This shape is seen in many books, used as last name and used in place names as well.
徐铁生: 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》,中华书局出版发行,北京市白帆印务有限公司，2014年1月北京第1版，2014年1月北京第1次印刷,ISBN978-7-101-09024-6, page1360
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第八辅助集
Considering the unification relates to the change of radical, I think it is better to encode the character seperately.
This ideograph is present in the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension I block at code point U+2EDBD. This block is now frozen and stable for Unicode Version 15.1. This character should therefore be removed. from this working set.
The character is equivalent to 箭 or 𥳭 without a doubt. We should avoid encoding multiple permutations of transliteration of the 箭 to varying strictness.
According to the evidence it is a variant form of 肝 (U+809D) without a doubt. I'm not sure how common it is for the component form 月 to be swapped to the full form 肉, if there are other examples in SAT's repertoire I suggest unification.
首 is the more common form of head than 𩠐. Based on precedent of the unification of 責 with 𧵩, 眉 and 睂 in IRG 60, the relationship between 首 and 𩠐 is identical, so a new UCV should be created.
While definitely a variant of 舁, ⿳𦥑一八 is extremely productive as a component, so it would be valuable to be coded as a separate character, thereby simplifying a ton of IDSes.
According to the evidence this seems like a miswritten form of 𠜓 (U+20713). Some books give "guwen" in the structure ⿰犭⿱火刀. If SAT has other sources that use ⿰犭⿱火刀, I would encourage encoding that, instead of this one.
Other editions of 《禪要經》 give "衰酢", therefore SAT-06753 should be a variant of U+8870 衰 or U+2E571 𮕱 (a variant of 衰). Therefore suggest ad hoc unification to either U+8870 or U+2E571.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with UK.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
While I agree that in this case, the character is a variant of U+8870 / U+2E571, it is also used as a variant of 襄, both as a component in U+2A48C and U+2C340 and standalone. I would argue for separation.
Based on the text it seems this is a variant of 撿. It is common for the 扌 and 牜 components to be mixed up, and it is probably not worth disunifying them into separate characters as it does not help in indexing or searching. I am unsure if IRG may prefer to add this to the UCV as level 2.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is too confusing to unify Components 扌 and 牜. The submitted evidence shows it is the variant of 𣫍 (U+23ACD), and 𣫍 (U+23ACD) must be the variant of 歛 (U+6582). There is one fanqie of 歛 (U+6582) as 良冉切 in 廣韻, and the fanqie of 撿 (U+64BF) is also 良冉切. The initial shengmu of 良 and 力 are both 來母, that means 良冉切 and 良冉切 mean the same pronunciation. However, the most common pronunciation of 撿 (U+64BF) now is jiǎn in Putonghua, gim2 in Cantonese, 검 in Korean and so on, which means “to pick up”. 來母 would not become [k] (>[ʨ]) commonly, that means the variant of 撿 (U+64BF) is different from the current most common definition of 撿 (U+64BF). If we unify this character with 撿 (U+64BF), that will be hard for the information processing on semantic meaning.
From the context, it seems to mean "以珍寶裝飾", and the proposed character should be related to "珍" (treasure). However, based on the character forms, the above three evidences show two shapes: [⿰王𬼉] (for the first and third one) and 𤥖 (for the second one), both of which are variant forms of "珤" (treasure).
The G source and T source of 𧓞 (U+274DE) should be updated to use the form U+3404 㐄. The source of U+274DE is the Kangxi Dictionary for both the G source and T source, which cites《字彙補》, but the glyph doesn't make sense because the phonetic is 𩰫 and ⿰鬲丰 is not the correct composition.
Potential unification to 萈 (U+8408) or 莧 (U+83A7) based on comment #7764 (which seems to be marked as Data for Unihan instead of Unification in error).
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Referring to the description of 隸經雜著甲編(卷6) "釋莞", the characters "莞 (U+839E)", "萈 (U+8408)", and "莧 (U+83A7)" were interchangeable in the past. And 隸經雜著甲編 mentioned that 一切經音義 was written as “夫子萈爾而笑”. Therefore, the proposed character is highly likely originated from "萈 (U+8408)".
Based on the pronunciation supplied by TCA and the map evidence from Andrew West, it is suspected that TE-7729 is in fact a corrupted form of U+27068 𧁨. As it is not expected that 奐 is not a common variant of 魚, I suggest that it be unified as an ad-hoc unification.
- ⿻水丨, /guɔ/ Wenzhou (Zhejiang Province) for the space in between crops;
- 𫤬, /ka ~ kang/ Zhejiang Province, ditch (from https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg60/IRGN2616WangXieyang.pdf; and also note the character shape from 浙江省丽水市地名志)
If this transliteration is common, we should add it to the UCV and encode it in an IVD collection.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Oppose unification as the right side of UK-20573 bears no resemblence to 曶. Unified glyph forms should be easily recognizable as variant forms of the same character.
There are three evidences showing ⿱臨玉 but only one showing 𤪋, therefore ⿱臨玉 seems likely to be the correct form in this case. We can accept either ad hoc unification of UK-20941 with 𤪋 (U+24A8B), or a new ucv if there are other examples of 臨~𰯲 glyph variation.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
From the comment #2588, there is also a case where [⿱臨玉] is used as the name. 浙江通志(清光緒刊本) is also written in [⿱臨玉]. Therefore, there should be no need to unify with 臨~𰯲 based on the evidences of 馮[⿱臨玉]~馮𤪋.
In the 30 plus years of experience with encoding Nôm we have come up with exactly 5 pairs of characters which distinguish 𦥷 and 興. With the exception of V0-3962 and VN-232F1, all are already encoded: e.g U+2C2D9 and U+2444D. I don't see this as a big win, it would just add another difficult to explain unification rule.
And, the current glyph for U+288BB 𨢻 is also included in the book “Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá (Hán Nôm Coded Character Repertoire)” (aka the real source of V4-Source), and other strandards.
▲ Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá, p. 475
▲ GB 18030-2022, p. 411
▲ TCA-CNS 11643-2007, p. 340 (11-307B)
眼 (HV: nhãn) and 眠 (HV: miên) are totally different and it is not suitable to treat them as unifiabe pair any time. We can not confirm if this character has been also used in China and TCA, and there is no UCV rule, so it is better to encode the real form for V0-4562 in a new code point.
The V-Source reference for U+288BB 𨢻 has been changed.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
As Eiso points out, these two characters were addressed by the IRG during the discussion of IRGN2429. They different in shape, non-cognate, and should not be unified.
For extension H, the IRG previously debated unification U+31E22 𱷥 with 籠 and U+31DE5 𱷥 with variants of 龍. Unification was rejected. There is no new information here and I see no reason to change.
For extension H, the IRG previously debated unification U+31E22 𱷥 with 籠 and U=31DE5 𱷥 with variants of 龍. Unification was rejected. There is no new information here and I see no reason to change.
U+31DE5 is less common than 竜. For extension H, the IRG previously debated unification U+31E22 𱷥 with 籠 and U+31DE5 𱷥 with variants of 龍. Unification was rejected. There is no new information here and I see no reason to change.
Add Radical 195.0 (魚) as secondary radical with FS=1
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
As the evidence shows, this character looks related to 鱗. If yes, I suggest change Radical 195.0 (魚) the radical, and Radical 199.0 (麥) as the secondary one.
Add the secondary radical as 107.0 (皮) for the Zhuang use based on Comment #13544, SC=11, FS=3.
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
I suggested adding a second radical because the character is categorized as 言部 in two dictionaries. Plus it has a variant ⿰言錦. If the secondary radical is not supposed to record such information, I am happy to remove it.
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
The purpose of the second radical is to aid discoverability, but it is unlikely that anyone would expect to find this character under 言 radical, so agree that the second radical is not required in this case.
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
〾 is used for the TCA conventions. The current T-Source (T2-4278) of U+6220 戠 is different from the right part of this character and the G- and H-Sources of U+6220 戠.
Keep as Radical 74.0 (月) as the association with '腦' (meat radical) is only one modern author's interpretation, and not necessarily reliable. My own interpretation is that the character represents 'the moon through the window'.
Add Radical 194.0 (鬼) as secondary radical with SC=3
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
Secondary radical seems unnecessary as this character is the simplified form of the common character U+993D 餽, so the primary radical should be obvious.
My understanding is that for IRG work we count 及 as 4 strokes (different from Unihan data). 盍 is 10, so SC = 14. This is consistent with the simplified form: U+28E0D
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Looking at all of the encoded Vietnamese characters with 娄 on the left side, since 娄 is the phonetic, with the exception of U+21890, which uses # 38, the radicals used are based on the right side semantic element. Since we we have now changed the basis for determining the radical, we might want to go back and the change previously encoded characters at some time.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Change Radical to 12.0 (八) to follow the character 六? SC=11, FS=4
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
Radical 82.0 (毛) is much more intuitive for this ideograph.
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
PnP section 2.2.1 d. (5) c): "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."
Therefore use Radical 82.0 (毛) as the primary radical for this character, and add 162.0 (辵) as a second radical if considered necessary.
Change Radical to 117.0 (立), SC=10, FS=4
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
If we are going to not use the semantic element (中) to determine the radical, we should use consider a new radical variant of 212, since the left side, U+31DE5, is a simplification of 龍.
We don’t have any evidence to show the usage for the geographic name(s) of this character, but it is used for the tourist attraction, that means it is OK to keep the G reference as GDM.
I think Yifan’s Comment #4848 is still reasonable. John showed the 木棉花 (kapok) reads as reux in Zhuang. And the dictionary shows U+26AFC 𦫼 reads as reuz. The initials and finals are the same, but the tones are different. It is possible to use U+26AFC 𦫼 to record reux in 隆安, and the semantics are also reasonable.
New evidence
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The character GDM-00307 ⿱丷了 was used in the name of Nazreux village before 1982 (广西壮族自治区隆安县小林乡那料屯).
Whilst looking at the dictionary first published in 1989 suggests this might come from 𦫼 (reuz) it is very unlikely that this was the case here. No place names in the 1934 "Longan County Chronicles" (隆安县志) use 了 as a phonetic component but many use 尞 as a phonetic component, and even includes 那寮 as a place name, therefore ⿱丷了 is most likely a variant of U+5bee 寮 or another 尞 phonetic character.
The evidence shows this is a general geographical name (地理通名). This general geographical name is used widely in Beijing, the following book provided eight forms from different materials, and the authors checked 《京师坊巷志稿》 written by 朱一新 and found that several forms were not used in the real geographical names.
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Previously submitted by China for CJK_C1 as CYY01318. What was the evidence then? This character is also SJ/T 11239—2001 28-42 so it probably should be encoded as a variant of 衚.
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
Based on comment #10266, should this character be withdrawn?
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
This character should not be withdrawn. And I do suggest Eiso to read more books. It is really easy to find the following material:
正德颍州志·卷二·第七页
The small seal on the next page.
