𢶍 exists in 廣韻 and 西南官話.
Unify to 鼰.
鼰 in 康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【字彙補】南見切，音睍。【爾雅·釋獸】鼰鼠。」According to the evidence:
鼰 and ⿰鼠見 share
1) same pronunciation
2) same meanings
3) strong shape similarity
so we can consider unify ⿰鼠見 to 鼰.
According to 《爾雅》which the evidence mentioned and 《康熙字典》, it seems that ⿰鼠女 is the misprint of 鼤.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=72832&page=115
《爾雅注疏》
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鼠部‧鼤》：「【爾雅‧釋獸】鼤鼠、鼨鼠。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1527
This evidence was quoted from 《山海經》 which is 鼣. It seems that ⿰鼠火 is the misprint of 鼣.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77823&page=57#%E7%99%BD%E8%80%B3
《山海經》，《四部叢刊初編》
There is another version of 《蘇魏公文集》, which shows 鼲 as below.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=2005&page=138
《蘇魏公文集》，《欽定四庫全書》
unify to 𮭲 (U+2EB72)
Agree. Add a extension to 𮭲 (U+2EB72).
䍡
unify to WS2017-04947 GHC-0047.00 UTC-03158
unify to 麉 (U+9E89)?
Unify to 麉 (U+9E89) by UCV #180
According to 《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧𪊑》：“【正韻】經天切，𠀤音堅。【說文】鹿之絕有力者……”and 《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧麉》：“ 【字彙】同𪊑。” , which ⿸鹿寸 share the same meaning and pronunciation with 𪊑, the evidence seems to be：“極有力者曰：麉、𪊑。” Therefore, I doubt that ⿸鹿寸 is the misprint of 𪊑.
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77415&page=1509#32
UCV #424
unify to 物 (U+7269)
It's the variant of U+7269 物 clearly according to the context of the evidence.
Unify to 噤 (U+5664), a temporary error in 玄應一切經音義.
Unify to 𧃔.
The evidence has 蒴⿰扌藋.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【申集上】【艸字部】 【唐韻】直角切，音濯。【玉篇】蒴𧃔，藥草。」
Agree to unify to 𧃔 (U+270D4).
(宋)王懷隱編，《太平聖惠方》(烏絲欄鈔本)卷14
Unify to 珬 by UCV #49.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【廣韻】珂屬。【集韻】珂謂之珬。」
𪊨
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧麂》：「【本草註】……本作𪊨。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1509
According to the evidence, this character is related with 麂子. ⿸鹿𣅀 seems to be a misprint of 𪊨.
𱊢
accounding to the evidence. It should be 𱊢.
unify to 𪉈 (U+2A248)
unify to 𫓚 (U+2B4DA)
Agree. Add a extension to 𫓚 (U+2B4DA).
unify to 𰽆 (U+30F46)
Unify to 𰽆 (U+30F46) by UCV #111
Agree. Add a extension to 𰽆 (U+30F46) .
They are duplicates now.
unify to 𮡨 (U+2E868)
Agree. Add a extension to 𮡨 (U+2E868).
unify to 𮡶 (U+2E876)
Agree. Add a extension to 𮡶 (U+2E876).
unify to WS2017-02947 GDM-00112
Unify to 𣱖 (U+23C56)?
Based on the text, it's a variant of U+6C23 氣. And U+23C56 𣱖 is also a variant of 氣.
《漢語大字典》，頁2155.
unify to 𰛂 (U+306C2)
They are duplicates now.
The current code point for IRG Working Set 2017 #03073 (aka KC-07574) in the Extension H code chart is U+31D53.
Wrong character of 踴, withdraw.
𰲘（U+30C98）
Unify to 𰲘 (U+30C98) 'female tiger' which is the correct transcription form of the oracle bone script character.
unify to 𮞢 (U+2E7A2)
unify to 𮘌 (U+2E60C)
Agreed unify with 𮘌 (U+2E60C). Consider horizontal extension.
Vietnam uses an identical character, V+60087 / VN-F0080, which is a variant of U+20C9D (⿰口対). If 00448 is not considered to be unifiable with 𠲝 (U+20C9D), then Vietnam will propose a horizontal extension of VN-F0080.
Should not be unified to 𠲝 (U+20C9D).
unify to 𮓶 (U+2E4F6)
Agreed unify with 𮓶 (U+2E4F6). Consider horizontal extension.
unify to 𭇮 (U+2D1EE)
Same as U+2D1EE a nôm Tày character read 'dằng', that is probably cognate with 'gyang'
unify to WS2017-03646 GZ-3272501
Unify to 撋 (U+648B)?
