Since ⿰言⿱又有 (C13276-008) ~ 𧩭 (C13276-002), ⿱又有/肴 may be supported in lvl2.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Suggest not to unify if no more cases can be found because both ⿰虫肴 and 𧍂 (U+27342) are kind of common as head characters in ancient books.
Examples for 𧍂 (U+27342)
改併五音類聚四聲篇海，成化丁亥重刊本
同文书局版《康熙字典》
新校經史海篇直音，明嘉靖刻本
續字彙補，和刻本
字彙補，彙賢齋本
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
To add to Kushim's comment in #15443, here are the variants from MOE Dictionary:
Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).
Oppose Unification
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
As #15445/#15452 mentioned, ⿰虫肴 and ⿰虫⿱又有 are surely the variants, both of them are stablly used in dictionaries, that means both of them are valuable in historical usage process. So we don't need to unify the 正字 to the variant form while the variant one has been encoded in the previous, and should encode them separatly.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.
First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.
Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.
There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.
If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
In previous IRG meetings, we already have historical precedence of unification to an existing Extension B character, then subsequently updating the Extension B character to take the canonical shape. Some of these characters even involved the GHZ single sourced characters, as-is this case. IRG should be consistent in its handling of these cases.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another case in WS2021 where we have unified the canonical shape to the non-canonical shape found in some authoritative dictionaries:
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another case in WS2017, which involves a taboo character, however it was not found as a head character.
According to the additional evidences, this character should be viewed as a stable variant shape of 𤠼. There is no doubt for it to be encoded.
Although character analysis is required in coding work, overall, our task is not to provide textual research for linguists and only code for correct character shapes, but to provide code points for social character usage needs. If some glyphs have independent usage cases in the text or have value in distinguishing glyphs, they should be able to be encoded. Discussing these types of characters without reaching a consensus would waste a lot of meeting time in the past and future.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Let me reiterate my point of view in Comment #3897 to support encoding this character separately, and the UCV should be changed correspondingly.
> The two comments together list 22 disunification examples, comment #14276 8 examples and #14290 14 examples. Also that GHZR42524.09 was withdrawn. Withdrawing a character can be because the submitter does not agree to unification. The quote that says unifiable was not made by the submitter. The case for removing 殸 is very strong.
Examples are from Extension B, which are not considered valid prior examples of disunification by IRG.
> The inclusion of ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d seems unreasonable as it is not an example of "differences in relative length of strokes" (j-2). UCV 312d should only cover ⿱𣪊⬚ and ⿹𣪊⬚, and ⿱殸⬚ should be removed from the rule.
UCV #312d should be moved away from the section J-2 and moved into section j-3 Unification of similar shapes.
The fact that 𣪊 is often miswritten as 殸 is not disupted. Sufficient evidence also exists for this particular charcter. For China's case they may prefer to withdraw a form which is malformed, but SAT does not assign "it is an error or not" determination to a character. To suggest to encode a character via IVS implies the characters are unifiable.
Suggest to unify and encode as IVS, and keep the UCV rule as-is.
UCV
Selena WEI
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
TCA doesn't agree that the ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d, although they are both stable variant relationships. We do UCV because the two glyphs are variant relationships, and the other condition is that the glyphs are close enough to be easily connectable. I can't connect them at all.
The given evidence from UK and the evidence from Tao Yang suggest that the phonetic component should be 拏, not 挐. Even though in some sources 挐 is considered a variant of 拏, they are considered separate characters by various versions of Shuowen.
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Agree to unify to 𤸻 (U+24E3B) with a new UCV for 拏~挐.
For WS2024 we considered submitting ⿰口挐 which is used in the English name "𠹵⿰口挐哪布" = "Anna Noble" (《𠸄咭唎紀略》（1853） folio 10b), but we prefer to unify to 𠸎 (U+20E0E) with a new UCV.
Add Radical 195.0 (魚) as secondary radical with FS=1
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
As the evidence shows, this character looks related to 鱗. If yes, I suggest change Radical 195.0 (魚) the radical, and Radical 199.0 (麥) as the secondary one.
The purpose of the second radical is to aid discoverability, but it is unlikely that anyone would expect to find this character under 言 radical, so agree that the second radical is not required in this case.
Add the secondary radical as 107.0 (皮) for the Zhuang use based on Comment #13544, SC=11, FS=3.
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
Based on the glyph of SAT-08382, the IDS ⿱⿲幺言幺灬 seems more appropriate.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
⿱⿲幺言幺灬
Support Ken and Conifer.
IDS
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
⿲幺言幺 and 𮘎 (J-source form) are equivalents in calligraphy. See the examples at https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/變 , such as https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/repi.hng-nkm=07160 and https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/repi.hng-kad=04090 . I believe ⿱𮘎灬 is fine.
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
〾 is used for the TCA conventions. The current T-Source (T2-4278) of U+6220 戠 is different from the right part of this character and the G- and H-Sources of U+6220 戠.
Add Radical 194.0 (鬼) as secondary radical with SC=3
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Secondary radical seems unnecessary as this character is the simplified form of the common character U+993D 餽, so the primary radical should be obvious.
While I agree that R180 音 is logically the correct radical, I note that that there are already very many cases where the traditional form uses the character below 𤇾 as the radical, whereas the corresponding simplified form uses the grass radical (R140). For example, in the URO we have: 塋 (32.10), 煢 (86.9), 榮 (75.10), 滎 (85.10), 犖 (93.10), 熒 (86.10), 瑩 (96.10), 螢 (142.10), 縈 (120.10), 鎣 (167.10); but 茔 (140.5), 茕 (140.5), 荣 (140.6), 荥 (140.6), 荦 (140.6), 荧 (140.6), 莹 (140.7), 萤 (140.8), 萦 (140.8), 蓥 (140.11). As there is a tradition of classifying 𫇦 characters under R140, it is OK to keep UTC-00740 as R140, but we could add R180 音 as a secondary radical (if so, then add secondary radicals for all other existing ⿱𫇦X characters classified under R140).
My understanding is that for IRG work we count 及 as 4 strokes (different from Unihan data). 盍 is 10, so SC = 14. This is consistent with the simplified form: U+28E0D
The current radical is not intuitive for this particular ideograph, so either change it to 113.0 (示), SC=6, FS=5, or add 113.0 (示) as a secondary radical.
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Looking at all of the encoded Vietnamese characters with 娄 on the left side, since 娄 is the phonetic, with the exception of U+21890, which uses # 38, the radicals used are based on the right side semantic element. Since we we have now changed the basis for determining the radical, we might want to go back and the change previously encoded characters at some time.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Change Radical to 12.0 (八) to follow the character 六? SC=11, FS=4
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
Either change Radical to 37.0 (大), SC=11, FS=4, or add it as a secondary radical. The source suggests to me that Radical 37 should be primary.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Radical 37 is phonetic, and the meaning is "cover", hence "盖" as semantic. 皿 is given as the radical based on that analysis. We agree with adding radical 37 as secondary.