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
The text in the evidence seems to be related to the quotation given in the entry for 《續方言》 in 《四庫全書總目提要》 which has "𧐒𧐎" instead of "䲇⿰魚覓". Therefore ⿰魚覓 can be considered to be a variant of U+2740E 𧐎. I think it is OK to move it back to the M-set.
Probably a variant of 蜇, not a modern typo. It would be helpful to see the original source for the text given in the evidence, but I think it is OK to encode on the given evidence.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
Based on the comment #11982, suggest to find instances of ⿰魚熒 and change the IDS and glyph to ⿰魚熒.
It seems very probable that ⿰鱼𬶨 is a mistake for ⿰鱼暨 (simplified form of U+29F59 𩽙) in the two modern evidences given (someone just added a fish radical to the left of 𬶨 without noticing that the fish radical form of the character has 暨 on the right). If ⿰鱼𬶨 is correct we would expect ⿰魚鱀 to exist as well, but it does not.
The two evidences provided are both general texts which just mention Baiji dolphin in passing, so they cannot be considered to be authoritative sources. Please try to find additional evidence for either ⿰鱼𬶨 or ⿰鱼暨 from a zoological source that specifically discusses the Baiji dolphin. If there is no additional evidence then the character should be withdrawn. If additional evidence shows ⿰鱼暨 then suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鱼暨.
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿱郷鱼 not ⿱鄉鱼.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
The followings are eight editions of 《集韻》 at the same entry. At the same position, some are the submitted one (red), some are ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 (blue) and 𣝼 U+2377C (orange), which mean the same character. ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 could be unified to this character.
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 方成珪: 《集韻考正》, 光緒刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 曹氏楝亭本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷一
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
The stable variants could be encoded.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Agree with Tao Yang. This is a stable variant and is not a misprint.
獐头鼠目/獐頭鼠目 is a stable idiom (成语/成語) in China, so maybe the character is a typesetting extra character. It is better to withdraw it without other sufficient evidence.
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
On the other hand, WS2017-04940 provided the totally different meaning and use, but IRG should accept the character based on the evidence first, not the rationale and explanation.
What does "箕裘方～起" mean? It looks like ⿰爵鳥 should be a corruption of some reasonably common character, but it is not clear to me what character it should be. An internet search does not come up with any other examples of this phrase.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The submitted evidence is not complete. I list the full poem as below based on Comment #2496, and I also show the 格律 information.
Based on the 格律 information, the submitted character must be 仄韵字.
In the Chinese ancient works, 箕裘 means to “inherit the cause of his/her/their ancestors”.
▲ 杭州大学中文系: 《古书典故辞典（校订本）》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 1988.9, ISBN 7-5392-0356-0/I·5, p. 505
～起 could be understanded to “seize the opportunity to rise”, which is similar to 鹊起 (声名鹊起). On the other hand, the 韻 of 爵 and 鵲 are both 陽韻入聲, that means this character should be the variant of 鵲.
It is OK to accept it based on the above rationales.
As a rhyme book, ⿱⿰召殳鳥 should rhyme with 㝅/𣪒/穀. Assuming ⿰召殳 is the phonetic component, it is unusual that ⿰召殳 is not encoded. I guess it should have been 𪆑 or
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.
As we can see, ⿰世鳥 is categorized as 鳥部/六畫, which does not make sense because 世 has only 5 strokes and in the very same book, 泄 is categorized as 水部/五畫, so if ⿰世鳥 were indeed ⿰世鳥, it should have been placed after 鳥部/五畫.
Here is a summary by comparing the characters in 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇 (abbr. SSP) with all 鳥部/六畫 characters in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗 (abbr. HPCZ):
Characters in HPCZ but not in SSP: ⿰关鳥、⿰世鳥、⿰鳥麦、⿰召鳥.
Characters in SSP but not in HPCZ: 𪁾、䳄、𩿮、𪀺、⿰𡰪鳥.
Here ⿰世鳥、⿰召鳥 have 5 strokes, ⿰鳥麦 has 7 strokes. ⿰召鳥 is misprint of ⿰𡰪鳥, ⿰鳥麦 is misprint of 𪀺. ⿰关鳥 is likely variant of 𪁾. And by exclusion, ⿰世鳥 is likely a misprint of 䳄, otherwise HPCZ would not have removed 䳄, a common character imo.
I am worried about the overall quality of 海篇朝宗. Should it happen to have correct strokes I may not find out that it is likely a misprint of another character. I suggest we treat 海篇朝宗 like 中華字海, it should not be the only supporting evidences without evidences from other dictionaries or running text.
Appendix:
Characters in HPCZ/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,鴿,鵃,鴶,𪀖,鵧,鴻,鴰,鴷,䳑,鴛,䳋,鵀,𪀓,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪁋,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,鴯,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,鴺,𪀚,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,⿰关鳥(WS2021-04707),𪁑,鵄,鴽,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪀤,𪁖,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,⿰世鳥,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,䳍,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𪀫,⿰鳥麦,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,䙚,𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀭,𪁀,䳂,𪀨
Characters in SSP/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,𪀖,鴿,鵃,鴶,鴻,鴛,鴰,鵧,鴷,䳋,䳑,鵀,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪀓,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴯,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,𪁋,𪀚,鴺,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,𪁾,𪁑,鴽,鵄,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪁖,𪀤,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,䳍,䳄,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𩿮,𪀩,𪀺,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,裊(䙚),𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀫,𪀭,𪁀,⿰𡰪鳥,𪀨
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
This character is really questionable, but it is also stable in different edition of 《直音篇》. Maybe it is valuable to encode.
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The following evidence shows other meanings, pronunciations or uses. Lee's comment is reasonable, but it could also be used for other meaning based on the first following. So, it is better to keep it in M-set.
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 卷4 folio 10a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫 *improved from the previous version.
In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉, 「⿰⿱䒑夭鳥」is normalized to ⿰关鳥 otherwise it would have been placed under 鳥部/7畫.「音倒」is likely derived from「鳥道切」where 鳥 reads as 島. But now we know originally, it was「𪁾，烏道切」, then misprints accumulate over time.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
I still hope to see the full page of China submitted evidence.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The evidence shown by China derives from 爾雅注 which has "蜪蚅(未詳)". ⿰虫陶 in the evidence could be a font error for 蜪, so China should supply an image of the original woodblock edition of 郝懿行集 to confirm that ⿰虫陶 is shown in the original text.
For the submitted evidence, the current common form is 蚱蜢 (grasshopper, also 蝗虫, 蚂蚱), so the submitted form is acceptable.
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
I think ti's clear to show this is a variant vocabulary of 蚱蜢.The glyph is good.
The first evidence is from 字學指南（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 45b, under the section 異體同音同義/三字仝. Based on the fanqie 敵德, here ⿱牧虫 is likely misinterpretation of the cursive form of 𧎬, a variant of both 𧎢 and 蟘.
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
The text 鉤行之陳…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·十陣》and the text 左右旁伐以相趨…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·略甲》. I don't know why 文史 combine them as if they were from the same source. Note that the text is incorrectly included in 孫臏兵法 on the Internet.
The glyph form is suspicious as ⿱𥫗鼎 does not exist as an independent character or as a component in any other character. I strongly suspect that ⿰金⿱𥫗鼎 is a mistake for U+28BB0 𨮰 zhá is it has the same reading (士戛 is also the fanqie for 鍘 zhá) and same meaning (a type of knife used to cut hay).
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
I checked several classic edition of 《世説新語》, the character shows 鎩 U+93A9 which the corresponding simplified form is 铩 U+94E9, but not 𮢎 U+2E88E. 𮢎 U+2E88E was submitted, and it is easy to confirm 𮢎 U+2E88E is the variant of 鎩 U+93A9 in 大正藏 (尾世𮢎數〖殊勝也〗 vs 尾世鎩數（殊勝也）). We should confirm which edition of 《世説新語》 was the book 《中国古代文学事典》 written by 朱碧蓮 based on to judge if it is useful to encode this form.
▲ 劉義慶: 《世説新語》, 四部叢刊本, 卷上之上
▲ 劉義慶, 劉孝標: 《世説新語》, 崇文書局叢書本, 卷一
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
《世説新語校箋》（中華書局，1984年） p. 75 also gives U+93A9 鎩 which should not simplify to ⿰钅刹. Without any more evidence for ⿰钅刹, I suggest that GKJ-00531 is withdrawn.
The full reference for the source should be provided (author, title, publisher, year), as well as the name of the author and title for the piece in which this character occurs.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew. Does it also cite from 残雪’s works?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew. 残雪 is a famous writer in Contemporary Chinese Literature. Mr. Goran Malmqvist (马悦然) once once recommended her to participate in the selection of the Nobel Prize for literature. I can’t believe a character like 狭 and 窄 used in a modern Chinese novel.
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
Please provide full page of evidence so we can understand the context. What are the characters shown in the evidence meant to represent? They look like a list of rime characters. If so, please provide an image of that shows the literary text where Li Yu uses the character ⿰犭斂.
Also, the character ⿰貝斂 is not encoded and not proposed for encoding. Why propose only ⿰犭斂 and not ⿰貝斂 immediately below it? It makes no sense.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Found in https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/稲荷山古墳出土鉄剣.
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Here's an image of the inscription on the sword found at the Inariyama tomb mentioned in #6206
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
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.
Additional evidence for ⿰犭麽 is given in WS2021-02373 GKJ-00551 Evidence 1. Evidence 2 shows the variant form ⿰犭摩 which is not encoded or proposed for encoding.
The evidence appears to show that these three characters are vulgar forms of some other character, but the extract does not show what it is. Can the full page for the evidence be provided so we can better understand the meaning of these characters ?
Also, why are ⿰至及 and ⿰至支 not also proposed for encoding? It seems pointless to encode ⿰至戾 but not the two other characters in the same extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Support Andrew’s comment #4696. Is it the vulgar variant of U+81F4 致 and U+2693A 𦤺.
The character is not attested in other 南部新書 versions. Based on the earlier 南部新書 version, I believe it should have been ⿺鼠丰, which is a variant / error of 𪕅.
▲ 南部新書（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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿰鼠戻. In PRC rule, 戾 and 戻 are different characters based on 《说文解字》, which is different from Japan. It looks a typo, because the real ⿰鼠戾 is shown in the same page. The following is a piece of new evidence for normalized ⿰鼠戾.
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Eiso Chan's comment #6309.
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
For information, here is the passage from 《蠕范》 1:25b referenced in Evidence 1, which shows the unencoded character ⿰鼠靈 in place of ⿰鼠戻:
Is there any other evidence for this character? We have found so many typos in 《中华大典》 during the previous meetings.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
The list of eight rodents given in Evidence 2 (鼸鼶鼮鼣鼭鼤䶅䶈) corresponds to the list of eight rodents given in 説略
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
The evidence quotes a poem by the Song dynasty poet Su Zhe 蘇轍. There are two versions of the poem, one with U+9E96 麖 jīng and one with U+9E8F 麏 jūn.