UCV #1 (IRGN2514)
unify to 𮛝 (U+2E6DD)
SC should be kept if the glyph been kept.
unify to 𭠤 (U+2D824)
According to KR Norm. 312-1, this character should be unified to 𰀿 (U+3003F).
The submitted evidence for U+3003F 𰀿 KC-00038 is shown as below.
However, I think they are different character, so ROK should provide more information on these two characters (or glyphs).
U+3003F/KC-00038 is used for a personal name.
In general, characters used for personal or place names (i.e., proper nouns) are not necessarily subject to these KR Normalization Rules.
KC-00025 is used to indicate an object name.
unify to 𫣷 (U+2B8F7)
Unify to 𫣷 (U+2B8F7) by UCV #175
KR agrees to unify SN 00222/KC-00217 with 𫣷 (U+2B8F7) (TD674C)
土/士 is one unifiable pair as UCV #312
土/士 is one unifiable pair as UCV #312
哿
My suggestion to keep and encode this character as-is.
unify to 𠜋 (U+2070B)
This is a character for surname in ancient China, and U+2070B 𠜋 is the variant of U+4FB4 侴.
KR agrees to unify SN 00340/KC-04852 wuit U+2070B.
Unify to 𮟁
Modify the glyph to match the evidence and unify to 𮟁.
KR agrees to modify the glyph of SN 00961/KC-04953 and to unify SN 00961 with 𮟁 (U+2E7C1).
unify to 𬉦 (U+2C266)
The evidence actually shows U+2C266, not the form proposed by Korea.
unify to 𬉦 (U+2C266).
KR agrees to unify SN 02124 with 𬉦 (U+2C266). The glyph will remains unchanged according to KR Norm. Rule 335-1.
unify to 遻 (U+907B)?
The word shown in the evidence looks like 相遻.
unify to 𨳈 (U+28CC8)
KR agrees to unify SN 04228 with 𨳈 (U+28CC8).
Unify to 賓?
The evidence particularly designates the component as the upper part.
Unify to 𢦒?
The evidence particularly designates the component as the upper part.
unify to 𮥕 (U+2E955)
Agree. Unify to 𮥕 (U+2E955).
Unify to 𤰞 (U+24C1E)?
unify to 𰞝 (U+3079D)
Unify to 腳; change NUCV-343 to UCV-343.
Despite there being a NUCV-343 [卻, 郤], historically ⿰木郤 and ⿰木卻 have been unified at U+3B9D, until Unicode 12.0 where the G glyph was corrected from ⿰木卻 to ⿰木郤.
It is suggested to change NUCV-343 to a UCV rule, as it appears such variation is not rare. The non-cognate rule can be invoked to separately code characters with 郤 and 卻 when actually required.
unify to 𮃨 (U+2E0E8)
Unify to 𠬸?
Based on context the quoted character is identical in semantics to 𠬸 as it refer to an ancient form of the right hand part of 歿.
unify to 𰤅 (U+30905)
Unify to 怓.
unify to WS2017-00501 VN-F16C6
According to the paraphrase content [从谷害声], this character could be unified with 𭐋 (U+2D40B).
一切經音義 （唐）釋慧琳撰 日本明治十三至十八年（1880-1885）日本東京弘教書院鉛印本
Both 𭐋 (U+2D40B) and SAT-06008 are from SAT source, so SAT need to decide which edition of 一切經音義 should be the best source to dig the unencoded characters.
One of the rationales is U+2D40B appears in a headword of 慧琳音義 (see below), which is a sign that suggests he sees it as a prescriptively acceptable form, as opposed to 非也. We rely on 大正藏 for printed form, and when it is suspicious, look for older versions. The evidence Tao Yang gives is from 縮刷藏 (弘教藏) from the late 19th century, but our evidence shows it consistent with the ultimate source of Tripitaka Koreana in the 13th c.
As a reminder of what we maintained in IRG #52 and #53, 慧琳's notation "非也" is not a reason for rejection alone, because we would likewise have to reject 擾 in favor of 𢺕, or 戯 of 戲 and so on by that standard.
unify to 𢤳 (U+22933)
UCV #173, and the evidence has showed it's the variant of U+6192 憒
The character on the same page is surely 𢤳 (U+22933), so SAT-06060 must be a wrong handwriting glyph.
unify to 𭿍 (U+2DFCD)
Unify to 愷 (U+6137)?
U+26A8D 𦪍 vs U+26A74 𦩴
U+2EA1C 𮨜 vs U+9857 顗
U+3112E 𱄮 vs U+29949 𩥉
unify to 𮝙 (U+2E759)
unify to 㹛 (U+3E5B)
The first evidence mentions “說文云直言也 從心㖾聲或作遻……”
I think 01377(SAT-06250) should be the same as 㦍 (U+398D), and suggest unifying to 㦍 (U+398D).
