The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
It must be a variant shape of 歍, could be unified.
⿱𣪊X miswritten as ⿱殸X is quite common in historical documents, while 𣪊 and 殸 have different etymologies. I suggest adding a new Level 2 UCV ⿱𣪊X & ⿱殸X, where ⿱𣪊X also unifiable with ⿹
𣪊X.
If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The unification comments from Henry (#6293) and Eddie (#3077) are different, and this character is related to the definition of the small seal character, I suggest TCA and China NB, the authors of WG2 N5191, could choose which one is better, that will be useful for the future digital dictionary works.
If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
Evidence 1 and 3 show the character is the variant of 船, so the radical should be Radical Moon for these two cases. In my opinion, the character in Evidence 1 and 3 should be unified to 𣍬 (U+2336C).
Evidence 2 shows it is the possible variant of U+80C8 胈, and the meaning is related to human body, so the radical should be Radical Meat.
Evidence 4 shows it is used for the organic chemistry, so the radical must be Radical Meat as well.
Therefore, this character is not suitable to unify with 𣍬 (U+2336C), but Evidence 1 and 3 are not also suitable for encoding.
The right component of U+21703 𡜃 is the variant of 肉.
If this unification has been accepted, the second RS for U+21703 𡜃 should be 130.3. The semantic element for U+21703 𡜃 is 肉, but Kangxi Dictionary and other ancient dictionaries moved it under Radical 女.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add a new UCV for U+8089 肉 and U+2054E 𠕎 (even U+2E307 𮌇?) as Level 2.
U+30924 𰤤 is the variant of 皺, but U+26686 𦚆 is the variant of 䏢. Both are submitted by TCA.
Unification
John Knightley
China
If all agree to new UCV above be added, then withdraw as U+21703 𡜃 already has G.
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
Unification
ROK
On 2021-09-02, KR already mentioned that KR will change the glyph, IDS, SC, TS as suggested by Eiso (田 -> 日)
This is used in a personal name and therefore KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
> The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character ...
> Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) ...
==>
The evidence is "Passers List for Scholarly Degrees [司馬榜目, Sama bangmok]" published by the government during Joseon Dynasty and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is an error in the evidence. KR suggests that it not be unified to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A).
unify to WS2021-03178:KC-05603, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
Unification
ROK
Even though the right component of two chars could be unifiable, the entire chars are not necessarily unifiable.
KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
KR proposes a slight change of the decision regarding the unification of SN 3175 and SN 3178 as shown below:
(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178
==>
(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
unify to WS2021-03175:KC-05601, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
Unification
ROK
Even though the right component of two chars could be unifiable, the entire chars are not necessarily unifiable.
KR suggests not to unify.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
KR proposes a slight change of the decision regarding the unification of SN 3175 and SN 3178 as shown below:
(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178
==>
(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
Note: U+6B25 and SAT-04277 (eq. VN-F208B planned for the next Vietnam WS submission) are different in Nôm Tày usage and should not be unified. In the evidence provided by Eiso above, VN-F208B is read "hăn", meaning "to see". But U+6B25 is read "hất", which means "to work", "put effort into", etc.. Here is the entry for 欥 (U+6B25) from the same source (Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p 202):
Kangxi Dictionary shows 𧏬 is the variant of 嗤, but the submitted character also shares the same meaning. And these two ones must share the same rationale.
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，朝鮮本，卷第四
▲ 《可洪音義》，新集藏經音義隨函録，第十册
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
They do look similar, but our material only has occurrences in "螭" meaning, while evidence in #8872 all mean "laugh". We need to be cautious on the cognacy.
We have one case to unify 虎 and ⿸虍人 in WS2015. WS2015-04676:GHZR74467.11 ⿰阝⿸𠂆⿸虍人 has been unified to U+28EC6 𨻆.
In the ancient books, ⿸虍人 is also common.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add a new UCV for 虎 and ⿸虍人 as Level 1.
U+202A4 𠊤 ^⿰亻⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4FFF 俿 ^⿰亻虎$(GJKT)
U+2200A 𢀊 ^⿰巢⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2720A 𧈊 ^⿰巢虎$(G)
U+2249C 𢒜 ^⿰⿸虍人彡$(GT)
U+5F6A 彪 ^⿺虎彡$(GHJKT)
U+238D5 𣣕 ^⿰⿸虍人欠$(GT)
U+238CD 𣣍 ^⿰虎欠$(GT)
U+249A3 𤦣 ^⿰𤣩⿸虍人$(G)
U+7425 琥 ^⿰𤣩虎$(GHJKTV)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2732D 𧌭 ^⿰虫⿸虍人$(GT)
U+45C2 䗂 ^⿰虫虎$(GKT)
* In Kangxi Dictionary, 𧌭 is only used as the variant of 螔, but we can find 䗂 is also used as the variant of 螔, such as 䗂蝓=螔蝓 (snail 🐌) and 䗂䗔=螔䗔 (gecko 🦎).
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
𦆢 (U+261A2)
reading, sense and shape are similar. Kangxi entry for U+261A2 quotes Quangyun: 居例切，音罽。○按从网之字，或省作冈，或變作四。This appears to be a variant using a form of 四.
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add UCV for 丮, 𢩦, 𠃨 as Level 2.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
The other method to handle this one is that it should be unified to 益 U+76CA. The evidence has shown it is the variant of 益 clearly. The people often write the Lishu style of 益 as the form in Evidence 3. Please see the following picture. 顺益兴四合院 is a real estate company selling courtyards in Beijing. The Tianyancha page is here. https://www.tianyancha.com/company/10425537 The official website is here. http://www.siheyuan.cc/
▲ 顺益兴四合院（东城分店）
If this character is encoded separately, and any type designer wants to design a Lishu style font to cover all the CJKUIs in UCS/Unicode, maybe the end users need to meet the duplicate pair, that is not good. This form is close to Lishu form and some seal forms, so I think there is no need to add a new UCV.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Agree to change IDS as per #8232.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
This involves total four strokes difference which is non-trivial. We need a UCV in the case of unification.
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017. [ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with Eiso.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
We agree that this is more like Taisho's misanalysis. Withdraw for further examination.
This character, if encoded, would likely be unifiable with ⿰氵盁, which is currently coded in CNS11643 as TC-7234. Would TCA prefer to code (TC-7234 instead, then unify TC-4B4B to TC-7234?
Alternatively, both characters could be unified to 溋 U+6E8B, with addition of new UCV rule 盈 / 盁 / ⿱𠘧皿.
Data page for TC-7234 (Character Source: 財政部財稅用字):
Data page for TC-4B4B (Character Source: 內政部戶政用字):
Based on the pronunciation provided, this character should be unified to 淄 U+6DC4. However the shape typically suggests it to be ⿰氵𡿺, which is not known to be an existing character.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The right component of 02053 has no variant relationship with "甾 ".
Instead, it is a common variant relationship with "𡿺". But "⿰氵𡿺" is not coded?
TCA would like to keep separately.
As Lee’s comment, the submitted character is the variant of 篡/簒. U+2E40B 𮐋 is submitted by ROK. If ROK can confirm the meaning, we will be easy to confirm how to handle this character.
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
According to Taiwan MOE, this is actually a variant of 篡 (U+7BE1). If unified, need to add a new UCV rule.
The supplementary evidence provided by Eiso Chan shows the character to be a variant of 庵. It seems like 𤲅 is a common variant of 奄, and a possible candidate for a UCV.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
There are two types of "𤲅", one is the original character (is a variant of "菴"), and the other is used as a component, "𤲅" and "奄" are common variants of the relationship.
In the past, these two components were coded separately.
We should add new UCV 菴 and 𤲅, instead of unifying 奄 and 𤲅.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Consider those three component/characters(𤲅, 菴, 奄) have a variant relationship.
To be a character, 𤲅 is a variant of 菴.
To be a component, 𤲅 and 奄 are variant relationship.
Unified to 庵 U+5EB5, and consider a new UCV for 𤲅, 菴, 奄.
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
RE: WS2021-SN01288
- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726
- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agree to be a VS of U+9726.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
I don't think TD-4B2A can be safely unified to 霦 (U+9726), because the pronunciation given by TD-4B2A is lín, which suggests that the character is composed of phonetic 霖 with radical 彡, while 霦 (U+9726) is radical 雨 with 彬 phonetic, pronounced as bin1. If TCA can confirm the pronunciation, then we can unify or disunify with confidence.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
TCA would like to use the new UCV (same components, different structure). Unified.
It needs to be discussed together with the following character:
WS2021-03472:TE-4242
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31
Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
WS2021-03472:TE-4242
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31
Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
Oppose unification as non-cognate. This character is used in China, and you have to apply two UCVs to change its shape to the G glyph form (⿱屮王), which is too dissimilar to ⿱山壬.
U+6E3F 渿 vs U+3D0E 㴎
U+3B8F 㮏 vs U+3B88 㮈 vs U+235DF 𣗟
U+3CA1 㲡 vs U+23BA6 𣮦
U+217AB 𡞫 vs U+2178F 𡞏
U+24E0F 𤸏 vs U+24DC8 𤷈
U+25221 𥈡 vs U+251E7 𥇧
U+26CD0 𦳐 vs U+8418 萘
U+29236 𩈶 vs U+2922B 𩈫
U+29E5F 𩹟 vs U+4C5E 䱞 vs U+29E9A 𩺚
U+2D860 𭡠 vs U+637A 捺 vs U+2BF69 𫽩
U+6B40 歀, U+96B8 隸, U+236D2 𣛒, U+23729 𣜩, U+2B389 𫎉, U+2EA15 𮨕; U+20903 𠤃 and so on are not related to this UCV.