蘇轍《𡗝中詩》: 江流日益深，民語漸以變。遙想彼中人，狀類麖/麏鹿竄。
In the evidence ⿸鹿吉 should be an error for 麏. It cannot be considered a variant as 吉 is entering tone, whereas 麖 and 麏 are both level tone, so it would not fit the tonal pattern of the poem.
Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
▲ 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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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 text given in the evidence seems to be a mistake. Kangxi Dictionary p. 1276 states: "説文本作⿰麃邑"
And Shuowen Jiezi (Zhonghua Shuju 1963, p. 132) does indeed have an entry for U+287BB 𨞻, which is of course written as ⿰麃邑 in seal script.
So ⿰鹿邑 is a mistake for ⿰麃邑 which is the archaic form for U+287BB 𨞻. As all characters with rhs 阝 can be said to be written with 邑 in the Shuowen dictionary, I do not think that it is a good idea to separately encode any more variant forms of characters with 邑 for 阝. Therefore I suggest a new UCV for 阝~邑, and withdraw GKJ-00693.
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?
Unclear evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Agree with WANG Yifan.
正字通,吳源起清畏堂, 康熙24 [1685] 序].
the character at this position is also 註.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Fwiw the version presented by Conifier (https://nrs.lib.harvard.edu/urn-3:fhcl:4322345) is same as Yifan's (http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/), both are 康熙24年清畏堂刊本.
Evidence 1 quotes a poem by the Song dynasty poet Su Zhe 蘇轍 which has U+9E96 麖 jīng or U+9E8F 麏 jūn in this position (see GKJ-00679), so ⿸鹿吾 is probably a mistake for U+9E8F 麏. The other three evidences are OK.
None of the evidences show the glyph form very clearly, so it is not certain that the component is 免. I think that they are all intended to be forms of U+9E91 麑. Therefore suggest to postpone for better evidence.
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.
As Hou Man mentioned, this character is related to U+2A13B 𪄻. The followings are the relative entries in different version of 《廣韻》
符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.
龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.
覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.
宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.
古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The text in the evidence is a section of collation, obviously the author knows ⿰鳥春 is the wrong glyph of 𪄻.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
In response to Tao Yang, I guess it is a question of whether we should encode known error forms noted in critical editions of texts, or whether cited error forms such as this should be represented as PUA characters. (I personally am happy to encode error forms if they are cited in printed editions.)
The left side of the character does not entirely look like 牜, and if it is a variant of 犙 it is not clear to me what it means in this context. Additional evidence would be helpful.
What the evidence described is related to 岳王庙 in Hangzhou City (杭州市). The four sinners in front of Yue Fei’s (岳飛) tomb are 秦桧/秦檜, 王氏, 张俊/張俊 and 万俟𫧯/万俟卨. ⿰饣善 is a typo here. The current evidence is insufficient for the encoding.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Please provide the detailed publishing information of the submitted evidence.
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
The evidence is not sufficient as the source is not very reliable, and has many glyph errors. The evidence quotes a long-lost book (食經 by 崔禹錫), so it is unclear what the actual source for the character is. As there is no G-source for U+2CD5C 𬵜, it is not obvious that the original source referred to U+2CD5C 𬵜. I therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that GKJ-00768 is the simplified form of U+2CD5C 𬵜.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I agree with Andrew's comment.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew and Lee. If there is no other sufficient evidence, this character should not be accepted.
It is also SAT-04688.
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
唐駢體文鈔
十萬卷樓叢書·釋文
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[艹攴] might be regarded as the error form of 芰, but it is used in different sources. Could we confirm whether it can be accepted as having sufficient evidence of use?
The new evidences come from 唐駢體文鈔 and 十萬卷樓叢書·釋文, but when looking for other version, most of them are given as 芰.
1. 唐駢體文鈔(光緒乙未刊行) is [芰]. And the poem included in this book (蜀綿州月王樓詩序) are given as [芰] in 御定全唐詩. 唐駢體文鈔(光緒乙未刊行)
2. In 十萬卷樓叢書, it wrote “竒寄切。說文，[艹攴] 蔆也.” However, “竒寄切” is the reading of 支, not [攴].
Not exactly the same, but we can see a very similar reduction of the 節 component of 癤 in 《番漢合時掌中珠》 where the bamboo radical has been reduced to two strokes (it may even be a printing error for ⿸疒莭):
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
What does it mean here? The character only appears once in this page unlike other terms, so need to confirm that this character is not an incidental mistype.
Unclear evidence response
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It should mean gas emit from metal, which I think is reasonable.
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
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/
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
What is Evidence 2? Does the full page provide any more information?
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The evidence shows this character is used for Taiwan Province. Maybe TCA should do the double check.
It's difficult to make out the shape from the image provided. It would help to get a clearer image.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
In this case, 立突 are two characters for one French loan word litre. 立 corresponds to li-, 突 corresponds to -tre. This must be a typo. Metre should be 米突, not ⿰米突.
It is better to withdraw this character.
▲ 《算术教科书》//越生文化, 田正品: 《中国近代教育文献丛刊·教材教法卷·24》, 杭州: 浙江教育出版社, 2021.3, ISBN 978-7-5722-1393-9, pp. 341-342
The original source of the character is An English-Chinese Lexicon of Medical Terms (Philip B. Cousland, Publication Committee, Medical Missionary Association of China, 1908, https://books.google.ca/books?id=P-kRAAAAYAAJ)
This is obviously a corrupt form of some common character as the text is using it as a size comparison that readers are expected to understand. I strongly suspect it is just a corrupt form of U+8C4C 豌 (variant form ⿰豆⿱宀外 with 宀 lost). Therefore suggest withdaw or pending.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
I agree with Andrew that this character is likely an error of 豌.
The text here is a quote from 本草, as is shown on the previous folio here. Text is similar to 救荒本草 but 「如⿰豆外豆大」is not included.
In the context 「苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大」. ⿰禾忠 refers to specific part of a plant. So it is not a new species.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Agree with the comment #13581.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
The text is a comment to 《搜神記·猨乞子》, where monkey mother died after her son. In 求其⿰骨彡而瘞之, 瘞 means to bury, so ⿰骨彡 must mean body. I suspect ⿰骨彡 is corrupted form of 骸. According to MOE dictionary, 亥 has many variants 㐪𠀅𠅆𠦇𢁳𫝅𬽆𬽇𬺷, some of them also look like 彡. I suggest pending more evidences.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Agree with Comment #13582 that ⿰骨彡 is probably a corrupt form of 骸. 《三農紀》 is not a very reliable source, with many glyph errors, so I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
I would be careful about assuming that this is an error form. In Vietnamese, this form has a specific meaning, for example, U+2015C 𠅜 (⿱亠例) is thought to be an abbreviation of ⿱麻例 (ma+lệ) where the reduced form 亠 for "ma" indicates an initial "*ml-" in spoken Vietnamese when the character was first used. We need more information.
Based on comment #2785, suggest withdraw this character.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
It looks like this character should be a corruption of some common character, but it is not obvious to me what it should be. Therefore I suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
Conifer has shown one example on the 塘汛 symbol on the Chinese traditional maps under #7877. This “character” must be a typo in the submitted evidence. This character should be withdrawn, and China NB and TCA could consider to encode the 塘汛 symbol as the transport and map symbol in future.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Other modern publishing edition.
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
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.
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Suggested to be withdrawn based on the comment on Andrew West in #7551.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
It should be kept cause this is a person-name character, which is already accepted in WS2017.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
This character is deleted from Ext.I because that it is in WS2021. So it should be kept and GB18030 amendment 1 can be the evidence.
Not sure what is the rationale using 本. In the description, the glyph of the previous character is inconsistent between ⿰本灰 and 𪲄.
New evidence
John Knightley
China
Whilst in the entry for feq ⿰本借 the character foenq is not clearly printed. That the character foenq is in fact ⿰本灰 not 𪲄 is clearly shown in it's entry on page 159, see below:
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
There is a note on this website: “처부 : 『안동권씨좌윤공파보(安東權氏佐尹公派譜)』(1930) 권1을 참고하여 처부1을 추가. 족보에는 처부2가 "송천(宋蒨)"으로 나옴.”. Here it states that 安東權氏佐尹公派譜(1930) gives 蒨, which is similar to ⿰亻蕢 here, but I can't check this book due to lack of access.
The person mentioned in the submitted evidence, 忽酋 or ～耳, means 布占泰 (Bujantai) who was a Jurchen beile of the Ula tribal confederation. However, the Chinese modern researchers identified the submitted character as two characters. Based on the submitted evidence, it looks the Chinese modern publishing books made this name wrong, so it is OK and necessary to encode this character as soon as possible.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
The dot is intact so this is not a normalized character. While it seems that the horizontal stroke below 口 of 彧 is missing at first glance, the stroke actually combined with the first 丿 of the 𢦑 component. So there is no normalization issues here.
金是⿱𤇾口 is 金是榮's younger brother. According Note 2 of this website, 『귀암집(歸巖集)』 卷之8, 墓碣銘, [처사 김공묘갈명(處士金公墓碣銘)] gives ⿱𤇾𠮛. According to the new evidence above, ⿱𤇾𠮛 and ⿱𤇾口 are probably unifiable.
I think ⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸山 is potentially unifiable with ⿱齊山. If they are deemed unifiable, Korea can decide which shape they want to encode. If not we can encode them separately.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
The left side of the glyph is unclear. Is there any additional evidence?
Unclear evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
KR tried to find another evidence only to fail.
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
From 「上遣金⿰日質等奏請」, it seems to me 金⿰日質 is a powerful official as he can talk to the emperor directly. It is unusual that KR can't find another evidences of his name.
I did a search query on the KR history website for 金礩, and it returns 1245 results:
As I am not familiar with Korean history at all, can KR or someone help me check if 金⿰日質 and 金礩 is the same person? If so ⿰日質 would be a misinterpreted form of 礩.
From the new evidence, we can notice that the shape is actually ⿰氵柝.
The text lists 李義濈's siblings. His elder brothers are 義汲，義？, his younger brothers are 義渉、義澤 and 義～. Among their names, the second character is always of the water radical. If the character were indeed ⿰朱斥, it would be very unusual as this character does not contain 氵.
I suggest Korea to update the glyph and IDS accordingly.
ROK said "KR will add a new KR Norm rule regarding the middle component" in #2716, but maybe it is better to normalize the whole inside component (⿰扌⿱𠂉子) to 斿, not normalize 扌 to 方.
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR agrees to add a new Norm rule as suggested by Eiso CHAN.
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
Wrong citation, the original glyph should be 褢 U+8922 in every version of 说文.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Discrepancy with orthography of the current version of 説文解字 does not mean error. While the shape is deformed, it could be derived from synonymous variants such as 褱, 𧙪, 𬽕 etc.
Unclear evidence response
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Agree with #12638, this seems to be a simplification of the the form 褱, similar to the the way 坏 is used for 壞. Modern Chinese editions typically use simplified forms for classical texts, but that does not invalidate the form or the edition.