Unify to WS2017-03505 (UK-10504)?
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?id=03505
Per the new unification rules with regard to structure, it should be unifiable with 𦆈 (U+26188) if cognate.
Unify to 吴
“吴会” is the ancient name of 绍兴.
cf. disunified examples
俣 U+4FE3 / 㑨 U+3468
脵 U+8135 / 𫞆 U+2B786
unify to 仡 U+4EE1?
U+209D2 𠧒=U+4E5E 乞
U+21D4A 𡵊=U+5C79 屹
U+21D4B 𡵋=U+2AA23 𪨣
U+221D2 𢇒=U+221D3 𢇓
U+23C81 𣲁=U+6C54 汔
U+264EA 𦓪=U+43A2 䎢
U+26638 𦘸=U+8090 肐
U+2925F 𩉟=U+4A50 䩐
U+2968B 𩚋=U+4B23 䬣
U+29FA4 𩾤=U+29FA5 𩾥
U+2A5DA 𪗚=U+9F55 齕
U+2E782 𮞂=U+8FC4 迄
If these two components are not unifiable, we will meet more and more character with the component 𠧒 in future, because it is too common.
unify to 𮣉 (U+2E8C9)?
Unify to 𮣉 (U+2E8C9) by UCV #112. Not relevant if linguistically cognate or not.
No meaning is given, but the evidence shows that the reading of this character is identical to that of 誩, for which the "Guang Yun" gives the fanqie reading 渠敬 (*gjængH), Mandarin "jìng". This suggests that it is related to 𥪰 (U+25AB0), which is also read 渠敬 = Mandarin "jìng" and defined in Kangxi as a variant of U+7AF6, 競 read "jìng". Also, given the graphic relationship between 並 and 竝, this also appears to be the full form to U+2785F, another variant of U+7AF6. Seems like a strong argument for semantic identity U+7AF6 and possible unification with one of the encoded forms.
To be unified to 珽 (U+73FD) after applying new UCV rule 廷 and 𢌜 in IRG 57.
unify to 𭋿 (U+2D2FF)
According to 漢語大字典, the following 8 encoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇
𰂬 / 僧 p252
𰻹 / 鄫 p4044
𰯐 / 𦠇 p2261
𰦢 / 矰 p2769
𰧞 / 磳 p2626
𰷐 / 𧸑 p3898
𱄱 / 驓 p4872
𱋹 / 𪒟 p5070
The only exception is 𨶧, which is a Taiwan person name but ⿵門曾 is not encoded.
According to MOE dictionary, the following 25 unencoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇.
⿰口𭦌 / 噌 B00425-004
⿰山𭦌 / 嶒 B00881-006
⿰巾𭦌 / 𢅋 C03181-002
⿰忄𭦌 / 憎 A01437-003
⿰扌𭦌 / 𢴣 A00813-009
⿰土𭦌 / 增 A00813-004
⿰氵𭦌 / 潧 C06414-002
⿰𭦌彡/ 㣒 C03489-002
⿱山𭦌 / 𡼳 B00881-007
⿱艹𭦌 / 𦼏 C11864-002
⿰木𭦌 / 橧 B01837-004
⿰火𭦌 / 熷 C06843-004
⿰牛𭦌 / 𤛢 C07114-002
⿰王𭦌 / 璔 A02595-012
⿱𠔿𭦌 / 𦌘 B03527-007
⿱𠕀𭦌 / 罾 B03527-002 (龍龕)
⿱罒𭦌 / 罾 B03527-003 (玉篇)
⿰立𭦌 / 竲 C09457-002
⿰糹𭦌 / 繒 B03458-006
⿰𭦌羽 / 䎖 C10661-002
⿰貝𭦌 / 贈 A03976-006 (廣碑別字)
⿰金𭦌 / 鏳 A04315-006 or 璔 B02639-002 (玉篇)
⿱山⿰糸𭦌 / 𡾽 B00881-008
⿰黒𭦌 / 𪒟 C18127-002
⿳亠⿲刀丫⿸#(丿𠄌>)乀⿴囗𭦌 / 𪗐 C18268-001
The known exceptions are
⿱𭦌灬 (KC12396): a variant of 魯 according to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=161977
⿰𭦌盖: a variant of 嫌 A00956-005
Note that the component 𭦌 may also be a variant of the component 魯: ⿰口𭦌 / 噌 A00708-002 from 敦煌俗字譜.
Given that most of unencoded 𭦌 component is a variant of component 曾, consider
add a UCV 187b 曾/𭦌 with etymological link.
unify to WS2017-02622 GXM-00156
Unify with 糣 (U+7CE3), and add a new UCV for 朁~替.