𭗙 (U+2D5D9) is mapped to KC-05009, but the newest version of KC-05009 is ⿱山眉:
Suggest to update K glyph and also add new UCV 眉 ~ 睂.
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
1) At the time of reviewing ExtF, KR did not apply Korea Normalization rules.
. Initially suggested KR glyph of U+2D5D9 was nearly the same as UK-20468 (shown below).
. During IRG discussion, IRG asked KR to modify the glyph to look as the evidence and that glyph is shown in U+2D5D9.
. Note. KR started apllying Korea Norm. Rules with ExtG.
2) KR wants to keep the current glyph of U+2D5D9.
3) KR suggests to disunify UK-20468 from U+2D5D9.
. 睂 is an old form of 眉.
. When the old form and modern form are much different, in many cases, two were separately encoded.
. Other examples: 㪅 - 更; 攷- 考; 叜- 叟
Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.
From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
Unification
TAO Yang
China
Agree with Andrew's opinion. U+211AE provides a good example that authoritative dictionaries are not Bible, the mistakes existing in them should be replaced by other sources.
According to Professor YANG BaoZhong's textual research, ⿴囗土 and 磣\墋 are variants(heterogeneous characters), which still used in Northeast dialect of China.
So China would like to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土, and change the reference to 陝西通志.
The pronunciation shown on the evidence indicates that it is unifiable to 局.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The following comment is from the scholar Kin Tin Shek who lived in Hong Kong SAR.
“The source says this is a variant of 局 (U+5C40), but in Canton/Hong Kong the usage is different - ⿸尸可 is a variant of 屙 (to defecate), thus not unifiable with 局 (U+5C40).”
I agree with him, and please see the new evidence on #8904.
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
The character shown is very unclear because it is so small, but it is obviously intended to be U+704B 灋. If ⿰氵⿸廌土 is not attested in any other source then this can be considered to be a one-off error in this particular telegraph code book. It seems unnecessary to encode this particular error form for this single usage. Therefore suggest unification with 灋 (U+704B).
Oppose Unification
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
Here is a clearer image of the evidence above.
Also, a near-identical form appears in the 1948 edition.
And this character also appears in CNS 11643.
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=739952
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
The T-source character for U+2209E seems to be a variant of 希 xī, so not cognate with the Vietnam character ⿱父布. Therefore unification is not appropriate. Suggest to keep this character in WS2021, and remove the V-source reference (VN-2209E) from U+2209E.
Given that the glyph has been updated, the IDS should be changed to ⿰耳𡿨 as suggested.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The kTotalStrokes value for 𡿨 U+21FE8 is 1, but the glyph on the evidence shows the SC should be 2 as the current value. Maybe the IDS should be ⿰耳⿱丿丶.
The glyph on the evidence looks like the following.
Two horizontal strokes for the outside component 齊 is missing in this character, so, is it OK to use 齊 as the radical? If yes, the RS values for this character and 齌 are the same, but the TS values are different, that looks not better; if not, I suggest using 火 86.0 as the radical, and SC=12, and keep FS without change.
According to CNS11643, the pronunciation is mǎ.
Change Radical to 31.0 (囗), SC=13, FS=1
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
As R31 囗 is not the obvious radical, and would hamper the discoverability of this character, the radical should be kept as R187 馬.
Could Lee or Eiso confirm that VN-F195D uses R74 'moon' radical?
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The meaning of this character based on the Vietnamese use means "the light shines, the sky is bright" (general meaning). So I think the radical must be R74.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Keep ⿰子阝, like U+273C4, U+2EB2A.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
At least, this case is different from U+273C4 𧏄. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the left part is the real 子. So, it’s OK to use 子 as the left component in the IDS.
For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.
According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
FYI: We suspect that U+2EB2A 𮬪 is a malformed glyph of 鳩 in the SAT context.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹閣. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹閣 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹閣 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝閣 the primary IDS and ⿱艹閣(or 〾⿱艹閣) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹綾. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹綾 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹綾 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝綾 the primary IDS and ⿱艹綾(or 〾⿱艹綾) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹毓. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹毓 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹毓 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝毓 the primary IDS and ⿱艹毓(or 〾⿱艹毓) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹𥠺. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹𥠺 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV #152 & #320, ⿱艹𥠺 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝⿰禾昷 the primary IDS and 〾⿱艹𥠺 as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹旗. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹旗 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹旗 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝旗 the primary IDS and ⿱艹旗(or 〾⿱艹旗) as the secondary IDS.
SC=14 as there is 龷, which isn't 廿, in the first piece of evidence and the glyph.
Total Stroke Count
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TS=25
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
All 廣 components (with 黃 or 黄) should be counted as 15 in IRG WS to KX. The real glyph shapes and the regional conventions are not important for the stroke counts. The SC and TS should be kept as the submitted ones.
I agree with Eddie that ⿰饣穸 is an error form, 穸 and 𡨝 is non-cognate.
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
Not opposed to changing IDS, but it's not clear what the benefit is. The current IDS, 漂見, follows the analysis of the dictionary compiler, as he notes "(phiêu kiến)". Historically, 漂 was used first alone, then the component 見 was added to distinguish it.
U+21756 𡝖 (entry above in the evidence) is under R38 女 so it would make sense for this character to also be under R38.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
I'm fine with changing the radical to 女, which seems more natural, but note that 女 is phonetic and 忍 is semantic, so by current IRG rules, it has to be 61 in 忍.
It's better to keep the current IDS because of the rationale, which the semantic element is 絲 and the phonetic element is 貝.
If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
126.0 (而) would be a natural way to look this up and should be an alternate radical. However, the meaning of this character is "two" and 而 is phonetic, so based on IRG rules, the best radical might be 7.0 (二), SC=9, FS=1
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
I'm not sure what IRG rules you are referring to. However, IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
The administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The mountain mentioned in the evidence is located at the junction of what is now Yuelu District (岳麓区), Wangcheng District (望城区) and Ningxiang County (宁乡县), and the main part is in current Jijiashan Village, Yuchangping Town (雨敞坪镇) which is now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and 黄金镇 (also 黄金乡) mentioned in the evidence is disassembled into 黄金园街道, 白马街道 and so on. Jijiashan Village is the geographical name in the evidence related to the submitted character. There is a folk tale that the original name of this mountain is 鸡叫山, and the people changed the name to 嵇家山/嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 (so many forms) because the reading of 鸡 and 嵇 are similar, 叫 and 家/珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 are also similar. This behaviour is called as 地名雅化, but the folk tale is very unbelievable. Current Jijiashan Village uses 嵇家山 as the official county name, because 家 is a common character. This is not a good choice. For the mountain, people use 嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 in the daily life. We can know the phonetic elements of 珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 is 加 easily. For the submitted character, the component 禾 and 山 come from 嵇, and 加 is also the real phonetic element. Therefore, the current glyph is acceptable.
Isn't there some question about the suitability of 汉字海 as a reliable source? I think it can be used as secondary evidence, but I would prefer to see additional evidence for ⿰木弯 as a place name.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
For this case, it's reliable enough to encode because it a simplified form of a tranditional character. There is no need to provide a reliable evidence of place name.
The place mentioned in the evidence should be 山底村.
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It may be a stable error. There are different versions of 1958/1964/1966/1971/1980 陕西省公路里程表, I will check some of them. And I suggest we keep it in main set for now.
Where does the only one evidence cite from? 闽侯县地名录 or 福建省地名全册?
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree to comment #6670.
In addition, regarding the content of the evidence, in Taiwan, there is only "崁" in place names, "嵌" is rare, but there is no "⿱宀坎".
According to 陳正祥's statistics quoted in the evidence, the font should be "崁".
It is included in 《八辅》
And the article doesn't say 赤崁 is written as 赤⿱宀坎 but 赤嵌. As to this article, the anthor just list all characters used as same meaning and then give statement about all of them .
What's more, it's used in Fujian Province too.
Maybe two place names are both used in the same village, this is OK. I just consider how to add the language tag. If this village is the same the one mentioned in WS2017-03819, that means the name is derived from Kamese 侗语.
A list of local vulgar simplifications does not seem sufficient evidence for encoding. At the very least I would expect to see evidence of the submitted character in actual textual use.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
It is difficult to preserve such characters in written materials. They are the products of historical times. They only circulate in specific periods and regions, and will disappear with the process of standardization. They were usually used in daily writing, such as slogans, ground or wall drawings, etc. with the change of buildings, the carrier of such characters will also disappear. Documents can preserve this kind of characters occasionally, but the usage of them is difficult to rediscovered.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
In Andrew's opinion, does 《宋元以来俗字谱》seem reliable enough? I don't think the comment is reasonable. Besides, all other corresponding relationships in the evidence is clear and right.
For example,赣 and 㶥
江西省广昌县地名志，P226-227
According to the evidence, ⿱山畬 and ⿱山𤲞 has the meaning of 斜坡. They are congnate but have the different meaning of 畬.
In place names, 畬、畲 and 𤲞 can be used as each other. But there are not too many pairs.
As I know,
For radical 土, there are 𰊮（U+302AE）, ⿰土畲 and ⿰土𤲞;
For radical 山, there are ⿰山畬、⿰山𤲞、⿱山畬（WS2017）、⿱山𤲞.
However, 𤲞 is also a variant of 番 which means ⿰土𤲞 can be a variant of 墦, ⿰山𤲞 can be a variant of 嶓.