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
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?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
We assume so but I'm afraid the type itself is unclearly cut.
No response given so far to comment #4418 WS2021 v2.0.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Note that the the passage goes "㞋音▲", so if it were 𠬩 the sentence would be a tautology. That is part of reason why we cannot establish probable relation to an existing character. Any suggestions would be welcome.
As I read the second image above, the printed text version, it looks like 01460 is a typo for the character 拏 in 本拏哩迦 (puṇḍarika). So, it would be more helpful to see the full text of the entry 牽我 to the left.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Re #9894:
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
The last stroke of 日 component in Evidence one is missing. And the corresponding entry in 大正藏 edition gives ⿰申⿱𠂉易.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Taisho's glyph is confused and that is why we did not put it in evidence. Although highly unclear, we believe the smaller glyph is intended to be this shape.
The source is just ordinary 高麗藏. The particular image is taken from Archives of Buddhist Culture, Dongguk University https://kabc.dongguk.edu/.
See IRGN2485.
It is hard to identify if the glyph is ⿰臼叒 or ⿰白叒 in Evidence 1 and 2. The glyph in Evidence 3 looks like ⿰𪠨㕛.
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I think the evidence 2 is clearest on the left component. You can see a slit in the middle of 臼, compared with 白 on the same page.
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
The evidence does not directly show a relationship between 毓 (U+6BD3) and WS2001-02259-SAT-06739. Rather, as I understand it, the text says that the ancient form of the second character in the term being glossed, 粥, written 鬻 (U+9B3B), is derived from WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 and 鬲 (U+9B32). It's plausible that these are variants: other sources relate 育 and 毓, and the text here says that WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 is has the sound 育. So they apparently share a reading. However, unless I'm missing something obvious here, it would be good to see other evidence that suggests the variant relationship.
How common is the transposition of ⿱⿰弓X弓鬲 to ⿱X⿰弓鬲弓 in SAT's sources? As ⿱⿰弓X弓鬲 is the common arrangement, if there are a fair amount of characters written as ⿱X⿰弓鬲弓, we should either disunify all of them or unify all of them.
Also, if SAT has some versions which use ⿱耳⿰弓鬲弓 instead, please consider encoding that variant instead of ⿱耳⿰弓畐弓.
▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263
The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
The text "郯⿰奚各，吳越間地名也" suggests that it is a variant of 谿, a place in 嵊縣, Zhejiang province. I suggest pending more evidences, or make an ad-hoc unification to 谿.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with TCA's comment dated 2022-01-05.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
《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.
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
The evidence submitted by Tao Yang suggests this is another form of 妓 U+5993, but the pronunciation from CNS11643 database is tán.
Is there more evidence for this character, including evidence of the pronunciation, which can substantiate that this character is non-cognate to 妓? It seems highly unlikely that 妓 would be used in a person's name.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Currently, TCA has not found any other evidence.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
TCA has found the handwritten form of this character.
I am responding in passing to the UK Activity Report about handwritten form transitioning to computer font create an erroneous font glyph.
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
Shape and reading, "sī", suggest this may be a variant of U+9DE5 鷥. But, what is the evidence that justifies this reading? In other cases, such as U+2A028 𪀨 , a variant of 鴉 according to Kangxi, the component 𢆶 represents another phonetic.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card. According to ancient book(重訂直音篇), this character is a variant of 鷥.
I suspect that this is mistranscription of U+8117 脗.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
CMEX does not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, we have found earlier BMP for the applicant. From the Changjie(倉頡) attribute provided, it was "日", not "月".
The evidence in #1228 says this should be read as 玉, i.e. "yù". This doesn't match the reading given originally, "liú". Is there more evidence to support "liú"?
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " liú " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
It would be good to have additional evidence to support the reading given, "dùn". The phonetic is 貭, which is a variant of 質, so I would expect a different reading, such as "zhì". Otherwise, this would appear to be a variant of U+78B7 碷 "dùn"
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " dùn " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
IRG Working Set 2021v5.0
Unification
徐铁生: 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》,中华书局出版发行,北京市白帆印务有限公司，2014年1月北京第1版，2014年1月北京第1次印刷,ISBN978-7-101-09024-6, page1360
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第八辅助集
Considering the unification relates to the change of radical, I think it is better to encode the character seperately.
Unify to 𣝼 U+2377C as per comment #9519.
Add new UCV ⿳自㓁𠔽 ~ ⿱鳥𠔿 ~ ⿱鳥囚.
This ideograph is present in the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension I block at code point U+2EDBD. This block is now frozen and stable for Unicode Version 15.1. This character should therefore be removed. from this working set.
Unify to 取 with new UCV 取 ~ ⿰耳𡿨.
Unify to 僺 (U+50FA)
Add a new UCV rule for 喿 ~ ⿱品尒 ~ ⿱品𠇍, level 2.
This variation is systematic and common in old texts. See excerpts from the MOE Variants Dictionary:
操：
藻：
躁：
Unify to 箭 or 𥳭.
The character is equivalent to 箭 or 𥳭 without a doubt. We should avoid encoding multiple permutations of transliteration of the 箭 to varying strictness.
Suggest to unify to 𡒅 (U+21485).
Suggest new UCV 嗇 ~ 𭍠 ~ ⿱土回 ~ ⿱夾回 ~ ⿱來回, and additionally 廧 ~ ⿸厂⿱土回 for this case.
Unify to 𦎼 (U+263BC) / 𦎯 (U+263AF).
The supplementary evidence from Eiso also indicates they are variants of 𦎼 (U+263BC) / 𦎯 (U+263AF). UCV #312d may apply?
The second evidence looks more closely like 䇂 (U+41C2). Potential unification with 䇂 (U+41C2).
Potential unification with 肝 (U+809D).
According to the evidence it is a variant form of 肝 (U+809D) without a doubt. I'm not sure how common it is for the component form 月 to be swapped to the full form 肉, if there are other examples in SAT's repertoire I suggest unification.
Potentially unifiable to 𡬹 (U+21B39).
首 is the more common form of head than 𩠐. Based on precedent of the unification of 責 with 𧵩, 眉 and 睂 in IRG 60, the relationship between 首 and 𩠐 is identical, so a new UCV should be created.
Potentially unifiable to 𣠐 (U+23810).
Maybe unifiable with 亝 (U+4E9D)?
Consider unification to 徹 (U+5FB9).
Potentially unifiable to 𠜓 (U+20713).
According to the evidence this seems like a miswritten form of 𠜓 (U+20713). Some books give "guwen" in the structure ⿰犭⿱火刀. If SAT has other sources that use ⿰犭⿱火刀, I would encourage encoding that, instead of this one.
Potentially unifiable to 牝 (U+725D).
It's extremely common for 牛 and 爿 to be mixed up in 俗字. Suggest that we unify them but not sure if this should be in UCV level 2.
Unifiable to 𪏻 (U+2A3FB)?
Add new UCV for left side components.
Possible unification to 䰫 (U+4C2B)
SAT has proved the current form is stable for different editions.
This SAT example is not the only case of ⿺兒 meaning ghost/devil. zi.tools for U+2C3B8 𬎸 ⿺兒生 has '(喃) ranh 詞:ranh con 義:little devil'.
Potentially unifiable to 撿.
Based on the text it seems this is a variant of 撿. It is common for the 扌 and 牜 components to be mixed up, and it is probably not worth disunifying them into separate characters as it does not help in indexing or searching. I am unsure if IRG may prefer to add this to the UCV as level 2.
Unify to 𤥖 (U+24956)?
From the context, it seems to mean "以珍寶裝飾", and the proposed character should be related to "珍" (treasure). However, based on the character forms, the above three evidences show two shapes: [⿰王𬼉] (for the first and third one) and 𤥖 (for the second one), both of which are variant forms of "珤" (treasure).
Unify to 𨃥 (U+280E5); with new UCV 𱣎 and 桀
Unify to 𦄲 (U+26132).
The component difference is in the third level. Suggest to do an ad-hoc unification, or add a new UCV rule for the whole right hand side component.
Unify to 𧓞 (U+274DE).
The G source and T source of 𧓞 (U+274DE) should be updated to use the form U+3404 㐄. The source of U+274DE is the Kangxi Dictionary for both the G source and T source, which cites《字彙補》, but the glyph doesn't make sense because the phonetic is 𩰫 and ⿰鬲丰 is not the correct composition.
Character in Shuowen as follows:
Unify to 搩 (U+6429); with new UCV 𱣎 and 桀.
See also 03902:
Potential unification to 𮝲 (U+2E772) with the additional note that the top part is different.
Both 𮝲 (U+2E772) and the two different variants of SAT-08372 are variants of 轡.
亾 should be unifiable to 亡 (See UCV #350 and #351).
Unify to 曄 with new UCV rule 華 and 蕐 and ⿱艹⿻𠈌𰀁.
Potentially unifiable with 犗 (U+7297).
Another case of 牛 and 爿 mixed.
Unifiable to 窳 (U+7AB3)?
Unify to 𭣭 U+2D8ED / 敓 U+6553?
Based on various sources, it appears the canonical form should be using 攴(攵) instead of 支:
Potential unification to 萈 (U+8408) or 莧 (U+83A7) based on comment #7764 (which seems to be marked as Data for Unihan instead of Unification in error).
Referring to the description of 隸經雜著甲編(卷6) "釋莞", the characters "莞 (U+839E)", "萈 (U+8408)", and "莧 (U+83A7)" were interchangeable in the past. And 隸經雜著甲編 mentioned that 一切經音義 was written as “夫子萈爾而笑”. Therefore, the proposed character is highly likely originated from "萈 (U+8408)".
UCV #454a:
Potentially unifiable to 緊 (U+7DCA).
A similar variant of 緊 can be found in the MOE dictionary (it is different in two places)
賢 has similar variant ⿱卧貝:
Unify to 𪼘 (U+2AF18).
Suggest to add new UCV for 萱 and ⿱艹𭁴.
Suggest to replace T source reference of U+2AF18 𪼘 to TE-253E as TE-253E uses more common components.
Unify to 𧁨 (U+27068).
Based on the pronunciation supplied by TCA and the map evidence from Andrew West, it is suspected that TE-7729 is in fact a corrupted form of U+27068 𧁨. As it is not expected that 奐 is not a common variant of 魚, I suggest that it be unified as an ad-hoc unification.
- 𫤬, /ka ~ kang/ Zhejiang Province, ditch (from https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg60/IRGN2616WangXieyang.pdf; and also note the character shape from 浙江省丽水市地名志)
Are these related/the same?
Possible unification to 𣓗 (U+234D7).
If this transliteration is common, we should add it to the UCV and encode it in an IVD collection.
There are three evidences showing ⿱臨玉 but only one showing 𤪋, therefore ⿱臨玉 seems likely to be the correct form in this case. We can accept either ad hoc unification of UK-20941 with 𤪋 (U+24A8B), or a new ucv if there are other examples of 臨~𰯲 glyph variation.