Unify to 𦵻 (U+26D7B) and extend UCV #388 to cover 𣈆 = 晉 = 𦵻.
Unify to 膠 (U+81A0); add new UCV ⿱羽尒 and 翏.
unify to 𰪎 (U+30A8E)
SAT-07087 is used to illustrate the reading in the definition of another character. The character being defined, appears to be a variant of U+258BC. SAT-07087 appears to have the same relationship to 𧵩 (U+27D69) as U+27D69 has to U+258BC, strongly suggestion that they are variants. Both appear to be ancient forms of 責 (古文責字)
Unify to 缾 (U+7F3E); add new UCV 𰏤 = 并
Suggest to unify to 㣇 (U+38C7).
《爾雅注疏．卷八．釋草》
It is suggested that the glyph 02098 should be unified with 薃 (U+8583).
unify to 疋 U+758B
The evidence shows the book name is 《廣疋》 (aka 廣雅).
BTW, 鄧爾雅 wrote his name as 疋 not 雅 in his Chinese calligraphy works.
unify to 𱀸 (U+31038)
The evidence suggests that this is a variant of U+27A6F, which, according to Kangxi, is in turn a variant of 訴. The reading shown is 素, Mandarin "sù", which is the same as U+27A6F and 訴. The variants given, U+27A9C and 愬 are also similar to 訴 in meaning. The definitions overlap with those of 訴 (吿, 論, 譖, etc.), and the context shown would make sense written as 訴諸鬼神, "appeal to / have recourse to demons and spirits".
Appears to be a variant of U+2BFD3 and U+22FE5.
unify to 𫿓 (U+2BFD3)
Support Lee's Comment #3915. The evidence shows the left part is the variant of 番 without any doubt. 𫿓 (U+2BFD3) itself is the variant of 播, but it shares the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
(1)
e.g.
U+227F7 𢟷 vs U+61A3 憣
U+240F3 𤃳 vs U+2412B 𤄫
U+2839A 𨎚 vs U+8F53 轓
U+2E0EA 𮃪 vs U+2588C 𥢌
(2)
e.g.
U+2E2D2 𮋒 vs U+7FFB 翻
(3)
e.g.
U+2242E 𢐮 vs U+22432 𢐲
Unify to 侹
Wrong citation from 說文.
陳刻本
汲古閣本
日藏本
攷正玉堂字彙
谭從周墓誌
(同治)重修寧海州志
Unify to 絗 (U+7D57)?
In 《佛教難字字典》, 絗 (U+7D57) is used as the variant of 緬 (U+7DEC), and 緬 (U+7DEC) has the other variant form 𬗟 (U+2C5DF, ⿰糹靣).
It seems to be an error for 䏣 in the head character only, and the entry actually uses 䏣 (肉中蟲謂之䏣蝇). Therefore this evidence is insufficient for encoding. Suggest unifying to 䏣.
Unify to 闙.
This character appears to be an error for 舓 (this error form is also found in 蒙古字韻). As it is a common mistake to miswrite 易 as 昜 and vice versa, perhaps we should have a UCV rule for 易 and 昜 when cognate.
Unify to 𤲑 (U+24C91).
Suggest to add a new UCV rule ⿱巛𠙻 to 甾.
(To copy some examples from MOE Dictionary)
Suggest to unify these shapes:
unify to 𭴩 (U+2DD29)
Unify to 延 (U+5EF6) and add a new UCV for the other shape to 廴.
unify to 𭎋 (U+2D38B)
Agree. Withdraw. The glyph of U+2D38B should be updated.
SAT-08945 and the similar characters U+27D69 and U+27D8C are all variants of what's now written 責.
unify to 𭟣 (U+2D7E3)
Suggest unification to 䖤 and encoded via IVS.
夗 at the top is often 類化 to ⿱一夗 or 死, thereby losing its phonetic indication. Some examples of such variations:
怨 ～ ⿱死心:
Source from MOE Dictionary:
Source from 京都大学《拓本文字データベース》：
苑 ～ ⿱艹⿱一夗
Source from MOE Dictionary:
Source from 京都大学《拓本文字データベース》：
See also:
Unify to 疀.
Unify to 疀 and add a new UCV.
unify to 訖 U+8A16?
It's used as a 反切下字 in the evidence, but it's very easy to know it's really the variant of 訖.