Considering people will more likely to think 余 and ⿱人米 as different characters, I suggest we encode them seperately.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70922
I think here is a case that ⿰土𤲞 is a variant of a 墦 (坟)：
As what I wrote for WS2021-02878, the administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The town mentioned in the evidence, 九江乡, now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District (岳麓区) based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and the name was changed to 含浦街道 (the previous name is 含浦镇) , and 学士街道 was also disassembled from 含浦街道. The geographical name related to the submitted character is written as 作肖/作硝/笮筱, and the material show the original name should be 筰筱. (See the entry of 作肖 and 笮筱大屋 on National Database for Geographical Names of China, and 作硝 is used in AMAP/高德地图.) I have not found the picture included the country name used in the country, so I can not confirm which names are proper.
The evidence is clear, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale of the submitted character.
丙 and 两 have a close relationship between each other. The paper below discusses etymology and diachronic changes of 丙 and 两. Therefore, ⿰魚两 appearing in Evidence 1 韻經五卷, after 蛃, is reasonable. I don't think we can immediately say ⿰魚两 is an error here.
Thanks for demonstration from LI Yuan.
Although ⿰魚两 is obviously the variant of 𩶁, there is no rule for unification of 丙 and 两. As a head character of a dictionary, it has an independent status other from the ones occasionally appear in the text.
The poem mentioned in the evidence means the 梁太子蕭統’s work 《大言》: “觀脩鯤其若轍鮒，視滄海之如濫觴。經二儀而跼蹐，跨六合以翱翔。” All the version of this poem in the ancient books show that position is 轍. Here is a modern typo, so we should remove this character.
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，明萬曆刻本，卷二
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，清光緒刻本，卷二
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
⿰魚𰕎 is observed in another two 藝文類聚 versions, so it is not a modern (but rather ancient) misprint.
The full page is shown as below for Evidence 1 & 2. It is easy to know the right phonetic component is 天 not 夭, because the pronunciation is 填. So the glyph should be changed to ⿰魚天 not ⿰魚夭.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
Chongwu is a town under Hui’an County, Quanzhou City (泉州市惠安县). I don’t have the materials on the Chongwu dialect, but we can see the Nan’an dialect which is one Min nan dialect of Nan’an City, Quanzhou City (泉州市南安市).
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
My friend whose mother comes from Hui’an County and has always lived in Minnan dialect area tole me that 笨 reads as pun¹¹ there. This character shares the same pronunciation.
The evidence is insufficient. Firstly, please show the full page of the evidence. Secondly please show the original source that is being quoted so we can be sure that character shown in the modern source is not a mistake.
The character is not included in the first evidence. The scholar mentioned the second evidence was a famous historian in Japan. The followings are his books.
The name was written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 岩波書店 in 1935.
https://book.kongfz.com/535541/4390005805/
The name was written as 桑原隲藏 by 商務印書館.
https://book.kongfz.com/565592/4500160884/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 岩波書店 in 1968.
https://book.kongfz.com/271942/4788602597/
The name was also written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 臺灣商務印書館 in 1971.
https://book.kongfz.com/446938/4381053120/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 中華書局 in 2007.
https://book.kongfz.com/517/4421072712/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 中華書局 in 2009.
https://book.kongfz.com/351791/4657623042/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 科学出版社 in 2019.
https://book.kongfz.com/268892/3685037725/
All the books are not related to the submitted character, so it is not better to encode it.
It is difficult to trust the modern edition of the text as experience shows that modern editions often introduce glyph errors or create imaginary characters. Therefore, please show an image of the original text, apparently from 《明憲宗純皇帝實錄卷之六十八》.
The character looks like the variant of 鰂 in the first evidence, which the word means 烏賊/烏鰂 (squid). It is not related to the Cantonese word zak1 (e.g. 鰂魚涌 in HKSAR). If my understand is reasonable, the current radical is questionable.
In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.
The new evidence shows an error form. The quoted poem actually has "白鳥翯翯". My personal rule is not to accept for encoding error forms only attested in a single edition (cf. my comment to UK-20004). I would only accept this character for encoding if additional evidence could be supplied that demonstrates that it is not an error form or that it is an error form that has been transmitted widely enough to be considered a "stable error".
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The following evidence shows other meanings, pronunciations or uses. Lee's comment is reasonable, but it could also be used for other meaning based on the first following. So, it is better to keep it in M-set.
Could this be a variant of 鱷 (U+9C77)? It's paired with another dangerous aquatic creature, 蛟. It would be good to see more of the context in the evidence.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
This is what Baidu says about 蛟鱷:
蛟鱷是漢語詞彙，讀音為jiāo è，出自《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》，解釋蛟龍與鱷魚。亦泛指兇猛的水中動物。
They quote a passage from 宋·陸游《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》: “濤瀾洶湧，蛟鱷出沒。”
Seems to be an error form for 蜩 (cf. https://baike.baidu.hk/item/%E8%9C%A9%E8%9F%A7/4697910). DO not encode without additional evidence that the character is correct or is a stable error.
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.
High resolution details of 順治河南通志 (top) and 雍正河南通志 (bottom):
Shunzhi version shows ⿰虫𦕅, but Yongzheng version shows ⿰虫聊. I suppose that ⿰虫聊 (liáo?) is the correct form as it likely rimes with 螬 cáo, and ⿰虫𦕅 is a contracted form due to the difficulty of writing ⿰虫聊 in the available space.
As 中华字海 and 雍正河南通志 both give ⿰虫聊 I suggest to accept the current glyph and IDS, and return GKJ-00464 to the M-set.
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.
From the preface 重雕宋本衛生家寶產科備要叙 of this book and the paiji (牌記) at the end, we know that the 清十萬卷樓叢書本 version is a reprint of the 淳熙十一年（1184） version.
The 淳熙 version consistently gives ⿲金⿱甾廾斤:
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷2 folio 19 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷3 folio 2 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷4 folio 5 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 16 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 22 // 中華再造善本
I suspect ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is a variant of 𨰉. Because of that, ⿰鏁斤 should have first radical 金. The second radical is fine for me. The evidences above also reveal that ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is the intermediate form between 𨰉 and ⿰鏁斤.
Now that we have more evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 than ⿰鏁斤. Should we encode them separately? Especially both ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 and ⿰鏁斤 appear in the 十萬卷樓叢書 version. Alternatively, we can unify ⿰鏁斤 to ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 or vice, or we can unify both to 𨰉.
The full reference for the source should be provided (author, title, publisher, year), as well as the name of the author and title for the piece in which this character occurs.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew. Does it also cite from 残雪’s works?
This character is also used for Taiwanese Hokkien as shown in {{https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/download/files/WSL_TPS_Huibian.pdf 新編台灣閩南語用字彙編}} p. 196:
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew. 残雪 is a famous writer in Contemporary Chinese Literature. Mr. Goran Malmqvist (马悦然) once once recommended her to participate in the selection of the Nobel Prize for literature. I can’t believe a character like 狭 and 窄 used in a modern Chinese novel.
The evidence shows this character is cited from the Dunhuang manuscripts. The following is the original manuscript which is collected in France. The original manuscript shows the character should be ⿰犭盖 not ⿰犭蓋. It is a misprint form in the modern publishing books.
▲ 沙州城土境
⿰犭盖 is also included in other source.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷二
Please not encode ⿰犭蓋 and change to ⿰犭盖 or encode ⿰犭盖 in future.
Seems probable that ⿰犭狂 is an error for 𢓯. In my opinion it is not appropriate to encode an error form on the evidence shown (rime tables are notoriously error-prone), and so suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This evidence is cited from 《四聲等子》.
In the evidence, we can get the following information.
聲母: 見 the same as 光
韻母: 陽 (宕攝) the same as 匡, and the tone is 平聲, 開合 is 合, 等第 is 三等
So, this Putonghua and Cantonese pronunciation of this character is the same as 光 here (different in middle Chinese).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𢓯 is 巨往切 and the pronunciation should be 狂上聲, so the 聲母 is 羣, the 韻母 is 宕攝陽韻合口三等.
The 聲母 and 聲調 are different. I think they are different character, but it is better to get more useful information on the definition.
Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.
I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
The current evidence is insufficient. Please provide an image from an edition of 禮記 which shows this character. Otherwise it should be postponed pending additional evidence.
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.
Evidence 2 is suspect. What is the character supposed to mean here? A character with a 'dog' radical makes no obvious sense in this context, and I suspect that it is an error for some other character.
Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Babed on the additional evidence adduced by Huang Junliang, it seems probable that ⿰犭赤 is an error for 捇 in this one particular edition. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence for this form of the character.
汉字海 would not seem to be an authoritative source for bronze inscriptions. Given that that the evidence shown by Huang Junliang transcribes the character as 荆, additional evidence should be provided before encoding this character.
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
Support Andrew’s comment #4696. Is it the vulgar variant of U+81F4 致 and U+2693A 𦤺.
Per IRG PnP 2.1.1: "The supporting evidence for submitted characters in printed form
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
The character is not attested in other 南部新書 versions. Based on the earlier 南部新書 version, I believe it should have been ⿺鼠丰, which is a variant / error of 𪕅.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR3l0026/008#16b 南部新書（文淵閣抄本）卷8 16b}} gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.
Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:
There are two pieces of evidence, but there is only one book name. Please confirm the sources.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿰鼠戻. In PRC rule, 戾 and 戻 are different characters based on 《说文解字》, which is different from Japan. It looks a typo, because the real ⿰鼠戾 is shown in the same page. The following is a piece of new evidence for normalized ⿰鼠戾.
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
Agree with Eiso Chan's comment #6309.