Based on #8842, suggest unification to 𧫧 (U+27AE7) or withdrawing.
Maybe expand UCV #321 and unify with 𣋱 (U+232F1)?
Is this to be unified with 𨢻 (U+288BB), which is a single-source V-source ideograph? There have been no comments thus far, hence the question.
And, the current glyph for U+288BB 𨢻 is also included in the book “Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá (Hán Nôm Coded Character Repertoire)” (aka the real source of V4-Source), and other strandards.
▲ Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá, p. 475
▲ GB 18030-2022, p. 411
▲ TCA-CNS 11643-2007, p. 340 (11-307B)
眼 (HV: nhãn) and 眠 (HV: miên) are totally different and it is not suitable to treat them as unifiabe pair any time. We can not confirm if this character has been also used in China and TCA, and there is no UCV rule, so it is better to encode the real form for V0-4562 in a new code point.
The V-Source reference for U+288BB 𨢻 has been changed.
Consider unification to 斅 U+6585; with new UCV 𭓇 ~ 學
Unify to 巤 (U+5DE4) or U+22002 𢀂.
Add new UCV of 巤, VN-F0BE9, and all of the following:
Potentially unifiable to 𡏡 U+213E1.
See also:
Potentially unifiable to 滝 (U+6EDD).
See also:
Potentially unifiable to 𪽞 (U+2AF5E).
Is this form of 竜 common?
Attributes
#36, IRGN954AR
Change Radical to 32.0 (土), SC=5, FS=3.
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
莽 is counted as 11 sometimes in Kangxi Dictionary and sometimes as 12.
Main difference is the bottom component is sometimes written as 廾 and sometimes written as ⿰𠂇十 in Kangxi Dictionary.
Etymologically speaking the bottom component is also a grass radical so should be counted as 4 strokes therefore 莽 = 12.
#23A, IRGN1105
#20, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#19a, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN954AR
The IDS should be changed from ⿰睿⿱只又 to ⿰睿⿱只夂.
An alternative IDS is ⿰土⿳𠂊冖巾.
#76, IRGN954AR
FS is yet to be changed to 1.
#32, IRGN954AR
#19, IRGN1105
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
#25, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#12, IRGN2221
⿰月署 is acceptable for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA.
#42, IRGN954AR
According to the new evidence:
#17, IRGN2221
#12, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
#72, IRGN954AR
#31, IRGN954AR
#11, IRGN2221
#58, IRGN954AR
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
See also: 00095, 00094, 00092.
#36, IRGN954AR
#44, IRGN954AR
Therefore use Radical 82.0 (毛) as the primary radical for this character, and add 162.0 (辵) as a second radical if considered necessary.
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Evidence
▲ 山东省青岛市崂山区崂山风景区太清游览区 (This photo is taken by me at April 4th, 2023, which is OK to use for IRG encoding works, but not others.)
As the official website of Mt. Laoshan tourist attraction shows this means “山海凌云” in the modern form and written by 沈春萱 (aka 沈春煊). https://qdlaoshan.cn/New-Guide-info-gid-440.html
We don’t have any evidence to show the usage for the geographic name(s) of this character, but it is used for the tourist attraction, that means it is OK to keep the G reference as GDM.
▲ 繹史（清康熙刊本）卷四 folio 3a
In this evidence ⿰女辟 is a variant of 嬖.
⿰身犬 is possibly a variant/mistake for ⿰身大 which also has the reading māng according to Kushim Jiang. Additional evidence would be helpful.
▲ [光緒]湄潭縣志（清光緒刊本）卷6 folio 11a
湄潭縣 is in 貴州省遵義市.
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》, p. 6747
Whilst looking at the dictionary first published in 1989 suggests this might come from 𦫼 (reuz) it is very unlikely that this was the case here. No place names in the 1934 "Longan County Chronicles" (隆安县志) use 了 as a phonetic component but many use 尞 as a phonetic component, and even includes 那寮 as a place name, therefore ⿱丷了 is most likely a variant of U+5bee 寮 or another 尞 phonetic character.
▲ 三晉石刻大全 長治市沁源縣卷（三晉出版社，ISBN 9787545705379）pp. 53 龍王廟重修碑記
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
正德颍州志·卷二·第七页
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
On the other hand, this place is under 清新区, and 氹塘/凼塘 is a common stable word in 清远市.
▲ 广东省地理学会科普组: 《广东农谚》, 广州: 科学普及出版社广州分社, 1983.2, 统一书号: 16051·60185, p. 77
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
▲ 東安縣志（明天啓刊本）卷2 folio 9a
Probably unifiable with ⿰魚厚 here.
▲ 管城碩記（清康熙乾隆間刊本）卷28 folio 18b
徐文靖(位山) considers 鮧⿰魚俞 as variant of 蛦蝓 or 螔蝓.
▲ 《霸州志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之五
Also see WS2021-04607:GKJ-00233.
Also, the source names for the remaining evidences should be given.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷3 folio 11b，魚部/14畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 17b，魚部/17畫.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
▲ [康熙]汾陽縣志（清康熙六十一年刊本）卷4 folio 8b
⿰魚⿱弗月 in an earlier evidence:
▲ [萬曆]汾州府志（明萬曆刊本）卷12 folio 5a
This character is similar to ⿰魚⿱弗目 as is shown in the original evidence 3.
The two evidences provided are both general texts which just mention Baiji dolphin in passing, so they cannot be considered to be authoritative sources. Please try to find additional evidence for either ⿰鱼𬶨 or ⿰鱼暨 from a zoological source that specifically discusses the Baiji dolphin. If there is no additional evidence then the character should be withdrawn. If additional evidence shows ⿰鱼暨 then suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鱼暨.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
▲ 《銅陵縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之一
Misprint of 𣝼. 《漢語大字典》pp. 1404 quotes《說文》：𣝼，屋𣝼䏈也。
https://homeinmists.ilotus.org/hd/hydzd3.php?st=page_no&kw=1404
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 方成珪: 《集韻考正》, 光緒刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 曹氏楝亭本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷一
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
浯嶼標靈秀(平仄平平仄) 華源積慶緜(平平仄仄平) 先
箕裘方～起(平平平～仄) 圭組合蟬聯(平仄仄平平) 先
半剌甘棠在(仄仄平平仄) 雄藩列柏先(平平仄仄平) 先
然藜𡸁素業(平平平仄仄) 擢桂接英𨇠(仄仄仄平平) 先
南紀初簪豸(平仄平平仄) 東曹舊握荃(平平仄仄平) 先
持衡羅俊譽(平平平仄仄) 解網泣顛連(仄仄仄平平) 先
晝擁旂鈴靜(仄仄平平仄) 春明鎧甲鮮(平平仄仄平) 先
吳儂回菜色(平平平仄仄) 海嶠淨𤇺烟(仄仄仄平平) 先
績課諸候最(仄仄平平仄) 綸褒絫世延(平平仄仄平) 先
十行頒赤陛(仄平平仄仄) 三錫賁重淵(平仄仄平平) 先
遺硯追貽厥(平仄平平仄) 芳鄰述母遷(平平仄仄平) 先
徵黃揆望峻(仄平平仄仄) 借㓂主恩偏(仄仄仄平平) 先
文武邦爲憲(平仄平平仄) 安危國杖賢(平平仄仄平) 先
衮衣還信𪧐(平平平仄仄) 鎻鑰制中權(仄仄仄平平) 先
𨽾也枌榆末(仄仄平平仄) 公𠔃剪拂專(平平仄仄平) 先
片言嘘羽翮(仄平平仄仄) 一氣轉鈞甄(仄仄仄平平) 真
𭺜礫寧居後(仄仄平平仄) 秕糠媿獨前(仄平仄仄平) 先
訓知良不易(仄平平仄仄) 頌德總難宣(仄仄仄平平) 先
識⿸尸⿰丬复星辰近(仄仄平平仄) 銘鐘日月懸(平平仄仄平) 先
行看登鼎鉉(平平平仄仄) 是某報珠年(仄仄仄平平) 先
Based on the 格律 information, the submitted character must be 仄韵字.
In the Chinese ancient works, 箕裘 means to “inherit the cause of his/her/their ancestors”.
▲ 杭州大学中文系: 《古书典故辞典（校订本）》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 1988.9, ISBN 7-5392-0356-0/I·5, p. 505
～起 could be understanded to “seize the opportunity to rise”, which is similar to 鹊起 (声名鹊起). On the other hand, the 韻 of 爵 and 鵲 are both 陽韻入聲, that means this character should be the variant of 鵲.
It is OK to accept it based on the above rationales.
As a rhyme book, ⿱⿰召殳鳥 should rhyme with 㝅/𣪒/穀. Assuming ⿰召殳 is the phonetic component, it is unusual that ⿰召殳 is not encoded. I guess it should have been 𪆑 or
The third 說文 evidence implies that it is a misprint of 鷽.
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
▲ 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗（明崇禎刊本）卷7 23b/24a
As we can see, ⿰世鳥 is categorized as 鳥部/六畫, which does not make sense because 世 has only 5 strokes and in the very same book, 泄 is categorized as 水部/五畫, so if ⿰世鳥 were indeed ⿰世鳥, it should have been placed after 鳥部/五畫.
Here is 鳥部/六畫 from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 9b/10a:
Here is a summary by comparing the characters in 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇 (abbr. SSP) with all 鳥部/六畫 characters in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗 (abbr. HPCZ):
Characters in HPCZ but not in SSP: ⿰关鳥、⿰世鳥、⿰鳥麦、⿰召鳥.
Characters in SSP but not in HPCZ: 𪁾、䳄、𩿮、𪀺、⿰𡰪鳥.
Here ⿰世鳥、⿰召鳥 have 5 strokes, ⿰鳥麦 has 7 strokes. ⿰召鳥 is misprint of ⿰𡰪鳥, ⿰鳥麦 is misprint of 𪀺. ⿰关鳥 is likely variant of 𪁾. And by exclusion, ⿰世鳥 is likely a misprint of 䳄, otherwise HPCZ would not have removed 䳄, a common character imo.
I am worried about the overall quality of 海篇朝宗. Should it happen to have correct strokes I may not find out that it is likely a misprint of another character. I suggest we treat 海篇朝宗 like 中華字海, it should not be the only supporting evidences without evidences from other dictionaries or running text.
Appendix:
Characters in HPCZ/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,鴿,鵃,鴶,𪀖,鵧,鴻,鴰,鴷,䳑,鴛,䳋,鵀,𪀓,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪁋,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,鴯,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,鴺,𪀚,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,⿰关鳥(WS2021-04707),𪁑,鵄,鴽,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪀤,𪁖,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,⿰世鳥,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,䳍,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𪀫,⿰鳥麦,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,䙚,𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀭,𪁀,䳂,𪀨
Characters in SSP/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,𪀖,鴿,鵃,鴶,鴻,鴛,鴰,鵧,鴷,䳋,䳑,鵀,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪀓,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴯,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,𪁋,𪀚,鴺,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,𪁾,𪁑,鴽,鵄,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪁖,𪀤,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,䳍,䳄,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𩿮,𪀩,𪀺,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,裊(䙚),𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀫,𪀭,𪁀,⿰𡰪鳥,𪀨
▲ 蠕範（清光緒湖北叢書本）卷5 folio 8b
▲ 瓊臺吟藳（明弘治五年刊本） 卷1 folio 10b
The second evidence looks like a mis-print, possibly from a mis-interpretation of a glyph with 干 throwing to the left.