U+209D2 𠧒=U+4E5E 乞
U+21D4A 𡵊=U+5C79 屹
U+21D4B 𡵋=U+2AA23 𪨣
U+221D2 𢇒=U+221D3 𢇓
U+23C81 𣲁=U+6C54 汔
U+264EA 𦓪=U+43A2 䎢
U+26638 𦘸=U+8090 肐
U+2925F 𩉟=U+4A50 䩐
U+2968B 𩚋=U+4B23 䬣
U+29FA4 𩾤=U+29FA5 𩾥
U+2A5DA 𪗚=U+9F55 齕
U+2E782 𮞂=U+8FC4 迄
If these two components are not unifiable, we will meet more and more character with the component 𠧒 in future, because it is too common.
Unify to 偄
偄 is a variant of 懦.
Unify to 卋
According to the second evidence, the meaning of 遯⿱十𪢴 is "避世", so ⿱十𪢴 is congnate with 卋.
unify to 𧾷 (U+27FB7)
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
Variant of 趜 U+8D9C？
𦧙？
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Unify to 𢋐 (U+222D0). U+222D0 has the pronunciation jí according to CNS 11643, therefore might be miswriting of U+222D0.
Both of 𩳬 U+29CEC and T9-7B7C should be the variants of 䰪 U+4C2A.
The glyph of 䰪 (U+4C2A) which shows in 《康熙字典》（同文書局） is similar to ⿰⿱夫月鬼.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1462
Actually, the radical is the cursive form of 氵.
similar to 䢥(U+48A5) or 𨕒(U+28552).
unify to 𮆝 (U+2E19D)
Unify to 𮆝 (U+2E19D) by UCV #55
Agree. Add a extension to 𮆝 (U+2E19D).
Unify to 𠂹
Given the information is correct, can consider IVS to 㐸 (U+3438). cf. Annex S.1.5.i
Unify to 囫 (U+56EB)
unify to 𦊨
The same character have been proposed by UK in WS2017.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?ids=%E2%BF%B1%E3%93%81%E4%B8%94
>unify to 𦊨(U+262A8)
Agree.
All above are the wrong glyph of 浞.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Possibly unifiable with 哚 (U+54DA).
Unify to 勖?
Although we believe that TC-447C should related to 𪋿, but no evidence can prove it.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
According to the pronunciation, it should be a wrong glyph of 嗌.
unify to 𤥢 (U+24962)
Unify to 𤥢 (U+24962) by UCV #70
unify to 𪜙 (U+2A719) or U+2B870?
Unify to 𫡰 (U+2B870)
Unify to 𠪂?
Disagree. ⿸户皿 and 扁 are totally different characters.
Unify to 𠦬 (U+209AC)
unify to 㴞 (U+3D1E)?
Unify with 㻸 (U+3EF8), and add a new UCV for 朁~替. See also SAT-06893 and TE-2F54.
Unify to 𦂯 (U+260AF)
Unify to 鄹 (U+9139).
Excerpt from Hanyu Dazidian shows that 鄹 (U+9139) can also be read as jù when used as a place name:
There is also a similar case in the UCV, with a single stroke difference:
Unify with 𦅦 (U+26166), and add a new UCV for 朁~替. See also SAT-06893 and TD-6D41.
Other than the minor difference in shape of radical 140, how is this different from U+26EEC? Is the given radical correct?
unify to 𦻬 (U+26EEC) possibly?
Agree with Lee's comment at #2014.
unify to WS2017-04447 KC-07700
Agree. Add a extension to WS2017-04447 KC-07700.
But 觧 could be a variant of 解 or 鮮.
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
UCV #424
Unify to 薅 (U+8585).
Unify to 闒 U+95D2？ We need the pronunciation to make sure whether it is a wrong character of 闒 U+95D2.
similar to 邎(U+908E).
Unify to 𫲛 (U+2BC9B)
According to MOE dictionary, ⿻𠆤⿱二八 is a variant of 余.
Add a ucv for ⿻𠆤⿱二八/余 ?
Unify to 𣩷 (U+23A77).
Is it a misprint of 誆?
not unify to 𠠲 (U+20832)
U+20832 is the ancient variant form of U+529B according to the real sources.
▲ Kangxi Dictionary
▲ 《字彙補》
It is a wrong glyph of 掣, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
Unify to 𥊑 (U+25291); consider new UCV 𭦟 = 曼.
Agree to unification with 𥊑 (U+25291) if new UCV is defined for 曼 = 𭦟 = 𭦗.
The bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏 is obviously a turtle, so unification seems justified. Perhaps UCV #160 can be extended to include the bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏.
On the other hand, UK-20437 is used in the evidence provided as an alternate way of writing the character 鱉 'softshell turtle' in the specific word 紫鱉, an ancient name for a type of plant. In this case it is obvious that the character is composed of a grass radical above a turtle.