Change Radical to 117.0 (立), SC=10, FS=4
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
If we are going to not use the semantic element (中) to determine the radical, we should use consider a new radical variant of 212, since the left side, U+31DE5, is a simplification of 龍.
The small seal on the next page.
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿱郷鱼 not ⿱鄉鱼.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Typographical errors caused by incorrect citations, withdraw it.
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
This character is really questionable, but it is also stable in different edition of 《直音篇》. Maybe it is valuable to encode.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
𪁾 is another character.
The pronunciation of ⿰关鳥 is zhi4, which is totally different with 𪁾.
The glyph of ⿰关鳥 is quite stable to be encoded. 合併字學篇韻便覽 大明正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海 明正德十一年（1516）金臺衍華寺釋覺恒刻、明嘉靖三十八（1559）年釋本贊重修本 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 明成化七年(1471）大隆福寺首座文儒重刊本 精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海 明刻本 重校經史海篇直音 明刻本 新校經史海篇直音 明萬曆三年（1575）司禮監經廠本
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
I still hope to see the full page of China submitted evidence.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The evidence shown by China derives from 爾雅注 which has "蜪蚅(未詳)". ⿰虫陶 in the evidence could be a font error for 蜪, so China should supply an image of the original woodblock edition of 郝懿行集 to confirm that ⿰虫陶 is shown in the original text.
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.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
I think ti's clear to show this is a variant vocabulary of 蚱蜢.The glyph is good.
The first evidence is from 字學指南（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 45b, under the section 異體同音同義/三字仝. Based on the fanqie 敵德, here ⿱牧虫 is likely misinterpretation of the cursive form of 𧎬, a variant of both 𧎢 and 蟘.
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
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.
The glyph form is suspicious as ⿱𥫗鼎 does not exist as an independent character or as a component in any other character. I strongly suspect that ⿰金⿱𥫗鼎 is a mistake for U+28BB0 𨮰 zhá is it has the same reading (士戛 is also the fanqie for 鍘 zhá) and same meaning (a type of knife used to cut hay).
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew. Does it also cite from 残雪’s works?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
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.
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.
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)
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Here's an image of the inscription on the sword found at the Inariyama tomb mentioned in #6206
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
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.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Support Andrew’s comment #4696. Is it the vulgar variant of U+81F4 致 and U+2693A 𦤺.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・陳大科本 looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・白口本 (the ancestor of 汲古閣本) looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・天啓年間本 looks like this.
Evidence
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
《説文解字》南宋刊元修 海源閣舊藏本 is hard to identify.
Evidence
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Considering that "㺉" is one of the heading characters in 説文解字 but the glyph GKJ-00628 is not, dealing GKJ-00628 as malformed character (and unify it with the correctly shaped character) and unify with the correctly shaped glyph would be reasonable attitude for the users of 大徐本説文解字.
But even if the character was really mistakenly generated, if it has been separately used for a long time, the separate encoding might be a considerable option.
Tao Yang, please could you supply more detailed bibliographic information of the evidence 1? Is it taken from 《通雅》? 《漢書補注》? I don't have nice text database to spot where the part was taken from.
There are two pieces of evidence, but there is only one book name. Please confirm the sources.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ 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.”
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Eiso Chan's comment #6309.
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
For information, here is the passage from 《蠕范》 1:25b referenced in Evidence 1, which shows the unencoded character ⿰鼠靈 in place of ⿰鼠戻:
Is there any other evidence for this character? We have found so many typos in 《中华大典》 during the previous meetings.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The list of eight rodents given in Evidence 2 (鼸鼶鼮鼣鼭鼤䶅䶈) corresponds to the list of eight rodents given in 説略
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
As the evidence 2 shows, this character has been used in Collating Note so that it has textual research significance.
A similar form (⿰𥝌敂) is mentioned in 四庫全書總目提要, where the author criticizes 合併字學集篇集韻 attributed 䅩(in the form ⿰𥝌⿱攴只) and this character to the radical 禾 instead of 𥝌 (despite the fact that 䅩 also belongs to 禾部 in 康熙字典).
However if we check 禾部 of 合併字學集篇, we find that the form of this character is ⿲禾句支:
In the Commerical Press version of 四庫全書總目 (vol. 9 p. 74), the form ⿰禾𢼒 is adopted.
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.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ 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.
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Please provide the detailed publishing information of the submitted evidence.
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
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):
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
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.
Unclear evidence response
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
It should mean gas emit from metal, which I think is reasonable.
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
Incorrect data correspondence, delete invalid source name '电离辐射防护与辐射源安全基本标准；快速钍射气仪', add ⿹气土 in WS2024.
Meanwhile, ⿹气二 is still quite stable to be encoded.
The original source of the character is An English-Chinese Lexicon of Medical Terms (Philip B. Cousland, Publication Committee, Medical Missionary Association of China, 1908, https://books.google.ca/books?id=P-kRAAAAYAAJ)
In the context 「苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大」. ⿰禾忠 refers to specific part of a plant. So it is not a new species.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with the comment #13581.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
The text is a comment to 《搜神記·猨乞子》, where monkey mother died after her son. In 求其⿰骨彡而瘞之, 瘞 means to bury, so ⿰骨彡 must mean body. I suspect ⿰骨彡 is corrupted form of 骸. According to MOE dictionary, 亥 has many variants 㐪𠀅𠅆𠦇𢁳𫝅𬽆𬽇𬺷, some of them also look like 彡. I suggest pending more evidences.
I would be careful about assuming that this is an error form. In Vietnamese, this form has a specific meaning, for example, U+2015C 𠅜 (⿱亠例) is thought to be an abbreviation of ⿱麻例 (ma+lệ) where the reduced form 亠 for "ma" indicates an initial "*ml-" in spoken Vietnamese when the character was first used. We need more information.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with comment #13594, component 疒 was usually transfered into ⿱亠⿰亻*, such as U+2015C 𠅜 (⿱亠例)~U+2A724𪜤(⿱亠⿰亻隹）. This phenomenon also exists in the use of '彦', such as U+30A61𰩡(⿱立仁）.
Conifer has shown one example on the 塘汛 symbol on the Chinese traditional maps under #7877. This “character” must be a typo in the submitted evidence. This character should be withdrawn, and China NB and TCA could consider to encode the 塘汛 symbol as the transport and map symbol in future.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Other modern publishing edition.
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
The person mentioned in the submitted evidence, 忽酋 or ～耳, means 布占泰 (Bujantai) who was a Jurchen beile of the Ula tribal confederation. However, the Chinese modern researchers identified the submitted character as two characters. Based on the submitted evidence, it looks the Chinese modern publishing books made this name wrong, so it is OK and necessary to encode this character as soon as possible.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Historically, ‘’ is changed from ‘何叱’. Therefore we can find both glyphs in many documents.
See https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg59/IRGN2549KRResp1.pdf
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
KR disagrees.