Based on comment #2493, suggest to be pending unless there are other evidences of this character.
There are two pieces of evidence, but only one evidence name.
▲ 直音篇（明萬曆六年刊本）卷6 folio 68, 鳥部.
五音類聚四聲篇 gives the shape ⿰⿱口圭鳥, likely a variant of ⿰呈鳥.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮，故善012372-012376）卷4 folio 11b
The word ⿰畫/画鳥鶘 seems to be a variant of 鵡鶘.
Similar to 鴰.
康熙字典（同文書局）「【玉篇】鶬，鴰也。【爾雅·釋鳥】鶬，麋鴰。【郭註】今呼鶬鴰。【班固·西都賦】鶬鴰鳵鶂。」
▲ 張湧泉. 漢語俗字叢考（2000）pp. 1162
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏金刊元修補本. 故善004077-004086）卷4 folio 7b，鳥部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡, 音賢.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本. 故善012362-012371）卷4 folio 8a.
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 12b.
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999031766 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 71b
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 李昉、李穆、徐鉉：《太平御覽》，嘉慶仿宋刻本，卷第九百二十八
▲ 穆希文：《蟫史集》，萬曆刻本，卷之三
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，十二卷
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》，明嘉靖刻本，卷之三
Here we can see how 𪁾 shifts to ⿰关鳥:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 6b （𪁾，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 8a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，鳥道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫
大明正德重刊 gives the same shape / text with 成化重刊.
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 卷4 folio 10a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫 *improved from the previous version.
In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉, 「⿰⿱䒑夭鳥」is normalized to ⿰关鳥 otherwise it would have been placed under 鳥部/7畫.「音倒」is likely derived from「鳥道切」where 鳥 reads as 島. But now we know originally, it was「𪁾，烏道切」, then misprints accumulate over time.
See for another ⿰关鳥 evidence in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗. Now that we have more than one evidences, better just encode it.
Seems like misprint of 鴞.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 23a, 鳥部/5畫, quotes 類篇.
鴞 is already included in this dictionary (folio 22b), so ⿰另鳥 is placed here intentionally. I suggest to encode it as-is.
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
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷7 folio 14b. 馬部/20+畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
Are the two pieces sufficient to consider this a stable error?
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
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
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 9b, 鳥部/12畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 遜志齋集（中華再造善本影印明成化刊本）附錄卷1 folio 6a
▲ 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.
Yes it's a variant form of 啞, but stable enough to be encoded.
▲ 《本草匯箋》//朱大年: 《歷代本草精華叢書 七》, 上海: 上海中醫藥大學出版社, 1994.6, ISBN 7-81010-206-0, p. 431
▲ 郝懿行: 《爾雅義疏》, 郝氏家刻本, 下之四
——李清照《武陵春》
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 10a
▲ zi.tools: cursive script examples of 特
Here is the complete page of the second evidence:
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 96b
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
▲大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b. 虫部/6畫, quotes 龍龕. （⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𢪛）
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b（⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𭣣）
Here is a 龍龕 evidence:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 9a（虫部，平聲）
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
Please confirm the evidence source name.
贵州通志
初学记
类编图经集注衍義本草
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 39
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 42
This is a common character used in Ningpo cuisine.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 106
▲ 傅国通, 郑张尚芳: 《浙江省语言志》, 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-213-06955-0, p. 245
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b 虫部/6畫 （長隆切）, quotes 會玉川篇.
叔 has 8 strokes. Maybe the character was normalized from ⿰虫尗 or it is misprint of some known character.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷13 folio 6b, 虫部, quotes 玉篇.
An earlier revision gives 蠦:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（國立故宮博物院藏金刊元修本）卷13 虫部. So ⿰虫庐 is derived from 蠦.
四书章句集注
劉大司成文集
▲ 翠墨園語（古學彙刊本） folio 17
I montage two pages together for more complete context.
一切經音義 (T2128) 卷34:
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷1 金部/17-24畫, (⿰金𣡸) quote 搜真玉鏡
I can't find a UCV for 𣡸/欝. If we don't have one, please also consider add such UCV so ⿰金𣡸 can be unified to ⿰金欝.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18574&page=9#box(302,293,1,2)
▲ 玉篇（元刊本）：「錊，子對切，錬也」
鄦齋叢書
隷辨
泵浦
▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 197
Here is the bamboo slip for reference:
▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 68
繡像永慶昇平全傳
This character looks like the variant of 錞.
We have the UCV for 夗 and 死.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第五
▲ 吴大澂: 《説文古籀補》, 光緒二十一年重刻本, 卷第十二
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 30b (Lineage: 朱磐烑/奠埦/覲鈭/宸澻/拱欆/多㷿/謀𡊀/統⿱𡖅金)
It is probable that ⿱𡖅金 represents an intermediate form between ⿱死金 and ⿱夗金.
《蜀都賦》：「藏鏹巨萬，䤨摫兼呈。」
Could you check if the original evidence is correct?
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko19/bunko19_f0021/bunko19_f0021_0001/bunko19_f0021_0001_p0081.jpg
The submitted character might be a misprint form of 鏃?
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）小學類字書之屬·雜集時要用字（九）校記 pp. 4233
嘉靖御倭江浙主客军考
陈明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗
[咸淳]臨安志
史記
唐詩百名家全集一百種
詩法入門
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
Andrew's evaluation appears to be confirmed.
▲ 通志（文淵閣抄本）卷37 folio 2b
▲ 通志（元大德刊本） (目 replaced by 日)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷2 folio 10a (目 replaced by 日)
I agree that they are variants of 𨮰. Likely transitions: 廾→艸→the bottom component of 鼎.
▲ 劉義慶: 《世説新語》, 四部叢刊本, 卷上之上
▲ 劉義慶, 劉孝標: 《世説新語》, 崇文書局叢書本, 卷一
▲ 三晋文字编. pp. 616
The character is a transcription of the seal script form from 《中國古印：程訓義古璽印集存》.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//施方穆: 《抗戰前後 八十家佳作集 上集》, 香港: 新流書店, 1947.9, p. 545
The simplified form is shown as below.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
⿰犭围 has not been encoded yet.
摩麟近詩
增補文成字彙
▲ [萬曆]汾州府志（明萬曆刊本）卷12 folio 5b
▲ 《太平御覽》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第九百一十三
On the other hand, in other edition of 《太平御覽》, the character is written as 㺊.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 嘉慶仿宋刻本, 卷第九百一十三
▲ 《重修政和證類本草》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第十
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 錢恂藏揚州使院本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷之一
Also, the character ⿰貝斂 is not encoded and not proposed for encoding. Why propose only ⿰犭斂 and not ⿰貝斂 immediately below it? It makes no sense.
I suspect it is a misprint of 猼.
The evidence is quote from 《史記·司馬相如列傳》. 說文字母集解 is authored 井上夬菴 by published in 寬保01年（1741）.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 6 gives 猼.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（宋刊本）卷117 folio 4 gives 猼.
史記（清武英殿刊本） also gives 猼.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Consider pending more evidences.
樂府詩集
Error form of 𢶉?
覆宋本重修廣韻卷5：「𢶉，射中聲，普麥切。」
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
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
https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/b3/6d.html
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
▲ 初學記（宋紹興東陽崇川余四十三郎宅刊本）卷29 folio 14b
similar to 𪕍, 康熙字典（同文書局本）:「 【廣雅】𪕍𪕌，鼠屬。【廣韻】𪕍𪕌，斑鼠。」
▲ 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.
▲ 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
詩識名解
蠕范
中華大典醫藥衛生典 藥學分典十
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 鼷.
湖海樓詩藳
古文竒賞
全上古三代秦汉三国六朝文
五種遺規
漢書地理志補注
古学彚刊:第二集
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
▲ 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?
Evidence 1 and 4 should be mistake for U+2A2A8 𪊨 as 《説文解字》 gives 麂 as a variant of 𪊨.
Evidence 2 is a mistake for U+2A2A8 𪊨 (see same text in 兩漢博聞).
Evidence 3 is a mistake for U+9E90 麐 as 《宋史》卷218 gives the name "希麐".
Therefore, ⿸鹿日 is a mistake for U+232F4 𣋴.
蘇轍《𡗝中詩》: 江流日益深，民語漸以變。遙想彼中人，狀類麖/麏鹿竄。
In the evidence ⿸鹿吉 should be an error for 麏. It cannot be considered a variant as 吉 is entering tone, whereas 麖 and 麏 are both level tone, so it would not fit the tonal pattern of the poem.
Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
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.
Based on this evidence, ⿸鹿心 should be a mistake for U+9E83 麃.
▲ 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.
And Shuowen Jiezi (Zhonghua Shuju 1963, p. 132) does indeed have an entry for U+287BB 𨞻, which is of course written as ⿰麃邑 in seal script.
So ⿰鹿邑 is a mistake for ⿰麃邑 which is the archaic form for U+287BB 𨞻. As all characters with rhs 阝 can be said to be written with 邑 in the Shuowen dictionary, I do not think that it is a good idea to separately encode any more variant forms of characters with 邑 for 阝. Therefore I suggest a new UCV for 阝~邑, and withdraw GKJ-00693.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
正字通,吳源起清畏堂, 康熙24 [1685] 序].
the character at this position is also 註.
Here is an older version:
▲ 正字通（康熙10年白鹿書院刊本）亥集中 鳥部 64b gives 註.
In 《〈正字通〉版本及作者考》(see attachment below)，古屋昭弘 argues that 白鹿書院刊本 is the earliest version. So I suggest withdrawing this character.
Attached PDF file
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷23 folio 17a (⿸𢉖國 = ⿸鹿國 by UCV 443), 鹿部, quotes 奚韻.
I agree with Lee that ⿸鹿國 is related to ⿸鹿囯. The fanqie 苦君切 suggests that ⿸鹿國、⿸鹿囯、⿸鹿苦 might all be variants of 麕.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 鹿部, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷15 鹿部, (⿸鹿𫀄) quotes 搜真玉鏡.
The shape was then normalized to ⿸鹿戚 in later revisions:
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）卷15 鹿部
▲ 李元: 《蠕範》, 同治刻本, 卷六
⿰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}} ]
.
For the Jianzi use, the fingering letter 猱 should be 犭 commonly, but 《琴言十則》 (Yuan D.) and 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 (Qing D., non-Siku editions) used 彳.