Thus UK-20437 and U+2C7CF are non-cognate, and have significantly different glyph forms, and so cannot be unified.
Looks identical to 𨺭 (U+28EAD). Also, the reading given above, 倉夾, is the same as that shown in Kangxi for U+28EAD. Any reason not to unify?
Normalized form from cursive script.
unify to 𣟀 (U+237C0)
Possibly unifiable with 𡆶 (U+211B6).
Is there explanation for the character why the inside should be exactly 旡 instead of 无?
https://baiyunju.cc/754
https://kknews.cc/culture/pega9j.html
This character comes from 老君碑, and in related inscriptions, it is written as 𢛣 or "⿰氵⿱民心". Therefore, should the glyph 02055 be unified with 𢛣 (U+226E3)?
Per precedent of WS2017-00744, this could be unified to 𠦬 (U+209AC).
Unify to 佇
According to the evidece, 佇 means "to hope and wait for" and ⿰亻𫵲 means "to wait". Their meanings are very close. Meanwhile, it's normal that "宀" become "山":
So the new UCVs above can be added with meaning control.
𩫊 (U+29ACA)
unify to 嚟 (U+569F)?
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 𡁟.
Unify to 𰄔?
Since 出 can be written as 岀, so this can be unified to 𰄔.
岀（U+5C80） is written as two mountain and it's a variant of 出.
中文大辞典P4349
Page11:
Page35:
So they should be disunified.
In other texts, ⿰口𫆀 is written as 㖿 in the same sequences of syllables (example shown below). Therefore, unify to 㖿 (U+35BF) and create a new UCV for 𫆀 = 耶.
Exact match.
Withdraw as it is a duplicate of WS2017-01096 (UTC-03041)
Consider adding 幹/榦/𠏉 to UCV so it can be unified to 澣.
Including 幹:
U+64C0 擀 ^⿰扌幹$(GHTV)
U+6A8A 檊 ^⿰木幹$(GHTV)
U+6FA3 澣 ^⿰氵幹$(GHJKT)
U+7C33 簳 ^⿱𥫗幹$(GHJKT)
U+20FE8 𠿨 ^⿰口幹$(G)
U+26F2E 𦼮 ^⿱艹幹$(GT)
U+29F1B 𩼛 ^⿰魚幹$(G)
U+2D5E0 𭗠 ^⿱山幹$(S)
Including 榦:
U+26FAE 𦾮 ^⿱艹榦$(GT)
U+2DB15 𭬕 ^⿰木榦$(K)
Including 𠏉:
U+25DAD 𥶭 ^⿱𥫗𠏉$(G)
U+27040 𧁀 ^⿱艹𠏉$(GT)
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 璸.
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 𢣐.
Unify to 丽
《中华字海》P832
It's not acceptable to unify this character to 丽 (U+4E3D), and I show the reasons as below.
1) The variant of 丽/麗 in 《篇海》 is ⿰𣄼𣄼 not ⿱一昍.
And ⿰𣄼𣄼 was included in 《字學三正》.
We can unify ⿰𣄼𣄼 to 丽 (U+4E3D).
2) The person mentioned in the evidence for UK-20897 was also written as 劉雨 in 《瓊州府志》 as below. This is why UK provides the variant relation between U+96E8 and it, and there is no any UCV to unify UK-20897 with 雨 (U+96E8).
Notice that 瓊州 or 琼州 here means 海南 (Hainan). Hainan had become province since 1988, which was a part of Guangdong Province before 1988.
However, in 咸丰《琼山县志》,It's 丽.
What's more, as I know, there is no glyph of “雨” in ancient books is written as two parts. "丽", however, is much more likely to have one stroke on it's top.
（From zi.tools）
Two 点校本 also take this as “丽”：
（清）王贽修，关必登纂. 康熙琼山县志 康熙四十七年本 下[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P176
（清）杨宗秉纂修；王秀臣点校. 乾隆琼山县志[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P223
At last, 《琼州府志》 seems like 光绪本 or 民国本 which is later than 咸丰.
Agree to unify with 丽. I suggest we add two UCV rules:
1) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / 丽 + VS17 are unifiable under UCV b-2 (like b-2 #123?)
2) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / ⿱一昍 are unifiable under UCV c-1 (like c-1#178)
So ⿱一昍 ~(c1) ⿰𣄼𣄼 ~(b-2) 丽 + VS17 ~ 丽.
Unify to 𪪘 (U+2AA98). U+2AA98 has the pronunciation yi4 according to CNS 11643, therefore might be cognate with this character.
Consider add 㸑/爨 as UCV so it can be unified to 𣡿.
Consider add 𣸧/深 as UCV so it can be unified to 𦸂.
Unify to 𠴲?