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
The website people.aks.ac.kr is also normalizing ⿰忄⿱宷日 to 𪬺, which suggests that they could be unifiable:
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
KR disagrees.
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
In this evidence, 李彥忠, father or 李𢓜, passed the exam at 嘉靖25/明宗1年 (1546).
So the historical material that 李彥忠's father is 李掀, predates the historical material that 李𢓜's grandfather is 李⿰扌頎. Can KR elaborate the statement that the glyph in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 is an error? It will be very helpful. Thank you.
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.
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
Wrong citation, the original glyph should be 褢 U+8922 in every version of 说文.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Discrepancy with orthography of the current version of 説文解字 does not mean error. While the shape is deformed, it could be derived from synonymous variants such as 褱, 𧙪, 𬽕 etc.
Unclear evidence response
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with #12638, this seems to be a simplification of the the form 褱, similar to the the way 坏 is used for 壞. Modern Chinese editions typically use simplified forms for classical texts, but that does not invalidate the form or the edition.
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
No response given so far to comment #4418 WS2021 v2.0.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Note that the the passage goes "㞋音▲", so if it were 𠬩 the sentence would be a tautology. That is part of reason why we cannot establish probable relation to an existing character. Any suggestions would be welcome.
As I read the second image above, the printed text version, it looks like 01460 is a typo for the character 拏 in 本拏哩迦 (puṇḍarika). So, it would be more helpful to see the full text of the entry 牽我 to the left.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Re #9894:
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
The last stroke of 日 component in Evidence one is missing. And the corresponding entry in 大正藏 edition gives ⿰申⿱𠂉易.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Taisho's glyph is confused and that is why we did not put it in evidence. Although highly unclear, we believe the smaller glyph is intended to be this shape.
▲ 中国艺术研究院音乐研究所: 《曹安和纪念文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2021.5, ISBN 978- 7-5039-6424-4, p. 131
This character is also used as the Pipa fingering letter, and its fingering name is 摭, which is different from Guqin, and it means “to pluck the string to the left with thumb, and to pluck the string to the right with index finger”.
A bit late but we are truly unsure how the middle shape should be rendered. We assume that this shape is the result of normalization (at that time) to 䜌, but any insights will be welcome.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
The evidence does not directly show a relationship between 毓 (U+6BD3) and WS2001-02259-SAT-06739. Rather, as I understand it, the text says that the ancient form of the second character in the term being glossed, 粥, written 鬻 (U+9B3B), is derived from WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 and 鬲 (U+9B32). It's plausible that these are variants: other sources relate 育 and 毓, and the text here says that WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 is has the sound 育. So they apparently share a reading. However, unless I'm missing something obvious here, it would be good to see other evidence that suggests the variant relationship.
▲ 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.
The text "郯⿰奚各，吳越間地名也" suggests that it is a variant of 谿, a place in 嵊縣, Zhejiang province. I suggest pending more evidences, or make an ad-hoc unification to 谿.
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Currently, TCA has not found any other evidence.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
TCA has found the handwritten form of this character.
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).
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.
I suspect that this is mistranscription of U+8117 脗.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
CMEX does not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, we have found earlier BMP for the applicant. From the Changjie(倉頡) attribute provided, it was "日", not "月".
The evidence in #1228 says this should be read as 玉, i.e. "yù". This doesn't match the reading given originally, "liú". Is there more evidence to support "liú"?
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " liú " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
It would be good to have additional evidence to support the reading given, "dùn". The phonetic is 貭, which is a variant of 質, so I would expect a different reading, such as "zhì". Otherwise, this would appear to be a variant of U+78B7 碷 "dùn"
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " dùn " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
Someone happened to share with a friend an excerpt of a Taiwanese ID card in which the name of a parent of the card holder has ⿱米冉; we suspect it is a mistake of 畨(番). (We have not heard back on permission to share images.)
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Thank you for providing the information. In Taiwan, there is a significant difference between "田" and "冉", so it's definitely not possible to confuse them.
Evidence
L F CHENG
Individual
continuation of #15188 (permission has been obtained)
As what I wrote in #122, this character is also used for the common Malaysian Chinese (马来西亚华语) word “tongkang”, which means a type of boat in Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia NB once submitted this character in IRGN1418. Please see the following picture.
The second column makes the component wrong and the third column shows that the origin form (本字) is 舯, which I don’t agree. In fact, ⿰舟冬舡 is a real Malaysian transliteration based on the Chinese Min Nan dialect used in Southeast Asia. This word is written as 舯舡 in Singapore, and these two characters are not related to the original meaning of 舯 and 舡 in Chinese. The initial (聲母) of 中 is 知 in the middle Chinese, and its initials are t- in almost all Chinese Min dialects.
This character and the form of this word has been accepted by Chinese Language Standardisation Council of Malaysia (马来西亚华语规范理事会, 语范), so I think it’s better to accept it like some characters submitted by Macao SARG.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Could you check if it is not a mistranscription of 娟?
New evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
We do not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.
Evidence shown is not primary source. Need new evidence.
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
There are hundreds of variants of 壽, encode every form of them would waste too many code points.
IRG Working Set 2021v7.0
Unification
Unifiable to 𧍂 (U+27342)?
U+27342 comes from Kangxi, with the given text: 【備考】【申集】【虫字部】 【五音篇海】音肴。又音豪。 which indicates they are the same character.
⿱又有 (A03305-013) ~ 肴 (A03305)
⿰山⿱又有 (B00831-005) ~ 崤 (B00831)
⿰飠⿱又有 (B05734-001) ~ 餚 (B05734)
Since ⿰言⿱又有 (C13276-008) ~ 𧩭 (C13276-002), ⿱又有/肴 may be supported in lvl2.
Suggest not to unify if no more cases can be found because both ⿰虫肴 and 𧍂 (U+27342) are kind of common as head characters in ancient books.
Examples for 𧍂 (U+27342)
改併五音類聚四聲篇海，成化丁亥重刊本
同文书局版《康熙字典》
新校經史海篇直音，明嘉靖刻本
續字彙補，和刻本
字彙補，彙賢齋本
Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).
Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.
First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.
Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.
There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.
If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.
We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.
Although character analysis is required in coding work, overall, our task is not to provide textual research for linguists and only code for correct character shapes, but to provide code points for social character usage needs. If some glyphs have independent usage cases in the text or have value in distinguishing glyphs, they should be able to be encoded. Discussing these types of characters without reaching a consensus would waste a lot of meeting time in the past and future.
Unify to 𪄻
Level 2 UCV for 舂 and 春
The form using 春 instead of 舂 is particularly common in 《集韻》.
Unify to 惱.
This is a variant of 惱 without a doubt in the included evidences.
Potentially new UCV level 2 甾 & 𡿺.
Unify to 惱; and add level 2 UCV 甾 & 𡿺.
We have one existing disunification case in Extension B where U+254F2 is disunified from U+78AF. They are both variants of 瑙 U+7459.
We have another disunification case in Extension A where U+4409 is disunified from U+8166 because they are non-cognate.