▲ 朴仁范, 尹明浩: 《国家中医药管理局民族医药文献整理丛书 乡药集成方：校勘注释（下册）》, 长春: 吉林科学技术出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 7-5578-0244-8, p. 2029
▲ 谢宇: 《女性常见病药草治疗》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5029-4, p. 178
▲ 侯玲文: 《上古汉语朝鲜语对应词研究》, 北京: 民族出版社 , 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-105-10271-6, p. 256
▲ 国家中医药管理局: 《中华本草》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1999, ISBN 7-5323-5106-8, p. 667
▲ 陈丕显, 陈金祥: 《长阳县志（民国二十五年纂修）》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2005.9, ISBN 7-80192-609-9/K·443, p. 85
长阳县 means 湖北省宜昌市长阳土家族自治县.
▲ 王云, 孙立新: 《人是铁，饭是钢：谷物坚果增智慧》, 北京: 现代出版社, 2011.10, ISBN 978-7-5143-0076-5, p. 108
▲ 陈企望: 《神农本草经注》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2018.11, ISBN 978-7-5152-1714-7, p. 1275
▲ 惠永正: 《中药天然产物大全 11 下 中药》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 7-5478-0202-1, p. 8760
▲ 任继昉: 《“转注字也是半形半声的字”——于安澜先生“转注”观的启示》//张生汉: 《于安澜先生纪念集》, 开封: 河南大学出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-81091-846-6, p. 199
▲ 曾昭聪: 《魏晋南北朝隋唐五代词源研究史略》, 北京: 语文出版社, 2010.4, ISBN 978-7-80184-999-1, p. 30
▲ 许志刚: 《诗经论略》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.1, ISBN 7-5610-3909-3, p. 304
符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.
龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.
覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.
宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.
古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
汉字海
▲ 陈是集; 郑行顺: 《海南先贤诗文丛刊 溟南诗选（外一种）》, 海口: 海南出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5443-0962-2/I·38, p. 14
The new evidence is related to WS2021-04688.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷217 folio 31b
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
中国养生文献全书·第三卷
太平惠民和劑局方
淄川方言志
黎川方言研究
澄海方言研究
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，四庫全書，卷四十二
It is also SAT-04688.
十萬卷樓叢書·釋文
The new evidences come from 唐駢體文鈔 and 十萬卷樓叢書·釋文, but when looking for other version, most of them are given as 芰.
1. 唐駢體文鈔(光緒乙未刊行) is [芰]. And the poem included in this book (蜀綿州月王樓詩序) are given as [芰] in 御定全唐詩.
2. In 十萬卷樓叢書, it wrote “竒寄切。說文，[艹攴] 蔆也.” However, “竒寄切” is the reading of 支, not [攴].
▲ 李文瑞, 李秋贵: 《中药别名辞典》, 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-5046-0446-1/R·102, p. 654
▲ 高学敏: 《中医药学高级丛书 中药学 上册》, 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000.11, ISBN 7-117-03790-3, p. 255
▲ 冉先德: 《全新修订经典版 中华药海 上卷 第一册》, 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨出版社, 1993.4, ISBN 7-80557-593-2, p. 61
▲ 程超寰: 《本草释名考订》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.7, ISBN 978-7-5132-1473-5, p. 296
▲ 老中医养生堂: 《本草纲目白话解（彩图版）》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-5335-5689-1, p. 261
▲ 陈仁寿, 刘训红: 《江苏中药志 第三卷》, 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5713-1211-4, p. 336
▲ 郑恢: 《事物异名分类词典》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2002.9, ISBN 7-207-05045-3/G·1052, p. 96
漢字海
▲ 周路红: 《古代名医学术懿行研究——走近中医》, 天津: 天津科技翻译出版有限公司, 2013.11, ISBN 978-7-5433-3323-9, p. 75
▲ 唐慎微, 陆拯, 郑苏, 傅睿, 岳雪莲, 薛今俊: 《重修政和经史证类备用本草》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5132-1219-9, p. 1509
Note: 𥤶 U+25936 is the variant of 屁.
The evidence above is from 中药大辞典.
▲ 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
集韻
新訂中州全韻
類音
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
If experts think this to be unclear, I'd like to buy a hard copy and take a picture myself.
https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
▲ 李行健: 《学生现代汉语规范词典》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2016.3, ISBN 978-7-5326-4501-5, p. 782
▲ 程前: 《汉英化学化工科技词汇》, 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5025-1699-9, p. 1221
▲ 王秀山: 《现代汉英化学化工词典》, 西安: 陕西人民教育出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-5419-1023-6/Z·55, p. 828
▲ 张洋: 《精编德汉化学化工词典》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5608-4673-6, p. 723
▲ 张键: 《新英汉化学化工大词典》, 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-80198-313-8, p. 1546
▲ 梅森 (L. F. A. Mason): 《摄影加工化学》(Photographic Processing Chemistry), 北京: 中国电影出版社, 1982.12, 统一书号: 15061·183, p. 357
▲ 弗雷德里克 A. 洛温海姆 (F. A. Lowenheim): 《现代电镀 第三版》 (Modern Electroplating, Third Edition), 北京: 机械工业出版社, 1982.9, 统一书号: 15033·5233, p. 362
▲ A. G. E. 皮尔斯 (A. G. Everson Pearse): 《组织化学（增订第二版）》 (Histochemistry: Theoretical and Applied), 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1959.4, 统一书号: 14048·1727, p. 535
▲ 中国人民解放军第一五七医院: 《简易护士西学中教材（试用本）》, 广州: 中国人民解放军第一五七医院, 1975.3, p. 88
▲ 广西植物研究所: 《广西植物名录 第二册 双子叶植物》, 桂林: 广西植物研究所, 1971.12, p. 625
▲ 牟百谦: 《从英语学习词典的新发展看积极型中型英汉词典的编纂》, 《辞书研究》, 1999.1, ISSN 1000-6125, p. 96
王仁兴: 《国菜精华 商代—清代》, 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-80768-233-2, p. 574
▲ 陈万青, 谢洪方, 陈驰, 肖建良: 《海错溯古——中华海洋脊椎动物考释》, 青岛: 中国海洋大学出版社, 2014.4, ISBN 978-7-5670-0170-1, p. 25
This dictionary also gives 𪖙.
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=416&bid=17310.0
Other medicinal materials, such as "榆白皮", also mention "𪖙". Does 中药大辞典 also use "⿰口𪖙"?
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
▲ 南京中医药大学 (编著). 中药大辞典 (下册) (第2版). 2006.
The glyph should be changed accordingly.
The glyph should be ⿰名無, cause there are 3 other variants in the same book.
李丽：近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究，北京：中央民族大学出版社，2012年6月，P44
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 圓覺經疏鈔隨文要解（CBETA-X0250）卷4
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1F36.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
⿰禾𰢫與⿹气養之關係 The Relation of Oxygen to Bacterial Life.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANLC416-13jh008014-59011_〓學新編.pdf&page=51
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
It is better to withdraw this character.
▲ 《算术教科书》//越生文化, 田正品: 《中国近代教育文献丛刊·教材教法卷·24》, 杭州: 浙江教育出版社, 2021.3, ISBN 978-7-5722-1393-9, pp. 341-342
▲ 高名凱, 刘正埮: 《現代汉語外来詞研究》, 北京: 文字改革出版社, 1958.2, 統一書号: 9060·12, p. 76
▲ 陳文: 《中學適用算術教科書》, 上海: 科學會編譯部 & 商務印書館, 中華民國十年一月 (1921.1), p. 66
▲ 《中國度量衡學會對於度量衡標準制法定名稱之意見》, p. 11
▲ 舒新城, 沈颐, 徐元诰, 张相: 《老辞海 1936 戌集 亥集 影印本》, 北京: 新星出版社, 2015.8, ISBN 978-7-5133-1758-0, 附录7
p. iv
p. 373
The text here is a quote from 本草, as is shown on the previous folio here. Text is similar to 救荒本草 but 「如⿰豆外豆大」is not included.
▲ 救荒本草（明嘉靖34年刊本）卷上之後 folio 23b 24a
The digitalized text of 三農紀 by Beijing Erudition Digital Research Center also gives 豌:
Size comparison with 豌豆 is also common in various 本草 works:
If anyone can access the modern version of 三農紀: 《三农纪校释》农业出版社（1989）, it would be great to check if ⿰豆外 is preserved or corrected to 豌.
▲ 延一: 廣清涼傳, 大正新修大藏經, 卷上
Maybe SAT can provide more explanations.
Also be GHF-0543.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
▲ 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 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.
▲ 便民圖纂（明嘉靖刊本）卷14 folio 1a
Therefore I suggest to withdraw GKJ-00999.
▲ [光緒]江西通志（清光緒刊本）卷93 folio 20b
▲ 陶說（知不足齋本） also gives 融.
⿰鬲由 is very likely corrupted form of 融. Suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 周嘉胄：《香乘》，四庫全書本，卷二十
The follow up sources also indicate it is a miswritten form of 峨. Suggest to withdraw.
This character is the variant of U+9175 酵.
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，清知不足齋叢書本，卷下
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，續古逸叢書本，卷下
This form is stable in 《居家必用事類全集》, it is OK to encode it.
▲ 《居家必用事類全集》，明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本，巳集
▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)
▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
▲ 四川省水利厅: 《低水头农村水电站修建技术》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1958.6, 統一書号: 15118·8, p. 57
▲ 吴观周: 《给妹妹的信（研究无线电）》//蒋逸霄: 《红藏——进步期刊总汇（1915-1949） 〈上海妇女〉②》, 湘潭: 湘潭大学出版社, 2014.6, ISBN 978-7-81128-686-1, p. 279
▲ 南京部队政治部电影工作站: 《电影放映教材（试用本）》, 1971.8, p. 148
▲ 上海物理学会中学物理教学研究委员会: 《高中物理教学参考读物 电场》, 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1959.5, 统一书号: 7150·527, p. 56
▲ 中央人民政府第一機械工業部電器工業管理局: 《電工手册》, 北京: 機械工業出版社, 1953.9, 書號: 0257-0-71, p. 5
▲ 雷塘庵主弟子記（清琅嬛仙館刊本）卷七 folio 18b
▲ 漢文大藏經 X0674 閱經十二種·涅槃末後句序
▲ 梁冠廷, 熊道儿: 《粤剧小曲集》, 广州: 广东粤剧院艺术室, 1982, p. 192
挨糯(口痕)打士丹
I no understand
米（口痕）打士丹椏罅
my understand alla
I understand
Thank you, evidence accepted.
▲ 寇奉叔墓誌（舊拓本）
▲ 李新宇, 周海婴: 《鲁迅大全集 第28卷 学术编 鲁迅辑校石刻手稿 墓志 （下）》, 武汉: 长江文艺出版社, 2011.9, ISBN 978-7-5354-4404-2, p. 162
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Phrase_Book_in_the_Canton_Dialect_or_Dialogues_on_Ordinary_and_Familiar_Subjects.djvu/44
▲ [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.