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR4e0061/002#1a 竹齋集（文淵閣本）卷中 folio 42a}} gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Hand-written evidence alone is not satisfactory, and in this case the submitted character appears to be an error or idiosyncratic variant of 灑. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a widely-used variant form.
The character is obviously a variant of U+6F09 漉, but the evidence is very insubstantial. It would be really nice to have additional evidence that this variant is not just used once in this one source.
This is from another unknown version of 正字通, where the character at this position is 註 and looks reasonable.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
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
▲ 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.
A quick search on the internet confirms that "黄芪" is also known as "芰草", therefore it is extremely likely that the proposed character is an error form for 芰. In this light, the evidence shown is not sufficient for encoding, and the character should be withdrawn.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
I agree with Andrew's comment.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Agree with Andrew and Lee. If there is no other sufficient evidence, this character should not be accepted.
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):
It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
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.
Did the character exist? Current Taiwanese terminology seem to use 唉.
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
It's difficult to make out the shape from the image provided. It would help to get a clearer image.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Other characters in Table 2.B of the evidence are shown as below. They are once common used, but I can not find the actual using cases for the submitted character.
As far as I can tell, the original quote given in all other sources is 至於桑野，是謂晏食。至於衡陽，是謂隅中。What is the reason that 至 is here written as ⿰至竟? Is this a weird mistake, or is there some reason for writing it this way.
As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The submitted evidence is a character list, but it's not used by the movable types. This has been confirmed by the typography history scholar Prof. Sun Mingyuan who is from Macao Polytechnic Institute.
Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Based on the additonal evidence produced by Huang Junliang, it would seem that the submitted character is an error for 斸. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
From context this appears to be an error form of 葉. 《三農紀》 seems to have many error forms, and so is not a reliable source. I would not like to see this character encoded on the basis of this evidence alone.
It seems that both 𤭌 and ⿰第瓦 are used in different sources, and as 弟 and 第 are not unifiable, it is acceptable to encode ⿰第瓦 based on the original evidence and the additional evidence provided by Huang Junliang.
The glyph in the original evidence is unclear, and the evidence produced by Conifer Tseng indicates that the character should be 敘. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error for 敘.
This character should be U+310A5 𱂥 according to the original context in 《方言》.
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
Evidence image in #2964 is from 《東漢會要》(edition not specified). The text is a quotation from 《後漢書・應劭傳》 which reads "逆臣董卓，荡覆王室，典宪焚燎，靡有孑遗...". Therefore ⿰火秦 here should be a corruption of 燎.
See {{https://web.archive.org/web/20151212165149/http://fj.sina.com.cn/news/s/2015-12-05/detail-ifxmhqaa9963366.shtml Web Archive}} and {{http://dzb.hxnews.com/2015-12/05/content_334883.htm 海峽都市報}} for the second evidence.
The glyph does not match the evidence(⿰𪞘(U+2A798)尼), but judging from the other characters and meaning of the evidence, it seems that the evidence is wrong? Is there any other evidence written as "⿰冷尼"?
▲ Samuel Wells Williams, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (英華分韻撮要). Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository (羊城中和行). 1856. p. 92
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 50
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 131
The ROK submitted evidence shows this character is used for a person's name which the person belong to 密陽朴氏 (밀양박씨). 密陽 here means the 밀양시 in 경상남도 (慶尙南道). 밀양박씨 is a very large clan in ROK, and there are many famous people in the Joseon Dynasty history, such as 중종 (中宗)'s wife 경빈박씨 (敬嬪朴氏) who was a character in a famous ROK drama Women All over the World (여인천하/女人天下). I also believe this book doesn't include the error, but we can't confirm if this one is the 避諱字 of any other character. So, it is better to check the genealogy of 밀양박씨, such as https://www.zupu.cn/zhpk/10188 to judge how to handle this one.
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 word is also written as 𡯥尵. Considering both characters have variants with ⺏ radical, we don't believe that this formation is totally unreasonable.
It looks like part of the evidence for this character's equivalence to 𧯷 (U+27BF7) is based on the quote from the Yi Li: 四爵而合𧯷. But, it's not completely clear that the last character is U+27BF7. Is it possible to get a clearer image?
The same head entry in the Ming versions shows 𧇾. It is not better to unify 雐 with 虛/虚.
New evidence
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
> HUANG Junliang, Individual, 2022-10-05 10:19 +0900, #9060
> ... KC-03744 （⿰虗兮）. However I don't know how to find the original evidence.
> Can Korea provide the original evidence of ⿰虗兮?
It is hard to identify if the glyph is ⿰臼叒 or ⿰白叒 in Evidence 1 and 2. The glyph in Evidence 3 looks like ⿰𪠨㕛.
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
I think the evidence 2 is clearest on the left component. You can see a slit in the middle of 臼, compared with 白 on the same page.
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
The glyph looks so strange, evidence 1 is not a good source.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The glyph is not very clear. According to the context and the evidences, it is hard to decide whether the vertical stroke should be out of the bottom bar or be out of the upper bar. So I suggest we pending this character for further investigation.
Citation may come from two sources, 說文 or 聲類. 䰫 is not exist in the current versions of 說文, it is speculated that it is from the version of the Tang Dynasty, analysed by 說文逸字. According to
the versions of 一切經音義 the author saw at the time, 廣雅疏證 records quotations from 聲類.
No matter what source is the original one, SAT-06900 is a wrong glyph of 䰫 (U+4C2B) indeed.
廣潛研堂說文答問疏證
小學盦遺書
說文逸字
廣雅疏證
The current evidence is OK, and I found this character used in other books. I still have a question. What book is 説文聲集 mentioned in the evidence? Does it mean 《説文聲系》 written by 姚文田?
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
I don't think I see the book name 説文聲集 in the evidence. Could you elaborate more?
▲ 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 evidence mentions “說文(⿰彳待)待也儲(⿰彳待)具也”. Based on any version of 說文解字 gives 偫 (U+506B) .
《說文解字》藤花榭本．卷八上
(http://www.guoxuedashi.net/kangxi/pic.php?f=swjzzb&p=270)
I think it is a variant of 偫(U+506B), and suggest pending other evidence.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with TCA's comment dated 2022-01-05.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》 includes all three characters at the same time. 《國語辭典》 also includes the submitted one.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
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.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
I am responding in passing to the UK Activity Report about handwritten form transitioning to computer font create an erroneous font glyph.
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
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.
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
Evidence shown is not primary source. Need new evidence.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Unification
I still think it is dangerous to make the UCV for 宀 & 山 for our future encoding works.
unify to 歍 (U+6B4D)?
The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
It must be a variant shape of 歍, could be unified.
Withdraw it.
The right part seems like ⿱丿㘝 more. Maybe it is unifiable to 𧉫 (U+2726B).
It's a variant shape of 脑, not unify to 𧉫.
See above comments for rationale. I don't think this character should be postponed.
蝍GKJ-00464 or 蝍蟟 are the ancient forms of 知了. Obviously, ⿰虫聊 should be the correct glyph.
Unifiable to 𧊃 (U+27283)?
But what is the meaning of 𧊃?
U+2E8C3
Though G glyph is apparently more correct.
?
Appears to be an error for U+25855 𥡕 in a single edition. Suggest postponing for additional evidence.
NUCV #325
This character is the variant of U+24865 𤡥, but we don’t have UCV unify them.
▲ 《廣韻》，四部叢刊本，上平聲卷第一
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，早稻田大學藏本，卷二下
If any expert suggest unify them, we need to consider to change NUCV #325 to UCV.
𣪊X.
If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
Unify with 擸 (U+64F8) per China's 2021-09-15 comment?
Per Huang's comment, should it be treated as a miswritten form of 秤 (and withdraw)?
Consider Unification to 𪊨 (U+2A2A8) and add new UCV rule of 𣅀 and 旨.
Evidence 2 shows it is the possible variant of U+80C8 胈, and the meaning is related to human body, so the radical should be Radical Meat.
Evidence 4 shows it is used for the organic chemistry, so the radical must be Radical Meat as well.
Therefore, this character is not suitable to unify with 𣍬 (U+2336C), but Evidence 1 and 3 are not also suitable for encoding.
unify to 𱙜 (U+3165C)
They are duplicates.
[This comment comes from H.W. Ho.]
As the Extension G snippets are not yet available, please see following snippet for U+3165C:
unify to 𡜃 (U+21703)?
The right component of U+21703 𡜃 is the variant of 肉.
If this unification has been accepted, the second RS for U+21703 𡜃 should be 130.3. The semantic element for U+21703 𡜃 is 肉, but Kangxi Dictionary and other ancient dictionaries moved it under Radical 女.
U+30924 𰤤 is the variant of 皺, but U+26686 𦚆 is the variant of 䏢. Both are submitted by TCA.
If all agree to new UCV above be added, then withdraw as U+21703 𡜃 already has G.
- U+8668 虨 and WS2021-SN01289 (KC-05060) are two distinct chars.
- the two chars (one in a blue box, the other in red box) are two distinct persons' names
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
On 2021-09-02, KR already mentioned that KR will change the glyph, IDS, SC, TS as suggested by Eiso (田 -> 日)
This is used in a personal name and therefore KR suggests not to unify.
> Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) ...
==>
The evidence is "Passers List for Scholarly Degrees [司馬榜目, Sama bangmok]" published by the government during Joseon Dynasty and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is an error in the evidence. KR suggests that it not be unified to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A).
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
KR suggests not to unify.
(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178
==>
(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
KR suggests not to unify.