Note, ROK has a normalization rule #190-1 in IRGN2573 which covers this exact case:
Therefore the variation should be systematic and pretty common in handwriting.
The new evidence confirms that it is a trivial variant of 𣱖 which should be unified with 𣱖 (U+23C56) by UCV 47.
If UCV #47 is considered to be referred, it may need to be extended.
Unifiable with 淅?
𦎼 (U+263BC) / 𦎯 (U+263AF).
> The two comments together list 22 disunification examples, comment #14276 8 examples and #14290 14 examples. Also that GHZR42524.09 was withdrawn. Withdrawing a character can be because the submitter does not agree to unification. The quote that says unifiable was not made by the submitter. The case for removing 殸 is very strong.
Examples are from Extension B, which are not considered valid prior examples of disunification by IRG.
> The inclusion of ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d seems unreasonable as it is not an example of "differences in relative length of strokes" (j-2). UCV 312d should only cover ⿱𣪊⬚ and ⿹𣪊⬚, and ⿱殸⬚ should be removed from the rule.
UCV #312d should be moved away from the section J-2 and moved into section j-3 Unification of similar shapes.
The fact that 𣪊 is often miswritten as 殸 is not disupted. Sufficient evidence also exists for this particular charcter. For China's case they may prefer to withdraw a form which is malformed, but SAT does not assign "it is an error or not" determination to a character. To suggest to encode a character via IVS implies the characters are unifiable.
Suggest to unify and encode as IVS, and keep the UCV rule as-is.
Only for record, but unified to 鷇 (U+9DC7) as a result of UCV #312d.
Unify to 𤸻 (U+24E3B) or potentially withdrawn.
The given evidence from UK and the evidence from Tao Yang suggest that the phonetic component should be 拏, not 挐. Even though in some sources 挐 is considered a variant of 拏, they are considered separate characters by various versions of Shuowen.
For WS2024 we considered submitting ⿰口挐 which is used in the English name "𠹵⿰口挐哪布" = "Anna Noble" (《𠸄咭唎紀略》（1853） folio 10b), but we prefer to unify to 𠸎 (U+20E0E) with a new UCV.
Attributes
#36, IRGN954AR
#3, IRGN2221
Change Radical to 196.0 (鳥), SC=18, FS=2
#11, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
莽 is counted as 11 sometimes in Kangxi Dictionary and sometimes as 12.
Main difference is the bottom component is sometimes written as 廾 and sometimes written as ⿰𠂇十 in Kangxi Dictionary.
Etymologically speaking the bottom component is also a grass radical so should be counted as 4 strokes therefore 莽 = 12.
#33, IRGN2221
#35, IRGN2221
#23A, IRGN1105
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
#20, IRGN954AR
#67, IRGN954AR
FS=1
#36, IRGN954AR
#19a, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN954AR
#77 IRGN954AR
U+223F8 𢏸
IDS1: ⿰弓⿱亠糸
IDS2: ⿰弓⿱亠糸 (GT)
IDS3: ⿰弓⿱亠.糸.
U+2C0CE 𬃎
IDS1: ⿰木⿱玄小
IDS2: ⿰木⿱亠糸 (T)
IDS3: ⿰木d⿱亠.糸.
The IDS should be changed from ⿰睿⿱只又 to ⿰睿⿱只夂.
An alternative IDS is ⿰土⿳𠂊冖巾.
#76, IRGN954AR
FS is yet to be changed to 1.
Support Ken and Conifer.
#32, IRGN954AR
#19, IRGN1105
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
#25, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#12, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
⿰月署 is acceptable for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA.
#42, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
#12, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
based on Comment #15154.
based on Comment #15154.
#72, IRGN954AR
follow 䪯 U+4AAF
#15, IRGN954AR
#31, IRGN954AR
#11, IRGN2221
#58, IRGN954AR
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
See also: 00095, 00094, 00092.
#36, IRGN954AR
#15, IRGN954AR
#44, IRGN954AR
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Evidence
▲ 王元鹿, 邓章应, 朱建军, 李静, 李明, 邱子雁: 《中国文字家族》 (刘志基: 《文字中国》), 郑州: 大象出版社, 2007.12, ISBN 978-7-5347-4920-9, p. 101
▲ 陈燕: 《汉字学概说》, 天津: 天津人民出版社, 2003.12, ISBN 7-201-03058-2, p. 243
▲ [光緒]湄潭縣志（清光緒刊本）卷6 folio 11a
湄潭縣 is in 貴州省遵義市.
兴仁县人民政府：贵州省兴仁县地名录，page197
I suggest to postponed this character.
中国测绘科学研究院：库外字代码对照表
▲ Program schedule of Cantonese Yueju Oprea named 《山乡恩仇记》
The current name is 《山乡风云》, and the corresponding novel is named as 《山乡风云录》.
「香港出品 何濟公」 https://hochaikung.com.hk/
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
On the other hand, this place is under 清新区, and 氹塘/凼塘 is a common stable word in 清远市.
▲ 广东省地理学会科普组: 《广东农谚》, 广州: 科学普及出版社广州分社, 1983.2, 统一书号: 16051·60185, p. 77
Seen in 中国测绘科学研究院《库外字代码对照表》：
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
文清公薛先生文集，明萬曆42年[1614]薛士弘刻，卷1。
https://reurl.cc/RW8XpZ
▲ 《霸州志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之五
Also see WS2021-04607:GKJ-00233.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
The third 說文 evidence implies that it is a misprint of 鷽.
遵古本正韻石齋海篇，明崇祯刻本
▲ 《大清歷朝實錄》(1934, 滿日文化協會影印本) 清世祖實錄卷64 folio 12b
Out of scope: Note that KC-12267 ⿰涑𡡅 is misinterpretation from ⿰潄鳥, KR should update the glyph and IDS of KC-12267. KR can consider HE in the future.
增補文成字彙 清乾隆七年（1742）京都文成堂刻本
飲月軒詩鈔 清道光二十一年(1841）家刻本
均薻 清乾隆中綿州李氏萬卷樓刻嘉靖十四年（1809）李鼎元重校印本
▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999031766 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 71b
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 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
▲ 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
The pronunciation of ⿰关鳥 is zhi4, which is totally different with 𪁾.
The glyph of ⿰关鳥 is quite stable to be encoded.
Seems like misprint of 鴞.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 23a, 鳥部/5畫, quotes 類篇.
鴞 is already included in this dictionary (folio 22b), so ⿰另鳥 is placed here intentionally. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 《精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海》, 日内閣文庫藏本, 卷之四
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 大乘經音義第一之七, 貞, 不空羂索神變真言經一部三十卷, 第一帙, 第四卷
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
▲ 《職方典》，古今圖書集成本，第六百八十一卷（《蘇州府物産考》）
▲ 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.
Yes it's a variant form of 啞, but stable enough to be encoded.