▲ 《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成》第五冊（中華書局）pp. 265. Text is from 《五十二病方》.
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 52b
▲ 盱眙朱氏八支宗譜（1929）卷5 folio 46a
Lineage: 瑞昌恭僖王朱奠墠/覲鏅/宸淞/栱欀/多烄/謀埩/統⿰金削.
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之十三
This person’s name is 阮輝～ and his brother is 阮輝𠐓.
This character and 𠐓 (U+20413) both have not the V-Source reference.
▲ 計六奇: 《明季北略》, 清印本, 卷之二十
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
▲ {{http://people.aks.ac.kr/front/imageView/imageViewer.aks?exmId=EXM_KM_5COc_1377_001231 『등과록전편(登科錄前編)』 卷之二
(규장각한국학연구원[古4650-10])}}
There is a note on this website: “처부 : 『안동권씨좌윤공파보(安東權氏佐尹公派譜)』(1930) 권1을 참고하여 처부1을 추가. 족보에는 처부2가 "송천(宋蒨)"으로 나옴.”. Here it states that 安東權氏佐尹公派譜(1930) gives 蒨, which is similar to ⿰亻蕢 here, but I can't check this book due to lack of access.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ 承政院日記 3074冊 高宗 33年 8月 20日
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
For example, in August 21st 高宗 34年, exactly one year later, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion again (승정원일기 3087책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 34년 8월 21일).
And in August 20th 高宗 35年, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion (승정원일기 3100책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 35년 8월 20일).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
▲ 『계묘숙종대왕부태묘증광사마방목(癸卯肅宗大王祔太廟增廣司馬榜目)』(규장각한국학연구원[想白古351.306-B224s-1723])
The dot is intact so this is not a normalized character. While it seems that the horizontal stroke below 口 of 彧 is missing at first glance, the stroke actually combined with the first 丿 of the 𢦑 component. So there is no normalization issues here.
▲ {{http://people.aks.ac.kr/front/imageView/imageViewer.aks?exmId=EXM_SA_6JOb_1717_018975 『정유식년사마방목(丁酉式年司馬榜目)』
(중앙대학교 학술정보원[O 351.09 정유식])}}
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷13 folio 21a. 火部, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
金是⿱𤇾口 is 金是榮's younger brother. According Note 2 of this website, 『귀암집(歸巖集)』 卷之8, 墓碣銘, [처사 김공묘갈명(處士金公墓碣銘)] gives ⿱𤇾𠮛. According to the new evidence above, ⿱𤇾𠮛 and ⿱𤇾口 are probably unifiable.
▲ 장서각[부여 은산 함양박씨 구당(九堂) 박세영(朴世榮) 종가])
We can learn that 具安民 is from 綾城 and living in 江華 and his father 具湘 is a 叅奉. Here is 具湘 from 司馬榜目:
▲ 만력43년을묘사마방목(萬曆四十三年乙卯司馬榜目)』(국립중앙도서관[일산古6024-95])
The information here is consistent with the 壬子增廣司馬榜目. It seems to me ⿰土相 is misprint of 湘, can KR provide more evidences?
▲ 『숭정3신묘식년사마방목(崇禎三辛卯式年司馬榜目)』
▲ 『효종대왕3년임진증광사마방목(孝宗大王三年壬辰增廣司馬榜目)』
▲ 東州先生文集卷之十 / 碣銘《處士東岡許公墓碣銘》
▲ 承政院日記승정원일기 252책 (탈초본 13책) 숙종 2년 3월 4일 병술 22/27 기사
I think ⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸山 is potentially unifiable with ⿱齊山. If they are deemed unifiable, Korea can decide which shape they want to encode. If not we can encode them separately.
We can find 朴恂 in 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』:
Note that their father's information here is consistent. Here we can learn that 朴恂 has a brother named 朴恦 and 朴贒 was still alive as of 1653.
▲ 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
For character 𪬺, I couldn't find more evidences for 朴𪬺. But we do have 李𪬺 in 承政院日記 승정원일기 821책 (탈초본 45책) 영조 12년 3월 12일 병오 29/31 기사, suggesting that 𪬺 is also a name character.
The website people.aks.ac.kr is also normalizing ⿰忄⿱宷日 to 𪬺, which suggests that they could be unifiable:
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
However, in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七(규장각한국학연구원[奎貴11655]), 李彦忠's father is 李掀, they are from 星州, too.
▲ 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七
Since 掀 and 頎 have different pronunciations, I think ⿰扌頎 might be a misprint of 掀.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷表七 folio 2b
I did a search query on the KR history website for 金礩, and it returns 1245 results:
As I am not familiar with Korean history at all, can KR or someone help me check if 金⿰日質 and 金礩 is the same person? If so ⿰日質 would be a misinterpreted form of 礩.
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷236 folio 17a
▲ 資治通鑑（宋紹興二年至三年兩浙東路茶鹽司公使庫刻本）卷260 folio 13b gives 汭. See also 新唐書·成汭
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
▲ {{http://people.aks.ac.kr/front/imageView/imageViewer.aks?exmId=EXM_MU_6JOb_1672_009544 『임자년별시문무과방목(壬子年別試文武科榜目)』
(하버드옌칭도서관(Harvard-Yenching Library)[TK 2291.7 1748 (1672)]) folio 4a}}
From the new evidence, we can notice that the shape is actually ⿰氵柝.
The text lists 李義濈's siblings. His elder brothers are 義汲，義？, his younger brothers are 義渉、義澤 and 義～. Among their names, the second character is always of the water radical. If the character were indeed ⿰朱斥, it would be very unusual as this character does not contain 氵.
I suggest Korea to update the glyph and IDS accordingly.
▲ 文武榜目. 壬子年別試文科榜目 武科榜目 folio 4a
The left three dots are reasonably clear.
▲ 律科榜目·劉運啓
New evidence:
▲ 律科榜目·劉運漢
▲ 文獻通考（元泰定元年(1324)西湖書院刊後至元五年(1339)余謙修補本）卷319 folio 12b
▲ 白氏長慶集（四部叢刊景江南圖書館藏日本活字本）卷64 folio 5
The text gives 九～燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌. A more popular version to date is 九微燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌, yet I don't think ～ is a variant of 微.
～夷爭笑.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本 故善012362-012371）卷2 folio 5b, 音謹, 金部10畫, quotes 龍龕手鑑.
▲ {{龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏南宋刊本 故善001281-001286）卷1 folio 5a gives ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 (missing one horizontal stroke). 金部/平聲. ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 is likely unifiable with ⿰金堇.
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ 祝穆: 《古今事文類聚續集》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十五
▲ 李昉: 《太平御覽》, 四庫全書本, 卷八百七
Therefore, this character is stable enough to encode separately.
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 張深切: 《日語要領》, 北京: 新民印書館, 1942.9, p. 46
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074392
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
In this case, it is semantically obvious that it should have 扌, and all witnesses agree.
▲ 魏仲舉: 《五百家注昌黎文集》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
The related sentence is cited from 《荀子》, and some versions give 齫.
Two modern publishing books also related to 韩愈 (韩昌黎) also give the corresponding simplified form ⿰齿羽.
▲ 刘国盈: 《韩愈评传》, 北京: 北京师范学院出版社, 1991.6, ISBN 7-81014-532-0/I·13, p. 191
▲ 宗传璧: 《韩愈诗选注》, 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1986.6, 书号: 10275·38, p. 227
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
慧琳一切經音義
希麟一切經音義
The source is just ordinary 高麗藏. The particular image is taken from Archives of Buddhist Culture, Dongguk University https://kabc.dongguk.edu/.
See IRGN2485.
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之十五
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074396
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
一切经音义三种校本合刊
▲ 李文鳳：《越嶠書》，明藍格鈔本，卷之十六
This is a Chinese ancient book to record Vietnamese history in Ming dynasty. It looks this is a character used for a Vietnamese person name.
▲ 李登: 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏萬曆刻本, 卷之三
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十一卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第二
The previous page to Evidence 2:
The radical of KC10204 looks like 土. Maybe ROK should confirm the evidence of KC10204.
In 一切經音義, we can find 3 ways of writing: 廣雅, 廣疋, and 廣⿱冖龰. Therefore, ⿱冖龰 should consider unifying with 疋 U+758B.
Also, if SAT has some versions which use ⿱耳⿰弓鬲弓 instead, please consider encoding that variant instead of ⿱耳⿰弓畐弓.
▲ 盛京通志（清乾隆嘉慶間刊本）卷126 folio 8b
Text is from 朱佩蓮《聖駕東巡盛京恭謁祖陵大禮慶成詩（癸亥）》:「風馬飛揚來掩⿰氵葢，雲旂搖曵下褊𮖽」
▲ 愛新覺羅·弘曆: 《御製詩五集》, 四庫全書本, 卷八十九
The modern publishing version gives 濭.
▲ 香山公园管理处: 《清·乾隆皇帝咏香山静宜园御制诗》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2008.9, ISBN 978-7-5008-4196-8, p. 61
香山 here means current 香山公园 in 北京市. The following is current 静宜园.
▲ 中国舞台美术学会: 《建筑丨静宜园：香山红叶，三山五园》, 2022.1.23, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9lggHmbmi-Kz65IV_ZHobA
▲ 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
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 未集
▲ 王仁昫, 裴務齊: 《裴務齊正字本刊謬補缺切韻》
玄應一切經音義
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 陳繼儒: 《𣈿曝餘談》, 萬曆刻本, 卷之上
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷十一
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第七
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
2. 四国遍路日記: 澄 禅 (Chōzen). 宮 崎 忍 勝 (Miyazaki, Ninshō) (ed). 四国遍路日記
(Shikoku Henro Nikki). 大東出版社, 1977.
3. 新潮日本語漢字辞典: 新潮日本語漢字辞典 (Shinchō Nihongo Kanji Jiten). 新潮社, 2007.
See IRGN2485.
Is there more evidence for this character, including evidence of the pronunciation, which can substantiate that this character is non-cognate to 妓? It seems highly unlikely that 妓 would be used in a person's name.
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
⿰董阝 appears to be a more common structure.
Change R=163.0 (邑), SC=13, FS=2, IDS=⿰董阝 if source reference is changed.
▲ 北郭集（明成化刊本）卷2 folio 13b
(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 盛羽: 《中国传统镂版印花工艺研究》, 北京: 中国纺织出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5180-5192-2, pp. 159-160
▲ 《職方典》, 古今圖書集成本, 第九百三十一卷, 浙江總部彙考一
▲ [康熙]浙江通志（清康熙刊本）卷14 folio 4b gives 粞.
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 329
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 366
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
▲ 吴其濬: 《植物名实图考长編》, 北京: 商務印書館, 1959.12, 統一书号: 13017·188, p. 273
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 45
But it's a wrong shape of 岏.
新刻辨疑正韻同文玉海
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70809
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAwNjA0LTAwNA
The glyph on the evidence doesn’t match WS2021-00938:TC-3047.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=71073
一切經音義