(a decision on 2022-10-18)
SN 3175 unified to SN 3178, keep SN 3178
==>
(a new decision)
SN 3178 unified to SN 3175, keep SN 3175
unify to 𧏬 (U+273EC)
Kangxi Dictionary shows 𧏬 is the variant of 嗤, but the submitted character also shares the same meaning. And these two ones must share the same rationale.
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，朝鮮本，卷第四
▲ 《可洪音義》，新集藏經音義隨函録，第十册
《獨斷・卷上》「天子璽以玉螭虎紐。古者尊卑共之。」
Unify to 齌 (U+9F4C)?
Add new UCV:
unify to 虎 (U+864E)
We have one case to unify 虎 and ⿸虍人 in WS2015. WS2015-04676:GHZR74467.11 ⿰阝⿸𠂆⿸虍人 has been unified to U+28EC6 𨻆.
In the ancient books, ⿸虍人 is also common.
U+202A4 𠊤 ^⿰亻⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4FFF 俿 ^⿰亻虎$(GJKT)
U+2200A 𢀊 ^⿰巢⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2720A 𧈊 ^⿰巢虎$(G)
U+2249C 𢒜 ^⿰⿸虍人彡$(GT)
U+5F6A 彪 ^⿺虎彡$(GHJKT)
U+238D5 𣣕 ^⿰⿸虍人欠$(GT)
U+238CD 𣣍 ^⿰虎欠$(GT)
U+249A3 𤦣 ^⿰𤣩⿸虍人$(G)
U+7425 琥 ^⿰𤣩虎$(GHJKTV)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2732D 𧌭 ^⿰虫⿸虍人$(GT)
U+45C2 䗂 ^⿰虫虎$(GKT)
* In Kangxi Dictionary, 𧌭 is only used as the variant of 螔, but we can find 䗂 is also used as the variant of 螔, such as 䗂蝓=螔蝓 (snail 🐌) and 䗂䗔=螔䗔 (gecko 🦎).
U+27A50 𧩐 ^⿰訁⿸虍人$(GT)
U+8AD5 諕 ^⿰訁虎$(GHJKT)
U+29CF0 𩳰 ^⿺鬼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4C27 䰧 ^⿺鬼虎$(GT) ^⿺⿱田儿虎$(U)
U+30C9A 𰲚 ^⿸𠂆⿸虍人$(G)
U+8652 虒 ^⿸𠂆虎$(GHJKT)
U+22290 𢊐 ^⿸广𰲚$(GT)
U+22280 𢊀 ^⿸广虒$(GT)
U+2240F 𢐏 ^⿰弓𰲚$(GT)
U+2240B 𢐋 ^⿰弓虒$(GT)
U+256D5 𥛕 ^⿰礻𰲚$(G)
U+79A0 禠 ^⿰礻虒$(GHT) ^⿰示虒$(K)
U+25C3D 𥰽 ^⿱𥫗𰲚$(GT)
U+7BEA 篪 ^⿱𥫗虒$(GHJKT)
U+273D5 𧏕 ^⿰虫𰲚$(GT)
U+8794 螔 ^⿰虫虒$(GHKT)
U+2792B 𧤫 ^⿰角𰲚$(GT)
U+46A6 䚦 ^⿰角虒$(GKT)
U+28ABE 𨪾 ^⿰釒𰲚$(G)
U+28A89 𨪉 ^⿰釒虒$(GT)
For U+2720E 𧈎, U+27F25 𧼥, U+28091 𨂑, U+28F6F 𨽯, we don’t have ⿲虎革彡, ⿺走虎, ⿰𧾷虎, ⿲阝虒虒.
unify to 殫
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殫 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 歿
The evidence shows it is the variant of 歿 clearly.
UCV #149 for the right part.
unify to 敝 (U+655D)
See Comment #2984 and #4868 from Huang Junliang and Conifer.
unify to ㇀ (U+31C0)?
The current script for U+31C0 ㇀ is common (Zyyy), but it also has the Script_Extensions value as Han (Hani).
《説文解字》「孑：無右臂也。从了，乚象形。」
Thus we believe that character is just a reflection of 乚 based on the regular script shape, and not a mere stroke.
unify to 駛 (U+99DB)
The evidence shows the fanqies are 師利反 and 師事反, that means the variant of 駛.
We need discussion about whether 史/㕜 should be unified, and the UCV level.
UCV level should be 2, it depends on whether it used individually or not.
unify to 𦐉 (U+26409) if they are cognates?
Also see WS2021-00138, 01038 and 01060
The evidence shows this character is the variant of 蚩, and shows the quotation from 《廣雅》, but the understanding looks questionable.
▲ 張揖：《廣雅》，叢書集成初編本，卷三
Here are a list of disunified examples, with each pair sharing the readings and meanings. So the expanded UCV 虚虛虗 can still be of level 1:
U+271C0 𧇀 = U+8661 虡
U+271F2 𧇲 = U+271FA 𧇺
U+29D1B 𩴛 = U+29D25 𩴥
U+2D28C 𭊌 = U+5653 噓
U+2D3DF 𭏟 = U+589F 墟
U+2D7FC 𭟼 = U+6231 戱
U+2D889 𭢉 = U+22D2E 𢴮
U+2DB54 𭭔 = U+6B54 歔
U+2E17D 𮅽 = U+25CA4 𥲤
U+2EBD3 𮯓 = U+2A66B 𪙫
U+3102D 𱀭 = U+28F0B 𨼋
U+3103D 𱀽 = U+3103C 𱀼
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
𦆢 (U+261A2)
reading, sense and shape are similar. Kangxi entry for U+261A2 quotes Quangyun: 居例切，音罽。○按从网之字，或省作冈，或變作四。This appears to be a variant using a form of 四.
We need discussion whether 罒/冈 are unifiable.
unify to 𢙷 (U+22677)
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
unify to 益
The other method to handle this one is that it should be unified to 益 U+76CA. The evidence has shown it is the variant of 益 clearly. The people often write the Lishu style of 益 as the form in Evidence 3. Please see the following picture. 顺益兴四合院 is a real estate company selling courtyards in Beijing. The Tianyancha page is here. https://www.tianyancha.com/company/10425537 The official website is here. http://www.siheyuan.cc/
▲ 顺益兴四合院（东城分店）
If this character is encoded separately, and any type designer wants to design a Lishu style font to cover all the CJKUIs in UCS/Unicode, maybe the end users need to meet the duplicate pair, that is not good. This form is close to Lishu form and some seal forms, so I think there is no need to add a new UCV.
unify to 𥢼 (U+258BC)
As Lee’s comment in #6740, this character is the variant of 𥢼. Evidence 2 shows the following glyph.
This glyph is similar to 𥢼 (U+258BC) very much.
unify to WS2017-03449:SAT-04475 U+31E8A
[ {{WS2017-03449}} ]
See WS2021-02885:SAT-07086
unify to 鷇 (U+9DC7)
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
They are used as the same characters in general.
Unify to 𢦟.
Both evidences refer to the 尚書 text, alternatively written as 𢦟. See also the glyph evolution from zi.tools:
The following encoded pairs (⿰？戈 versus ⿹戈？）are semantic variants:
𢧄U+229C4 = 戜U+621C
𢦧U+229A7 = 𢦵U+229B5
𢦴U+229B4 = 㦱 U+39B1 (~ ⿰主戈)
The following encoded pairs （⿱戈？ versus ⿹戈？）are semantic variants:
𬷁U+2CDC1 = 𫼃U+2BF03
We may consider a level 2 UCV ⿰？戈/⿹戈.
unify to 殉
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 殄
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殄 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
The right component is also similar to 𭈆, which is a variant of 哀 according to MOE dictionary.
I suggest adding a new UCV 哀/⿳𠂉口𧘇, similar to UCV 151b and 230a.
偯，於豈反。偯，哭餘聲也。(《龍龕手鑑．人部》)
偯 and ⿳𠂉口𧘇 have the same pronunciation and meaning, so agree with HUANG Junliang’s comment that ⿳𠂉口𧘇 could unify to 偯.
Unify to 逆 (U+9006), cf. UCV #447:
We need discussion whether 𭁄/屰 are unifiable.
unify to 殞
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殞 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862.
unify to 㓹 (U+34F9)?
The evidence shows it is the bottom of 罽, and the real bottom of 罽 should be 㓹.
▲ 《説文解字》，藤花榭本，第七下
We need discussion because it involves radical and structure differences with 㓹.
unify to 泓
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017.
[ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
Needs discussion whether unifiable with 𠵢.
𮒃 (U+2E483): they look identical.
Unify to 泟 U+6CDF with new UCV
Add new UCV
正
From the MOE Dictionary:
Consider unify to 峕 if we accept the UCV proposed by Henry.
峕 U+5CD5 is a miswritten form of 旹 U+65F9. Unless TC-3A56 is a variant form deriving from U+5CD5, it is better to keep them separated.
Alternatively, both characters could be unified to 溋 U+6E8B, with addition of new UCV rule 盈 / 盁 / ⿱𠘧皿.
Data page for TC-7234 (Character Source: 財政部財稅用字):
Data page for TC-4B4B (Character Source: 內政部戶政用字):
The given pronunciation suggests it to be a variant of 嗌. Consider if unification to 嗌 U+55CC is appropriate.
unify to 𥙿 (U+2567F)
This character reads as yù, and U+2567F 𥙿 also reads as yù.
𬉸 is often used as the variant of 谷.
U+5BB9 容 ≈ U+21A10 𡨐
U+7D8C 綌 ≈ U+2602D 𦀭
U+8C41 豁 ≈ U+2BD13 𫴓
If UCV is added, TCA agree. Because 𬉸 is often used as the variant of 谷.