▲ 郝懿行: 《爾雅義疏》, 郝氏家刻本, 下之四
——李清照《武陵春》
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.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 10a
▲ zi.tools: cursive script examples of 特
Here is the complete page of the second evidence:
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 96b
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
▲大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b. 虫部/6畫, quotes 龍龕. （⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𢪛）
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b（⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𭣣）
Here is a 龍龕 evidence:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 9a（虫部，平聲）
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
Please confirm the evidence source name.
贵州通志
初学记
类编图经集注衍義本草
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 39
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 42
This is a common character used in Ningpo cuisine.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 106
▲ 傅国通, 郑张尚芳: 《浙江省语言志》, 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-213-06955-0, p. 245
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b 虫部/6畫 （長隆切）, quotes 會玉川篇.
叔 has 8 strokes. Maybe the character was normalized from ⿰虫尗 or it is misprint of some known character.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷13 folio 6b, 虫部, quotes 玉篇.
An earlier revision gives 蠦:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（國立故宮博物院藏金刊元修本）卷13 虫部. So ⿰虫庐 is derived from 蠦.
四书章句集注
劉大司成文集
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷1 金部/17-24畫, (⿰金𣡸) quote 搜真玉鏡
I can't find a UCV for 𣡸/欝. If we don't have one, please also consider add such UCV so ⿰金𣡸 can be unified to ⿰金欝.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18574&page=9#box(302,293,1,2)
▲ 玉篇（元刊本）：「錊，子對切，錬也」
鄦齋叢書
隷辨
泵浦
▲ 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
繡像永慶昇平全傳
This character looks like the variant of 錞.
We have the UCV for 夗 and 死.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第五
▲ 吴大澂: 《説文古籀補》, 光緒二十一年重刻本, 卷第十二
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 30b (Lineage: 朱磐烑/奠埦/覲鈭/宸澻/拱欆/多㷿/謀𡊀/統⿱𡖅金)
It is probable that ⿱𡖅金 represents an intermediate form between ⿱死金 and ⿱夗金.
《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
The submitted character might be a misprint form of 鏃?
嘉靖御倭江浙主客军考
陈明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗
[咸淳]臨安志
史記
唐詩百名家全集一百種
詩法入門
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
Andrew's evaluation appears to be confirmed.
▲ 盛益民, 李旭平: 《富阳方言研究》 (吴语重点方言研究丛书), 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2018.8, ISBN 978-7-309-13379-0/H·2767, p. 41
It looks like word used for Chinese Wu-dialect.
▲ 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》.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//施方穆: 《抗戰前後 八十家佳作集 上集》, 香港: 新流書店, 1947.9, p. 545
The simplified form is shown as below.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
⿰犭围 has not been encoded yet.
摩麟近詩
增補文成字彙
Agree with Conifer, Evidence 4 is not clear enough to confirm what it is.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第九百一十三
On the other hand, in other edition of 《太平御覽》, the character is written as 㺊.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 嘉慶仿宋刻本, 卷第九百一十三
▲ 《重修政和證類本草》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第十
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 錢恂藏揚州使院本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷之一
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.
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.
樂府詩集
Error form of 𢶉?
覆宋本重修廣韻卷5：「𢶉，射中聲，普麥切。」
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
▲ 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).
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.
▲ 邢准：《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》，金刻本，卷第二十六
https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/b3/6d.html
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・白口本 (the ancestor of 汲古閣本) looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・天啓年間本 looks like this.
But even if the character was really mistakenly generated, if it has been separately used for a long time, the separate encoding might be a considerable option.
Tao Yang, please could you supply more detailed bibliographic information of the evidence 1? Is it taken from 《通雅》? 《漢書補注》? I don't have nice text database to spot where the part was taken from.
汉书补注 P4130
Details on this page.
說文解字 清嘉慶九年（1804）陽湖孫星衍平津館校刻宋小字本
說文解字注箋 民國三年（1914）京師補刻清光緒二十年（甲午1894）番禹徐氏桂林刻本
正字通 清康熙九年（1670）序弘文書院木刻本
正字通 清康熙間芥子園刻本
通雅 清康熙五年（1666）姚文燮浮山此藏軒刻本
御定佩文韻府 清乾隆間寫摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本
黔游记
古經解彙函二十三種·说文解字 清同治十二年(1873）粵東書局刻本
粵雅堂叢書·續黔書 清道光光緒間（1821-1908）南海伍氏刻本
養素堂文集 清道光十五年（1835）束華書屋刻本
平津館叢書·說文解字 清光緒十一年（1885）吳縣朱氏槐廬家塾刻本
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
▲ 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.”
詩識名解
蠕范
中華大典醫藥衛生典 藥學分典十
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 鼷.
湖海樓詩藳
古文竒賞
全上古三代秦汉三国六朝文
五種遺規
漢書地理志補注
古学彚刊:第二集
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
景定建康志 52巻 [宋]周應合撰 四庫全書本 卷四十六
蘇魏公集 73巻 [宋]蘇頌撰 四庫全書本 卷六
中華書局校勘信息表
▲ 新刊大宋演義中興通俗演義（明嘉靖刊本）卷8 folio 6
▲ 陳仁錫：《八編類纂》，明刻本，卷之二百六十
Therefore, ⿸鹿日 is a mistake for U+232F4 𣋴.
Based on this evidence, ⿸鹿心 should be a mistake for U+9E83 麃.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷23 folio 17a (⿸𢉖國 = ⿸鹿國 by UCV 443), 鹿部, quotes 奚韻.
I agree with Lee that ⿸鹿國 is related to ⿸鹿囯. The fanqie 苦君切 suggests that ⿸鹿國、⿸鹿囯、⿸鹿苦 might all be variants of 麕.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 鹿部, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷15 鹿部, (⿸鹿𫀄) quotes 搜真玉鏡.
The shape was then normalized to ⿸鹿戚 in later revisions:
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）卷15 鹿部
▲ 李元: 《蠕範》, 同治刻本, 卷六
▲ 朴仁范, 尹明浩: 《国家中医药管理局民族医药文献整理丛书 乡药集成方：校勘注释（下册）》, 长春: 吉林科学技术出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 7-5578-0244-8, p. 2029
▲ 谢宇: 《女性常见病药草治疗》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5029-4, p. 178
▲ 侯玲文: 《上古汉语朝鲜语对应词研究》, 北京: 民族出版社 , 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-105-10271-6, p. 256
▲ 国家中医药管理局: 《中华本草》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1999, ISBN 7-5323-5106-8, p. 667
▲ 陈丕显, 陈金祥: 《长阳县志（民国二十五年纂修）》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2005.9, ISBN 7-80192-609-9/K·443, p. 85
长阳县 means 湖北省宜昌市长阳土家族自治县.
▲ 王云, 孙立新: 《人是铁，饭是钢：谷物坚果增智慧》, 北京: 现代出版社, 2011.10, ISBN 978-7-5143-0076-5, p. 108
A similar form (⿰𥝌敂) is mentioned in 四庫全書總目提要, where the author criticizes 合併字學集篇集韻 attributed 䅩(in the form ⿰𥝌⿱攴只) and this character to the radical 禾 instead of 𥝌 (despite the fact that 䅩 also belongs to 禾部 in 康熙字典).