The pronounciation of 沓 in 粤语 is tʰap22、tap22, which reads like "the noise of rain falling on hard substances", so the right part of this character should be a variant of “沓” and ⿰口㳫 and
𠴲 are congnate.
We do not oppose unification if a new UCV for 沓~㳫 is defined.
㳫 is a corrupted form of 沓 according to the Kangxi Dictionary.
unify to 𡃤 (U+210E4)?
Unify to 𡃤 (U+210E4) by UCV #324
Agree to unify with 𡃤 (U+210E4) per UCV #324
unify to 僭 (U+50ED)?
Agree to unify with 僭 (U+50ED) by extending UCV #213
unify to 擪 (U+64EA)?
Agree to unify with 擪 (U+64EA)
unify to 攋 (U+650B)?
Unify to 攋 (U+650B) as second evidence image clearly shows T-form of 攋. First evidence is probably a mistake.
Agree to unify with 攋 (U+650B)
According to the document that requested that this ideograph be added to UAX #45 for a future submission to the IRG, https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18064-add-uax45-chars.pdf, this ideograph is the simplified form of U+254DD 𥓝, and that U+2C483 𬒃 is the simplified form of 02778 of IRG Working Set 2021 (aka UTC-03169).
unify to 闑 (U+95D1)?
The internal component is indeed ⿱自夲 and thus not unifiable with 闑 (U+95D1).
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 闑 (U+95D1) can be considered
unify to 憃 (U+6183)?
Unify to 憃 (U+6183) and add a new UCV for 舂
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 憃 (U+6183) can be considered
unify to 虷 (U+8677)?
Unify to 虷 (U+8677). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+8677. Unify according to UCV principle a-1 (differences in stroke initiation direction).
The first stroke of the right-hand component goes top-right to bottom-left. 千 and 干 are different components and thus not unifiable.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
It is ridiculous to say "“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified" without providing any evidence for the meaning of the ⿰虫千. The telegraph code book is not a dictionary but only lists characters in current use, so ⿰虫千 must be presumed to be a mistake/variant of 虷 unless reliable evidence that it is a separate character can be produced.
What's more, I believe UK said "As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters" and suggest to unify ⿰虫千 to 虷 (U+8677) based on this, I'd like to know which character should UTC-03171 be unified to.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UTC-03171
So if the evidece is not clear enough, we'd better reject the evidence but unify the proposed glyph by inference.
unify to 豻 (U+8C7B)?
Unify to 豻 (U+8C7B). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+8C7B. Unify according to UCV principle a-1 (differences in stroke initiation direction).
The first stroke of the right-hand component goes top-right to bottom-left. 千 and 干 are different components and thus not unifiable.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
It is ridiculous to say "“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified" without providing any evidence for the meaning of the ⿰豸千. The telegraph code book is not a dictionary but only lists characters in current use, so ⿰豸千 must be presumed to be a mistake/variant of 豻 unless reliable evidence that it is a separate character can be produced.
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 豻 (U+8C7B) can be considered
unify to 魆 (U+9B46)?
Unify to 魆 (U+9B46). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+9B46.
In this case 戊 is an obvious and minor mistake for 戉. We should not enode error forms of characters just because a component is miswritten. Strongly support unification with 魆 (U+9B46).
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 魆 (U+9B46) can be considered
unify to 猊 (U+730A)?
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 猊 (U+730A) can be considered
unify to 譭 (U+8B6D)?
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 譭 (U+8B6D) can be considered
unify to 偭 (U+506D)?
Unify to 偭 (U+506D). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the characters are. In this case, 靣 is well-known variant of 面, so it is best to unify UTC-03188 with 偭 and register an IVS for this glyph form.
Agree to unify with 偭 (U+506D); agree to remove NUCV #317
According to page 2 of WG2 N4008 (the first URL in my comment above) which in turn cites the source reference document for K2, 噕 is read 고 (go) or 하고 (hago).
But according to the evidence provided by Eiso, ⿱爲𰆊 is read 한 (han).
So it is not clear why the virtual row 93 of GB 12345 changed ⿱爲𰆊 to 噕.
Unify to 呣?
They are non-cognate. 呣 is used as a modal particle while UTC-03197 is used for negation.
UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) share the same pronunciation.
According to the evidence, I doubt it means 不是(no), which is generally written as 唔是 or 唔系 in Cantonese, UTC-03197 and 唔 share the same pronunciation and meaning.
In addition, 呣 have a variant shape which is much more similar to UTC-03197.
On the whole, the characters are created for language, people could give a pronunciation multiple ways of writing. Considering the randomness of ordinary people's writing, it is not unreasonable to link UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) as synonym in this case.