Consider unification to 𥿯 (U+25FEF) because of the pronunciation.
Consider unification to 羗 (U+7F97) which has the same pronunciation.
Consider unification to 虔 (U+8654). The provided pronunciation qián concurs.
Unify to 淄 U+6DC4?
Based on the pronunciation provided, this character should be unified to 淄 U+6DC4. However the shape typically suggests it to be ⿰氵𡿺, which is not known to be an existing character.
Instead, it is a common variant relationship with "𡿺". But "⿰氵𡿺" is not coded?
TCA would like to keep separately.
Unify to 𮅕 (U+2E155)?
If Lee’s comment is right, we should consider to unify this character to 𮅕 (U+2E155) (also TD-5079).
https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E5%9B%B3%E5%BD%A2%E5%90%8D=MJ058270
unify to 𮐋 (U+2E40B)?
As Lee’s comment, the submitted character is the variant of 篡/簒. U+2E40B 𮐋 is submitted by ROK. If ROK can confirm the meaning, we will be easy to confirm how to handle this character.
In the past, these two components were coded separately.
▲U+83F4 菴≈ U+24C85𤲅
Variants Dictionary
▲U+9EE4黤 ≈ U+2923F𩈿
▲U+4046䁆≈ U+3097F⿰目𤲅
《漢語大字典》,P.2686.
▲U+26E55 𦹕
▲U+7F68罨 ≈ U+2630C 𦌌
We should add new UCV 菴 and 𤲅, instead of unifying 奄 and 𤲅.
Consider those three component/characters(𤲅, 菴, 奄) have a variant relationship.
To be a character, 𤲅 is a variant of 菴.
To be a component, 𤲅 and 奄 are variant relationship.
Unified to 庵 U+5EB5, and consider a new UCV for 𤲅, 菴, 奄.
This is very similar in reading and shape to 蓂 (U+84C2)
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726
- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
Unify to 藔 (U+85D4), based on similarity of components ⿳大日小 and 尞
U+2860E 𨘎 vs U+2708F 𧂏
U+2CAF4 𬫴 vs U+9410 鐐
U+2D777 𭝷 vs U+61AD 憭
U+2DE21 𭸡 vs U+7360 獠
unify to 𡁣 (U+21063)?
UCV #305.
Agree to be unified to 𡁣 (U+21063) due to similar structures.
The readings are the same.
WS2021-03472:TE-4242
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31
Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
The readings are the same.
WS2021-03654:TE-7B31
Above two characters, due to the new UCV rule (similar structures), TCA agrees to unify. TCA wants to keep 03654(⿰虫蔓), the left and right structure of the character, because this character is used by more people.
Unify to 㞷 U+37B7? (UCV #1 & #96)
U+6E3F 渿 vs U+3D0E 㴎
U+3B8F 㮏 vs U+3B88 㮈 vs U+235DF 𣗟
U+3CA1 㲡 vs U+23BA6 𣮦
U+217AB 𡞫 vs U+2178F 𡞏
U+24E0F 𤸏 vs U+24DC8 𤷈
U+25221 𥈡 vs U+251E7 𥇧
U+26CD0 𦳐 vs U+8418 萘
U+29236 𩈶 vs U+2922B 𩈫
U+29E5F 𩹟 vs U+4C5E 䱞 vs U+29E9A 𩺚
U+2D860 𭡠 vs U+637A 捺 vs U+2BF69 𫽩
U+6B40 歀, U+96B8 隸, U+236D2 𣛒, U+23729 𣜩, U+2B389 𫎉, U+2EA15 𮨕; U+20903 𠤃 and so on are not related to this UCV.
Unify with 𭗙 (U+2D5D9).
𭗙 (U+2D5D9) is mapped to KC-05009, but the newest version of KC-05009 is ⿱山眉:
Suggest to update K glyph and also add new UCV 眉 ~ 睂.
. Initially suggested KR glyph of U+2D5D9 was nearly the same as UK-20468 (shown below).
. During IRG discussion, IRG asked KR to modify the glyph to look as the evidence and that glyph is shown in U+2D5D9.
. Note. KR started apllying Korea Norm. Rules with ExtG.
2) KR wants to keep the current glyph of U+2D5D9.
3) KR suggests to disunify UK-20468 from U+2D5D9.
. 睂 is an old form of 眉.
. When the old form and modern form are much different, in many cases, two were separately encoded.
. Other examples: 㪅 - 更; 攷- 考; 叜- 叟
Here are some evidences of 𡆮:
▲ 康熙字典（清內府刊本）丑集備考 folio 9b
▲ 五音篇海（明正德刊本）卷14 folio 4b
Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.
From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
Agree with Andrew's opinion. U+211AE provides a good example that authoritative dictionaries are not Bible, the mistakes existing in them should be replaced by other sources.
According to Professor YANG BaoZhong's textual research, ⿴囗土 and 磣\墋 are variants(heterogeneous characters), which still used in Northeast dialect of China.
So China would like to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土, and change the reference to 陝西通志.
(汉语方言大字典 page 5293). misprint of 𬝋.
Agree to unify to 𬝋 (U+2C74B).
The pronunciation shown on the evidence indicates that it is unifiable to 局.
“The source says this is a variant of 局 (U+5C40), but in Canton/Hong Kong the usage is different - ⿸尸可 is a variant of 屙 (to defecate), thus not unifiable with 局 (U+5C40).”
I agree with him, and please see the new evidence on #8904.
▲ 臨汾縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷7 folio 15
▲ 貴州通志（清乾隆刊本）卷8 folio 8 (⿰日𦻏/⿰目𦻏);
⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙.
unify to 𢴕 (U+22D15)
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
▲ 侯兴泉，吴南开：《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》，广州：广东人民出版社，2017.05，p. 277
This character was also used in the 庚辰本 of “A Dream of Red Mansions” (《紅樓夢》).
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏，脂硯齋：《脂硯齋重評石頭記》，庚辰本，第八回
Other form was used in the other version in the same position.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第八回
The above evidence is not clear enough, and we check the same character in other position of the same version as below.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第二十八回
It is U+22D15 𢴕 in the above evidence.
Agree to unify with 𢴕 (U+22D15).
unify to 䒐 (U+4490)
Agree with Lee and Andrew, but there is no need to add any new UCV rule.
BTW, I do not think 䒐䒏 is a proper word form for the Cantonese word mang2zang2, but so many people and scholars use this form.
The character shown is very unclear because it is so small, but it is obviously intended to be U+704B 灋. If ⿰氵⿸廌土 is not attested in any other source then this can be considered to be a one-off error in this particular telegraph code book. It seems unnecessary to encode this particular error form for this single usage. Therefore suggest unification with 灋 (U+704B).
Also, a near-identical form appears in the 1948 edition.
And this character also appears in CNS 11643.
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=739952
unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5)
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
Also see WS2021-00150, 01465, 01466, 02476.
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
Attributes
See #8763, the RS should follow 嵇.
#1, IRGN954AR:
#3, IRGN954AR:
#25, IRGN954AR:
The current IDS suggested in #5926 doesn’t match the glyph. And Tao Yang has explained the reason.
I support Henry's comment.
#3, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#17, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
The kTotalStrokes value for 𡿨 U+21FE8 is 1, but the glyph on the evidence shows the SC should be 2 as the current value. Maybe the IDS should be ⿰耳⿱丿丶.
The glyph on the evidence looks like the following.
#31, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#31c, IRGN2221:
#35, IRGN2221:
#25, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#12, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
▲ IRGN954AR
U+2E308 𮌈
#12, IRGN954AR:
#23, IRGN1105:
IDS can be ⿱ D10-01山, instead of ⿳亠⿲刀丫？山, which contain a question mark "?".
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
#76, IRGN954AR
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
#76, IRGN954AR
But the glyph has undergone normalization. May need discussion about this case.
In KR, left-to-bottom (NOT top-to-right) stroke is written first in the right top component.
#11, IRGN2221:
#56, IRGN954AR:
According to the evidence, the best radical should be 色 not 骨.
#36, IRGN954AR:
See #8153
#59, IRGN954AR:
#33, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#18, IRGN2221:
#58, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
Change Radical to 31.0 (囗), SC=13, FS=1
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
As R31 囗 is not the obvious radical, and would hamper the discoverability of this character, the radical should be kept as R187 馬.
SC and FS should be kept.
The radicals of ⿱𤇾X should be the bottom component.
If the reading is mù provided by TCA, the better radical should be 父 not 木.
Maybe Change Radical to 4.0 (丿), SC=8, FS=1 ?
The reading provided by TCA is zhì, so it is better to choose the radical of 少 as the radical.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.
According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
#17, IRGN2221:
The pronunciation is xiāng.
#25, IRGN2221:
The pronunciation is sī provided by TCA, so the semantic element should be 育.
#17, IRGN2221:
The IDS should be changed from ⿰糹𧆠 to ⿰糹虖.
FS should be kept as-is.
See WS2021-02210:T9-7D53
#36, IRGN954AR:
The reading is hé. If the radical is 禾, it looks the better reading is related to míng.
#32, IRGN2221:
#32, IRGN2221:
supposed from the pronunciation.
Change IDS to ⿰⿱旦來阝and update the glyph accordingly.
The original has ～銅爲之, ⿱氾土 is likely a variant of 笵. 「範銅爲之」appears in 清史稿:
Attached PDF file
▲ 清史稿（1942） pp. 211
change IDS to ⿱氾土 and update the glyph accordingly.