However if we check 禾部 of 合併字學集篇, we find that the form of this character is ⿲禾句支:
In the Commerical Press version of 四庫全書總目 (vol. 9 p. 74), the form ⿰禾𢼒 is adopted.
⿰𥝌敂 in 新編併音連聲韻學集成
⿰𥝌敂 in 重訂直音篇
▲ 陈企望: 《神农本草经注》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2018.11, ISBN 978-7-5152-1714-7, p. 1275
▲ 惠永正: 《中药天然产物大全 11 下 中药》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 7-5478-0202-1, p. 8760
▲ 任继昉: 《“转注字也是半形半声的字”——于安澜先生“转注”观的启示》//张生汉: 《于安澜先生纪念集》, 开封: 河南大学出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-81091-846-6, p. 199
▲ 曾昭聪: 《魏晋南北朝隋唐五代词源研究史略》, 北京: 语文出版社, 2010.4, ISBN 978-7-80184-999-1, p. 30
▲ 许志刚: 《诗经论略》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.1, ISBN 7-5610-3909-3, p. 304
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.
汉字海
▲ 陈是集; 郑行顺: 《海南先贤诗文丛刊 溟南诗选（外一种）》, 海口: 海南出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5443-0962-2/I·38, p. 14
The new evidence is related to WS2021-04688.
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.
▲ 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.
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
(日)山井鼎輯，《七經孟文考文補遺 二百卷》第12冊，頁90
https://reurl.cc/bDqg2X
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
▲ 曹洪欣, 张志斌: 《中医养生大成 第一部（养生通论）下》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 7-5335-3767-8, p. 2392
▲ 龙一夫, 游凤澄: 《中国中医西医治疗保健养生大全》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 1994.3, ISBN 7-207-02763-X/R·62, p. 537
▲ 郑观应, 董沛文, 盛克琦: 《郑观应养生集——修真四要·道术·中外卫生要旨》 (唐山玉清观道学文化丛书), 北京: 宗教文化出版社, 2015.10, ISBN 978-7-5188-0096-4, p. 460
This character looks stable for 中医 usage.
▲ 王缵叔, 徐怀东: 《食经·食单·食疗方》, 西安: 西北大学出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5604-1339-0/G·181, p. 231
The traditional form ⿰魚要 hasn't been encoded, while the simplified form could be accepted.
▲ 丹波康赖: 《医心方 下》(中医典籍丛刊), 北京: 华龄出版社, 2020.9, ISBN 978-7-5169-1688-9, p. 1078
▲ 鄢良, 李瑶, 吕燕: 《中华养生经籍集成》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2012.5, ISBN 978-7-5152-0183-2, p. 379
中国养生文献全书·第三卷
太平惠民和劑局方
淄川方言志
黎川方言研究
澄海方言研究
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，四庫全書，卷四十二
▲ 李文瑞, 李秋贵: 《中药别名辞典》, 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-5046-0446-1/R·102, p. 654
▲ 高学敏: 《中医药学高级丛书 中药学 上册》, 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000.11, ISBN 7-117-03790-3, p. 255
▲ 冉先德: 《全新修订经典版 中华药海 上卷 第一册》, 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨出版社, 1993.4, ISBN 7-80557-593-2, p. 61
▲ 程超寰: 《本草释名考订》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.7, ISBN 978-7-5132-1473-5, p. 296
▲ 老中医养生堂: 《本草纲目白话解（彩图版）》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-5335-5689-1, p. 261
▲ 陈仁寿, 刘训红: 《江苏中药志 第三卷》, 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5713-1211-4, p. 336
▲ 郑恢: 《事物异名分类词典》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2002.9, ISBN 7-207-05045-3/G·1052, p. 96
漢字海
▲ 周路红: 《古代名医学术懿行研究——走近中医》, 天津: 天津科技翻译出版有限公司, 2013.11, ISBN 978-7-5433-3323-9, p. 75
▲ 唐慎微, 陆拯, 郑苏, 傅睿, 岳雪莲, 薛今俊: 《重修政和经史证类备用本草》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5132-1219-9, p. 1509
Note: 𥤶 U+25936 is the variant of 屁.
The evidence above is from 中药大辞典.
▲ 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
古今合璧事類備要 宋刻本
杜工部草堂詩箋 元刻本
新編類意集解諸子瓊林 元刻本
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
集韻
新訂中州全韻
類音
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
If experts think this to be unclear, I'd like to buy a hard copy and take a picture myself.
https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
▲ 李行健: 《学生现代汉语规范词典》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2016.3, ISBN 978-7-5326-4501-5, p. 782
▲ 程前: 《汉英化学化工科技词汇》, 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5025-1699-9, p. 1221
▲ 王秀山: 《现代汉英化学化工词典》, 西安: 陕西人民教育出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-5419-1023-6/Z·55, p. 828
▲ 张洋: 《精编德汉化学化工词典》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5608-4673-6, p. 723
▲ 张键: 《新英汉化学化工大词典》, 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-80198-313-8, p. 1546
▲ 梅森 (L. F. A. Mason): 《摄影加工化学》(Photographic Processing Chemistry), 北京: 中国电影出版社, 1982.12, 统一书号: 15061·183, p. 357
▲ 弗雷德里克 A. 洛温海姆 (F. A. Lowenheim): 《现代电镀 第三版》 (Modern Electroplating, Third Edition), 北京: 机械工业出版社, 1982.9, 统一书号: 15033·5233, p. 362
▲ A. G. E. 皮尔斯 (A. G. Everson Pearse): 《组织化学（增订第二版）》 (Histochemistry: Theoretical and Applied), 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1959.4, 统一书号: 14048·1727, p. 535
▲ 中国人民解放军第一五七医院: 《简易护士西学中教材（试用本）》, 广州: 中国人民解放军第一五七医院, 1975.3, p. 88
▲ 广西植物研究所: 《广西植物名录 第二册 双子叶植物》, 桂林: 广西植物研究所, 1971.12, p. 625
〈吳川方言〉, by 李全佳, in《文風學報》, issue 2/3 (1948), p. 56
张菊生先生七十生日纪念论文集 414页
▲ 牟百谦: 《从英语学习词典的新发展看积极型中型英汉词典的编纂》, 《辞书研究》, 1999.1, ISSN 1000-6125, p. 96
王仁兴: 《国菜精华 商代—清代》, 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-80768-233-2, p. 574
▲ 陈万青, 谢洪方, 陈驰, 肖建良: 《海错溯古——中华海洋脊椎动物考释》, 青岛: 中国海洋大学出版社, 2014.4, ISBN 978-7-5670-0170-1, p. 25
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"?
國家圖書館藏張鼎思明萬曆31年本
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
▲ 南京中医药大学 (编著). 中药大辞典 (下册) (第2版). 2006.