Note that the Taiwanese Minnan Dictionary does list 呣 as a variant of 毋. https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/
Unify to 𫮰?
Further discussion is necessary before unification with 墻 (U+58BB) or U+2BBB0 𫮰 can be considered
Unify to 𫝖?
𫝖 has J-Source only now. And this character is also used in Japan.
Unify to 𫝖
JH-JTC064 is a variant of 麁.
Also refer to the following Google search result, which shows the place name in the evidence to be 麁利町:
Agree to unify with 𫝖 (U+2B756)
unify to 𫠦
Existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
As Henry mentioned, there are 5 existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
1. The quality of this character is questionable.
2. A similar glyph has already been encoded in 𫠦 (U+2B826).
3. There would be no end for this issue, for the discovery of variants would be a endless trip.
unify to 𬨲 (U+2CA32)
Agree, this should be unified to 𬨲 (U+2CA32)
unify to 𭉛 (U+2D25B)?
Yes, this can be unfied, since ⿱日工 is a common variant of 𬛸 as a component
unify to 𡁸 (U+21078)?
Unify to 𡁸 (U+21078) by UCV #284
unify to WS2017-00665 KC-07393
unify to 𤒲 (U+244B2)?
Unify to 𤒲 (U+244B2) by UCV #184a
unify to 𪹎 (U+2AE4E)
Unify to 𪹎 (U+2AE4E). Shape is slightly different, so will propose as IVS
unify to 蘃 (U+8603)
Agree with unification to 蘃
unify to WS2017-00525 VN-F1D5E
VN-F1D5E has still been kept in WS2017 after the discussion at online IRG #56. Vietnam has provided new explanation on this character.
Attributes
⿱二山 is unifiable to ⿱亠山 per UCV #62.
Here is the evidence of ⿱亠山:
▲ 漢字海 pp. 190
The component 一 comes from 心 according to the evidence.
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
《莊子注》，《欽定四庫全書》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=53877&page=15#box(176,57.666664123535156,1,0)
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
I support Henry's comment.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
⿰恨鳥鶻 is a word meant a kind of bird on the evidence
The evidence shows it's the variant of 鸊.
The evidence shows it's related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows the phonetic element is 押, and the semantic element is 鳥.
Consider change IDS to ⿱壯鳥 and accept the new evidence here which gives ⿱壯鳥:
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本） 卷101 folio 2
⿱𡉟鳥 can be unified to ⿱壯鳥 by UCV #312.
According to the evidence, it's a kind of insect.
The evidence shows this character is the variant of 暴, and the radical of 暴 is 72.0 日.
The radical should be the same as 眥 (U+7725).
Support Andrew's comment under #1970.
The RS values for the relevant encoded characters in the evidence are shown as below.
U+20B9B 𠮛 30.1
U+20BA1 𠮡 30.2
U+20BB0 𠮰 30.3
U+546C 呬 30.5
U+3576 㕶 30.4
U+20B9F 𠮟 30.2
U+53ED 叭 30.2
U+3564 㕤 30.2
U+53F6 叶 30.2
▲ IRGN954AR
品 is the semantic element.
The meaning of this character is "to embrace", that is related to the human body, so the radical should be 130.0.
The left component is the phonetic element, which the tail vowel has been -t from -n like common sub-dialects of Yue-dialects, and the right component is the semantic element because of the meaning.
#1516 shows the rationale.
The radical should be the same as 肥.
The radical should be the same as 肫 and 胗.
The meaning is related to human and animal.
～⿰月口 (duzgaeuh) is a stable word meant "knee" on the evidence.
Change Radical to 86 火
See #1083 by Yi Bai.
It's the variant of U+2DDCF 𭷏. The semantic element is 牙, and the phonetic element is 文.
U+2E308 𮌈
The meanings are "hip" and "lumbar".
胬～ (noh haeu) is a stable word according to the evidence.
BTW, U+4E94 五 reads as haj here.
The semantic element is 果, and the phonetic element is 文.
The radical should follow the RS for U+4EB2 亲.
SC=18 if the radical been kept.
These is no need to update the FS value if the radical been kept.
The radical of 光 is 10.0
The meaning is related to "face".
～⿰手蒙 (ngamz mungz) is a stable word meant the space between the fingers, which is related to the human body.
The radicals of 腻 and the unencoded ⿰肉艾 are both 130.0.
The semantic element is 面, which is also more intuitive, and the phonetic element is 來.
The IDS should be kept if the glyph been normalized as #1783 shows.
SC=20 if the glyph been kept.
The RS for the semantic element 背 is 130.5.
The radical should be as the same as U+2D375 𭍵, U+56ED 园 and so on.
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).