#72, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
#21, IRGN954AR:
#67, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
According to IRGN954AR #13, the left part of 礼 is counted as 5 strokes:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#11, IRGN2221:
This character is the variant of 慶, and the bottom of 慶 is 夊 not 夂.
#13, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
以 is counted as 5 strokes by Kangxi.
#29, IRGN2221:
If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
#36, IRGN954AR:
According to IRGN954AR, the left hand side of 補 should be counted as 6 strokes, so SC=13, TS=18.
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
Evidence
甘肃方言土语集
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
In addition, regarding the content of the evidence, in Taiwan, there is only "崁" in place names, "嵌" is rare, but there is no "⿱宀坎".
According to 陳正祥's statistics quoted in the evidence, the font should be "崁".
陳正祥，《臺灣地名手冊》(臺灣省文獻委員會，1959年)，P14.
https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=007_101_000009&lang=chn
And the article doesn't say 赤崁 is written as 赤⿱宀坎 but 赤嵌. As to this article, the anthor just list all characters used as same meaning and then give statement about all of them .
What's more, it's used in Fujian Province too.
[ {{WS2017-03819}} ]
Maybe two place names are both used in the same village, this is OK. I just consider how to add the language tag. If this village is the same the one mentioned in WS2017-03819, that means the name is derived from Kamese 侗语.
▲ Chan Sui Ki 陳瑞祺, 道漢字音. Hong Kong: 道字總社. 1939. Vol. 2. p. 36
▲ 王澤/王家禧：《老夫子·猛鬼庙》
(https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/19775339)
For example,赣 and 㶥
According to the evidence, ⿱山畬 and ⿱山𤲞 has the meaning of 斜坡. They are congnate but have the different meaning of 畬.
In place names, 畬、畲 and 𤲞 can be used as each other. But there are not too many pairs.
As I know,
For radical 土, there are 𰊮（U+302AE）, ⿰土畲 and ⿰土𤲞;
For radical 山, there are ⿰山畬、⿰山𤲞、⿱山畬（WS2017）、⿱山𤲞.
However, 𤲞 is also a variant of 番 which means ⿰土𤲞 can be a variant of 墦, ⿰山𤲞 can be a variant of 嶓.
Considering people will more likely to think 余 and ⿱人米 as different characters, I suggest we encode them seperately.
I think here is a case that ⿰土𤲞 is a variant of a 墦 (坟)：
The evidence is clear, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale of the submitted character.
The tone could vary in different dialect.
▲ 雄乘（明嘉靖刊本）卷上 folio 27b
▲ 《通州志》，天一閣藏明萬曆刻本，第四卷
Note that 通州 here means current Nantong City (南通市) in Jiangsu Province, not Tongzhou District in Beijing City.
““丙”与“两”二字形音义关系密切，使用时代互补，皆可证金文“两”为“丙”的分化字，
其量词用法继承自量词“丙””（p.36）
李建平、龙仕平2018 量词“丙”“两”的语源及其历时演变《古汉语研究》2018年03期,pp.32-38.
https://www.cnki.com.cn/article/cjfdtotal-ghyy201803004.htm
《韻經》五卷，成書于嘉靖十七年(1538)，張之象編輯。全書正文包含了古韻和今韻兩部分内容，其古韻參照吳械的《韻補》和楊慎的《轉注古音略》，繼承中又有自己的創見，今韻依據詩韻，并結合實際語音，分韻為一百一十六部。
https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10394-1015720357.htm
Although ⿰魚两 is obviously the variant of 𩶁, there is no rule for unification of 丙 and 两. As a head character of a dictionary, it has an independent status other from the ones occasionally appear in the text.
▲ 韻經（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 7a
Suggest to move this character in M-set.
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，豫章叢書
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，四庫全書本
▲ 《續文獻通考》，明萬曆刻本，卷二百三十六
▲ 《松江府志》，嘉慶二十二年明倫堂刻本，卷六
▲ 薛瑄：《敬軒文集》，四庫全書本，卷一
The original evidence is from 文清公薛先生文集（清雍正刊本）卷1 folio 14a.
However, ⿰王魚 is not attested in older evidences: I have checked two 薛文清公全集 printed in 明, both of which give 魚, same as 文淵閣四庫全書.
▲ 薛文清公全集（明刊本）卷18 folio 14b
▲ 薛文清先生全集（明刊本）卷23 folio 15a (pp38).
I suggest China provide additional evidence to prove that ⿰王魚 is a stable error / used in other texts.
He recorded the seafood he had eaten in the Lingnan (嶺南) in this book. Maybe Lingnan here means Guangdong.
▲ 張自烈：《正字通》，清畏堂原板，卷十二
Note that 水晶魚 means 銀魚 (salangid) currently, and which is called as 白飯魚 in HKSAR. It is different from 水晶魚 mentioned in 《正字通》.
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，明萬曆刻本，卷二
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，清光緒刻本，卷二
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷19 folio 2a //中華再造善本(250)
▲ 藝文類聚（明嘉靖胡纘宗刊本）卷19 folio 2a
▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷19 folio 3a gives 轍
I suggest keep it as-is.
▲ 劉學箕：《方是閒居士詞》，民國彊村叢書，一卷
The whole poem is shown as below.
漁家傲 白湖觀捕魚
漢水悠悠還漾漾，漁翁出没穿風浪，千尺絲綸垂兩槳，收又放，月明長在煙波上。
釣得活鱗鯿縮項，篘成玉液香浮盎，醉倒自歌歌自唱，輕嫋纜，碧蘆紅蓼清灘傍。
鯿縮項 means 縮項鯿, which is 武昌魚 (Bluntnose black bream) in modern Chinese.
Maybe it is a modern typo for 蜇.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
Also, the source names for the remaining evidences should be given.
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Variant/misprint of 鶅? Note that 笛 is very similar to ⿱𡿧田 (甾 + VS19).
See 鶅 on ctext:
太平御覽（靜嘉堂藏宋刊本）卷917 folio 5：「西方曰鷷，東方曰緇（音緇衣之緇）」緇/鶅 share the same phonetic element.
春秋左傳正義（清同治刊本）卷48 folio 8:「西方曰鷷雉，東方曰鶅雉，南方曰翟雉」
An original evidence from 寶慶本草折衷 would help to ensure it is not a modern misprint.
The name was written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 岩波書店 in 1935.
https://book.kongfz.com/535541/4390005805/
The name was written as 桑原隲藏 by 商務印書館.
https://book.kongfz.com/565592/4500160884/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 岩波書店 in 1968.
https://book.kongfz.com/271942/4788602597/
The name was also written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 臺灣商務印書館 in 1971.
https://book.kongfz.com/446938/4381053120/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 中華書局 in 2007.
https://book.kongfz.com/517/4421072712/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 中華書局 in 2009.
https://book.kongfz.com/351791/4657623042/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 科学出版社 in 2019.
https://book.kongfz.com/268892/3685037725/
All the books are not related to the submitted character, so it is not better to encode it.
▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》，紅格鈔本，卷之六十八
▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》，梁鴻志影本，卷之六十八
4 pieces of evidence, but only one source.
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAxOTI5LTAwMg
“天鵝，鵠也。”
▲ 《字課圖説》，光緒三十年澄衷蒙學堂石印本，卷三
In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.
▲ 《爾雅疏》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
宋版史记一百三十卷本
▲ 《集韻》，寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本，卷之十，入聲下，二十二昔
鸊 is also included in this version of 《集韻》.
▲ 《集韻》，寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本，卷之十，入聲下，二十一麥
Evidence 2 shows this character is under 祲 with 子. It looks like fanqie. If yes, it should be the variant of 鴆 and the radical should be changed.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=9021&page=135
《埤雅》，《四庫全書》
▲ 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
成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076730.cn/page/n42/mode/2up
https://dcollections.lib.keio.ac.jp/sites/all/libraries/uv/uv.php?archive=FKZ&id=F7-A01-02#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=47&r=0&z=1048.314%2C1832.5365%2C691.408%2C531.18
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/898727/147
蛟鱷是漢語詞彙，讀音為jiāo è，出自《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》，解釋蛟龍與鱷魚。亦泛指兇猛的水中動物。
They quote a passage from 宋·陸游《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》: “濤瀾洶湧，蛟鱷出沒。”
▲ 張璐：《本經逢原》，清康熙長洲張氏刻本，卷三
It looks the variant of 虺.
▲ 張璐：《本經逢原》，醫學初階本，卷三
▲ 《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.
Misprint of 蜩?
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋景文公筆記（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷下葉6：「鶬鶊鳴春，蟋蟀唫夏，蜩蟧喝秋，螘子戰隂。」
Please show the full page.
——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.
Please confirm the evidence source name.
Shunzhi version shows ⿰虫𦕅, but Yongzheng version shows ⿰虫聊. I suppose that ⿰虫聊 (liáo?) is the correct form as it likely rimes with 螬 cáo, and ⿰虫𦕅 is a contracted form due to the difficulty of writing ⿰虫聊 in the available space.
As 中华字海 and 雍正河南通志 both give ⿰虫聊 I suggest to accept the current glyph and IDS, and return GKJ-00464 to the M-set.
▲ 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
《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
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（十萬卷樓叢書本，第60冊）卷6 folio 20
and another new evidence:
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第60冊）卷6 folio 26
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷2 folio 19
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷3 folio 2
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（清十萬卷樓叢書本，第59冊）卷4 folio 5
From the preface 重雕宋本衛生家寶產科備要叙 of this book and the paiji (牌記) at the end, we know that the 清十萬卷樓叢書本 version is a reprint of the 淳熙十一年（1184） version.