The glyph should be changed accordingly.
The glyph should be ⿰名無, cause there are 3 other variants in the same book.
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
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1F36.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
Meanwhile, ⿹气二 is still quite stable to be encoded.
⿹气土 has been included in WS2021 as 01956.
⿰禾𰢫與⿹气養之關係 The Relation of Oxygen to Bacterial Life.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANLC416-13jh008014-59011_〓學新編.pdf&page=51
食品检验及分析法
地名大词典·二
帝制时代的中国法
简明纺织品词典
p. iv
p. 373
▲ 延一: 廣清涼傳, 大正新修大藏經, 卷上
Maybe SAT can provide more explanations.
Also be GHF-0543.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
國家圖書館藏二十四卷本
國家圖書館藏二十四卷本
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.
Another version of 正统道藏 also sure the same source, while the text version use 灘 instead.
▲ 周嘉胄：《香乘》，四庫全書本，卷二十
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
▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)
▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
▲ 四川省水利厅: 《低水头农村水电站修建技术》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1958.6, 統一書号: 15118·8, p. 57
▲ 吴观周: 《给妹妹的信（研究无线电）》//蒋逸霄: 《红藏——进步期刊总汇（1915-1949） 〈上海妇女〉②》, 湘潭: 湘潭大学出版社, 2014.6, ISBN 978-7-81128-686-1, p. 279
▲ 南京部队政治部电影工作站: 《电影放映教材（试用本）》, 1971.8, p. 148
▲ 上海物理学会中学物理教学研究委员会: 《高中物理教学参考读物 电场》, 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1959.5, 统一书号: 7150·527, p. 56
▲ 中央人民政府第一機械工業部電器工業管理局: 《電工手册》, 北京: 機械工業出版社, 1953.9, 書號: 0257-0-71, p. 5
東方雜誌.第32卷·Feb.1,1935,V.32,Num.3
▲ 梁冠廷, 熊道儿: 《粤剧小曲集》, 广州: 广东粤剧院艺术室, 1982, p. 192
挨糯(口痕)打士丹
I no understand
米（口痕）打士丹椏罅
my understand alla
▲ 李新宇, 周海婴: 《鲁迅大全集 第28卷 学术编 鲁迅辑校石刻手稿 墓志 （下）》, 武汉: 长江文艺出版社, 2011.9, ISBN 978-7-5354-4404-2, p. 162
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Phrase_Book_in_the_Canton_Dialect_or_Dialogues_on_Ordinary_and_Familiar_Subjects.djvu/44
▲ 石朝江: 《中国苗学》 (《国际视野中的贵州人类学 苗学辑》), 贵阳: 贵州大学出版社, 2014.07, ISBN号 ：978-7-81126-703-7, p. 159
▲ [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.
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NTL-9900014811_新編廣東省城白話.pdf/43 (https://taiwanebook.ncl.edu.tw/zh-tw/book/NTL-9900014811)
許雪航編《新編廣東省城白話》 page 40, column 2-3, ⿰扌生鼻涕, equivalent to 擤(sang3)鼻涕
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之十三
This person’s name is 阮輝～ and his brother is 阮輝𠐓.
This character and 𠐓 (U+20413) both have not the V-Source reference.
▲ 計六奇: 《明季北略》, 清印本, 卷之二十
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
Note. KR cannot access 『安東權氏佐尹公派譜』(1930) via Internet.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
See https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg59/IRGN2549KRResp1.pdf
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ 承政院日記 3074冊 高宗 33年 8月 20日
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
For example, in August 21st 高宗 34年, exactly one year later, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion again (승정원일기 3087책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 34년 8월 21일).
And in August 20th 高宗 35年, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion (승정원일기 3100책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 35년 8월 20일).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
Therefore, KR will change glyph to ⿱齊山.
▲ 장서각[부여 은산 함양박씨 구당(九堂) 박세영(朴世榮) 종가])
We can learn that 具安民 is from 綾城 and living in 江華 and his father 具湘 is a 叅奉. Here is 具湘 from 司馬榜目:
▲ 만력43년을묘사마방목(萬曆四十三年乙卯司馬榜目)』(국립중앙도서관[일산古6024-95])
The information here is consistent with the 壬子增廣司馬榜目. It seems to me ⿰土相 is misprint of 湘, can KR provide more evidences?
KR will withdraw.
We can find 朴恂 in 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』:
Note that their father's information here is consistent. Here we can learn that 朴恂 has a brother named 朴恦 and 朴贒 was still alive as of 1653.
▲ 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
For character 𪬺, I couldn't find more evidences for 朴𪬺. But we do have 李𪬺 in 承政院日記 승정원일기 821책 (탈초본 45책) 영조 12년 3월 12일 병오 29/31 기사, suggesting that 𪬺 is also a name character.
The website people.aks.ac.kr is also normalizing ⿰忄⿱宷日 to 𪬺, which suggests that they could be unifiable:
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷39 folio 7a
However, in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七(규장각한국학연구원[奎貴11655]), 李彦忠's father is 李掀, they are from 星州, too.
▲ 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七
Since 掀 and 頎 have different pronunciations, I think ⿰扌頎 might be a misprint of 掀.
In the original evidence, 李𢓜 passed the exam at 萬曆16/宣祖21年 (1588).
Here I provide an older 國朝榜目 evidence, according to the catalog, this version was created in 1796.
▲ 卷之三(한국학중앙연구원 장서각[K2-3538])
In this evidence, 李彥忠, father or 李𢓜, passed the exam at 嘉靖25/明宗1年 (1546).
So the historical material that 李彥忠's father is 李掀, predates the historical material that 李𢓜's grandfather is 李⿰扌頎. Can KR elaborate the statement that the glyph in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 is an error? It will be very helpful. Thank you.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷表七 folio 2b
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷236 folio 17a
▲ 資治通鑑（宋紹興二年至三年兩浙東路茶鹽司公使庫刻本）卷260 folio 13b gives 汭. See also 新唐書·成汭
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
▲ 律科榜目·劉運啓
New evidence:
▲ 律科榜目·劉運漢
▲ 文獻通考（元泰定元年(1324)西湖書院刊後至元五年(1339)余謙修補本）卷319 folio 12b
▲ 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.
～夷爭笑.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本 故善012362-012371）卷2 folio 5b, 音謹, 金部10畫, quotes 龍龕手鑑.
▲ {{龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏南宋刊本 故善001281-001286）卷1 folio 5a gives ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 (missing one horizontal stroke). 金部/平聲. ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 is likely unifiable with ⿰金堇.
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ 祝穆: 《古今事文類聚續集》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十五
▲ 李昉: 《太平御覽》, 四庫全書本, 卷八百七
Therefore, this character is stable enough to encode separately.
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 張深切: 《日語要領》, 北京: 新民印書館, 1942.9, p. 46
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074392
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
In this case, it is semantically obvious that it should have 扌, and all witnesses agree.
▲ 魏仲舉: 《五百家注昌黎文集》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
The related sentence is cited from 《荀子》, and some versions give 齫.
Two modern publishing books also related to 韩愈 (韩昌黎) also give the corresponding simplified form ⿰齿羽.
▲ 刘国盈: 《韩愈评传》, 北京: 北京师范学院出版社, 1991.6, ISBN 7-81014-532-0/I·13, p. 191
▲ 宗传璧: 《韩愈诗选注》, 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1986.6, 书号: 10275·38, p. 227
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
▲ 《碣石調幽蘭》//楊宗稷: 《琴粹》, 風鹤琴齋藏本, Volumn 3, folio 2//楊宗稷: 《琴學叢書》, 舞胎仙館藏本
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
慧琳一切經音義
希麟一切經音義
▲ 中国艺术研究院音乐研究所: 《曹安和纪念文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2021.5, ISBN 978- 7-5039-6424-4, p. 131
This character is also used as the Pipa fingering letter, and its fingering name is 摭, which is different from Guqin, and it means “to pluck the string to the left with thumb, and to pluck the string to the right with index finger”.
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之十五
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074396
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
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.
一切经音义三种校本合刊
▲ 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.
▲ 李登: 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏萬曆刻本, 卷之三
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十一卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第二
The previous page to Evidence 2:
The radical of KC10204 looks like 土. Maybe ROK should confirm the evidence of KC10204.
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.
▲ 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」
▲ 愛新覺羅·弘曆: 《御製詩五集》, 四庫全書本, 卷八十九
The modern publishing version gives 濭.
▲ 香山公园管理处: 《清·乾隆皇帝咏香山静宜园御制诗》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2008.9, ISBN 978-7-5008-4196-8, p. 61
香山 here means current 香山公园 in 北京市. The following is current 静宜园.
▲ 中国舞台美术学会: 《建筑丨静宜园：香山红叶，三山五园》, 2022.1.23, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9lggHmbmi-Kz65IV_ZHobA
中華字海:
▲ 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.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 未集
▲ 王仁昫, 裴務齊: 《裴務齊正字本刊謬補缺切韻》
玄應一切經音義
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 陳繼儒: 《𣈿曝餘談》, 萬曆刻本, 卷之上
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷十一
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第七
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
2. 四国遍路日記: 澄 禅 (Chōzen). 宮 崎 忍 勝 (Miyazaki, Ninshō) (ed). 四国遍路日記
(Shikoku Henro Nikki). 大東出版社, 1977.
3. 新潮日本語漢字辞典: 新潮日本語漢字辞典 (Shinchō Nihongo Kanji Jiten). 新潮社, 2007.
See IRGN2485.
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.
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).
▲ 北郭集（明成化刊本）卷2 folio 13b
(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 盛羽: 《中国传统镂版印花工艺研究》, 北京: 中国纺织出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5180-5192-2, pp. 159-160
▲ 《職方典》, 古今圖書集成本, 第九百三十一卷, 浙江總部彙考一
▲ [康熙]浙江通志（清康熙刊本）卷14 folio 4b gives 粞.
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 329
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 366
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
▲ 吴其濬: 《植物名实图考长編》, 北京: 商務印書館, 1959.12, 統一书号: 13017·188, p. 273
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 45
But it's a wrong shape of 岏.
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷18 folio 8b
The text is from 郭應酉《重建社稷壇記》. Here ⿰⺼亡 seems to be a kind of animal.
新刻辨疑正韻同文玉海
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70809
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAwNjA0LTAwNA
The glyph on the evidence doesn’t match WS2021-00938:TC-3047.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=71073
一切經音義
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷7 folio 23a, 皿部, 羊益切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2023/23130-uax45-japan-place-names.pdf
https://b23.tv/QU1C4wN
If we can confirm this character is really used in Japan as the geographic name, it looks better to add it into Moji Joho in future.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 folio 26b, 耳部/4畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷216 folio 11b
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷217 folio 1b
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+A0100.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1B9E.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F0610.
観智院本『類聚名義抄』
▲ 異體字研究資料集成 一期 別卷二 龍龕手鑑: p. 40
文獻通考
續古文苑
學詁齋文集
▲ 揚州畫舫錄（清乾隆刊本）卷12 folio 8a
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 69a
▲ 盱眙朱氏八支宗譜（1929）卷4 folio 86a
Lineage: 石城安恪王朱宸浮/拱𣑁/多⿰火寽
https://ksbookshelf.com/nozomu-oohara/WaseikanjiJiten/WaseikanjiJiten_6b.html
On the other hand, this character is also registered as KC-12693.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162287
Maybe Japanese and Korean experts know more details for this character used in Japan and Korea.
The second column makes the component wrong and the third column shows that the origin form (本字) is 舯, which I don’t agree. In fact, ⿰舟冬舡 is a real Malaysian transliteration based on the Chinese Min Nan dialect used in Southeast Asia. This word is written as 舯舡 in Singapore, and these two characters are not related to the original meaning of 舯 and 舡 in Chinese. The initial (聲母) of 中 is 知 in the middle Chinese, and its initials are t- in almost all Chinese Min dialects.
This character and the form of this word has been accepted by Chinese Language Standardisation Council of Malaysia (马来西亚华语规范理事会, 语范), so I think it’s better to accept it like some characters submitted by Macao SARG.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（南宋刊本）卷3 folio 48a. 𨕙、𮞰、⿺辶旱 and ⿺辶⿸昇丶 are all variants of 邊.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷231 folio 14a
▲ 居延漢簡考釋（1949） pp. 173
陳直 suggested that ⿰金左 might be a variant of 釱.
▲ 居延漢簡解要（中華書局）// 籍合網
Of course the academic discussion above does not apply to the original evidence provided as a person name.
found in 《五音集韵》五脂 徹 三等
▲ Sidney Lau: A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary, Hong Kong: Information Services Department, 1976.8, p. 209 (Entry 698.11)
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 21b 心部/入聲.
「俗，於角反。正從巾作」. So ⿰忄屋 is a variant of 幄. In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉,「從中」is an error of 「從巾」.
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 55b
Lineage: 樂安靖莊王宸湔/拱榮/多煨/謀⿰忄屋
▲ 音韻闡微（清光緒淮南書局刊本）卷10 二十五有 folio 13a
In this evidence, ⿰日咅 is misprint of 暗.
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）第十一冊小學類佛經音義之屬 p. 5527
▲ 山東通志（清乾隆元年 [1736] 刻道光十七年 [1837] 補刻）卷15之2 folio 94
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 325
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 42a
(Lineage: 瑞昌悼順王宸㵾/栱樛/多煪/謀墭/統⿰金升)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷2 folio , 金部/6畫, 升叔切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
Here is an evidence of ⿰金𫝢󠄂(𫝢+VS19), a variant of ⿰金升:
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金崇慶間刊元代修補本）卷2 folio 3a
The wrong glyph of 漯.
There are hundreds of variants of 壽, encode every form of them would waste too many code points.
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.