The 淳熙 version consistently gives ⿲金⿱甾廾斤:
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷2 folio 19 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷3 folio 2 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷4 folio 5 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 16 // 中華再造善本
▲ 衛生家寶產科備要（宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本）卷6 folio 22 // 中華再造善本
I suspect ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is a variant of 𨰉. Because of that, ⿰鏁斤 should have first radical 金. The second radical is fine for me. The evidences above also reveal that ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is the intermediate form between 𨰉 and ⿰鏁斤.
Now that we have more evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 than ⿰鏁斤. Should we encode them separately? Especially both ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 and ⿰鏁斤 appear in the 十萬卷樓叢書 version. Alternatively, we can unify ⿰鏁斤 to ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 or vice, or we can unify both to 𨰉.
GKJ-00538 is clearly an error for 狂, so suggest China withdraw it.
▲ 中華再造善本//陸士龍文集（慶元六年華亭縣學刻本）卷8 folio 9b（Also in 明正德覆宋本）
▲ 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》.
The text possibly comes from 康熙字典. 康熙字典（清康熙內府刊本） gives
𤠏……本作㺁或作𧳦𧳺, quoted from 集韻.
I suspect ⿰犭⿱册止 is a misprint of 𤠏, consider pending more evidences.
The evidence shows some Chinese syllables by fanqie. There are two 韻母, and the 韻母 are stable, one is 猥, the other is 倄.
More evidence will be better.
▲ 沙州城土境
⿰犭盖 is also included in other source.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷二
Please not encode ⿰犭蓋 and change to ⿰犭盖 or encode ⿰犭盖 in future.
In the evidence, we can get the following information.
聲母: 見 the same as 光
韻母: 陽 (宕攝) the same as 匡, and the tone is 平聲, 開合 is 合, 等第 is 三等
So, this Putonghua and Cantonese pronunciation of this character is the same as 光 here (different in middle Chinese).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𢓯 is 巨往切 and the pronunciation should be 狂上聲, so the 聲母 is 羣, the 韻母 is 宕攝陽韻合口三等.
The 聲母 and 聲調 are different. I think they are different character, but it is better to get more useful information on the definition.
Attached PDF file
▲ 附釋音禮記註疏（元泰定, 致和間刊 明遞修）卷39葉1 gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 纂圖互註禮記（南宋刊 （建安））卷11葉16 gives 優, in the annotation it gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 禮記注䟽挍勘記（清嘉慶刊本）卷39葉1
Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.
I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
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.
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（畢效欽明刊本）卷3 folio 2
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷3 folio 3
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（寶曆07年刊本）卷3 folio 15
BTW, the character is used in 反切, which should be a common character.
New evidence from 贵州通志.
▲ 民國37年貴州通志 土民志1 folio 26b.
The new evidence provided by Tao Yang is from its table of contents. 猔⿰犭家、⿰犭仲家、仲家 are exonyms of the Bouyei people (Buxqyaix).
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
Evidence 2 is suspect. What is the character supposed to mean here? A character with a 'dog' radical makes no obvious sense in this context, and I suspect that it is an error for some other character.
Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
▲ 顧藹吉：《隸辨》，玉淵堂，卷第五
▲ 朱駿聲：《説文通訓定聲補遺》，道光刻本，豐部
▲ 洪适：《隸釋》，四部叢刊本，卷第十七
This character is used as the variant form of 彷彿.
▲ 過庭訓：《本朝分省人物考》，明天啟刻本，卷之三十八
▲ 何喬遠：《名山藏》，明崇禎刻本，卷之一百七
▲ 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
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
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
▲ 南部新書（明刻本）卷辛 folio 14a gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬
▲ 南部新書（商務印書館，1936） pp. 86 also gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR3l0026/008#16b 南部新書（文淵閣抄本）卷8 16b}} gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.
Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:
▲ 唐書（宋紹興刊本）地理志30 folio 8b gives 𪕅鼥鼠, which according to 李時珍, is what he called 土撥鼠 in Ming:
So ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬 is corrupted form of ⿺鼠丰鼣, which is variant / error of 𪕅鼥. As for ⿰鼠斗, I suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 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.”
▲ 《邊裔典》，古今圖書集成，第八十四卷
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
《史記》「軒轅乃修德振兵，治五氣，藝五種，撫萬民，度四方，教熊羆貔貅貙虎」
▲ 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.
▲ 廣韻（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏宋刊巾箱本）卷3 folio 10
廣韻 has 「鸓。飛生鳥。名飛且乳。一曰鼯䑕。毛紫赤。色似𮕙蝠而長」
▲ 重修政和證類本草（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏金刊本）卷18 folio 14
本草 has 「陶𨼆居云。鼺是鼯䑕。一名飛生」
I suspect it is a misprint of 鼺, suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，四庫全書本，卷三十六
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，清嘉慶刻本，卷三十六
The glyph looks stable in 台州.
▲ 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
▲ 《御製詩四集》，四庫全書本，卷九十二
▲ 董誥：《皇清文穎續編》，武英殿刻本，卷首二十六（高宗純皇帝聖製詩）
BTW, does the evidence cite from 《道光承德府志》 really?
▲ 劎南詩稾（明崇禎汲古閣刊本） 卷9 folio 7b gives 讒.
Consider pending more evidences.
The evidence has 「江汜野⿱艹麕諸篇……」, where 江汜 is 《召南·江有汜》 and 野⿱艹麕 is 《召南·野有死麕》. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR4e0061/002#1a 竹齋集（文淵閣本）卷中 folio 42a}} gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
⿰巾晝 should be ⿰巾畫 = 𢄶
⿰彳蒦 should be ⿰犭蒦 = 獲
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
* 𱶎 is [ {{WS2017-03148}} ]
.
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.
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.
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，四庫全書，卷四十二
It is also SAT-04688.
▲ {{https://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/islandora/object/cuhk%3A655073 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1}}
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
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
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"?
The glyph should be changed accordingly.
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
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
U+25AB3 𥪳 U+7AD3 竓
U+25A58 𥩘 U+7AF0 竰
U+25A7B 𥩻 U+7AD5 竕
U+7AD4 竔
U+41C6 䇆 U+7ACD 竍
U+41C9 䇉 U+7AE1 竡
U+25A95 𥪕 U+7ACF 竏
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷22 gives 鬷.
As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
I don't think so. The text before this list clearly indicates that it is a list of samples of movable types （活字板式）:
「今載立號監韻活字板式于後。其餘五聲韻字俱要倣此」
▲ 農書（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷22
▲ 農書（明嘉靖刊本）卷1 folio 28 (p30) gives 斸.
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷2 folio 14 also gives 斸.
Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Attached PDF file
▲ 河防一覽（明萬曆刊本）卷6 folio 5 gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 至正河防記（中國水利工程協會, 1936） gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 新元史（中国书店, 1988）志 pp. 269 gives 船, variant of 舡.
See also {{https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%E7%9F%B3%E8%88%B9%E5%A0%A4 Google books search results: 石船堤}}.
I guess 并 is a corrupted form of 舟, and 𠮷 may be corrupted form of 㕣. Based on these evidences, I suggest pending more evidences of ⿰并𠮷.
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.
▲ 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
《新鋟抱朴子內篇四卷外篇四卷．釋滯卷八》(明萬曆間刻本)
抱朴子內篇(《平津館叢書》本)
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)
▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
▲ [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.
▲ 陳凌千：《潮汕字典》，汕頭育新書社，1935，p. 265
段甜: 《韩国固有汉字分析》, 洛阳: 中国人民解放军外国语学院(Luoyang: PLA University of Foreign Language), 2007, P. 14
We consider that 㐔 is changed from 高/乙
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ Samuel Wells Williams, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (英華分韻撮要). Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository (羊城中和行). 1856. p. 92
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 50
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 131
▲ 虞學圃、溫岐石輯, 江湖尺牘分韻撮要合集. 1825 (道光 5 年)
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 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.
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p. 410
慧琳一切經音義
希麟一切經音義
▲ 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 𤞘.
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之十五
龍龕手鑑(《欽定四庫全書》本)
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=56026&page=182
▲ 《洪武正韻》，四庫本，卷二
The same head entry in the Ming versions shows 𧇾. It is not better to unify 雐 with 虛/虚.
> ... KC-03744 （⿰虗兮）. However I don't know how to find the original evidence.
> Can Korea provide the original evidence of ⿰虗兮?
You will find the evidence for KC-03744
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.
Quite different in 說文.
The glyph looks so strange, evidence 1 is not a good source.
the versions of 一切經音義 the author saw at the time, 廣雅疏證 records quotations from 聲類.
No matter what source is the original one, SAT-06900 is a wrong glyph of 䰫 (U+4C2B) indeed.
廣潛研堂說文答問疏證
小學盦遺書
說文逸字
廣雅疏證
▲ 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.
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」
▲ 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.
《說文解字》藤花榭本．卷八上
(http://www.guoxuedashi.net/kangxi/pic.php?f=swjzzb&p=270)
I think it is a variant of 偫(U+506B), and suggest pending other evidence.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，第一卷
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十六
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之四
▲ 《國語辭典》，民國37年重印本，p. 42
玄應一切經音義
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第一
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第五十三
Please confirm which one is the proper one.
責: 責 (majority) vs 𧵩 (5 occurrences) vs ⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-03816]] (1) vs ⿳宀大貝 SAT-06862 (1) vs SAT-08945 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [[WS2017-03449]] (1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝 [[WS2021-02808]] (1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [ {{WS2017-03449}} ]
(1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝 (1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝 (1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝 (1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
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.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
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).
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.