Since ⿰言⿱又有 (C13276-008) ~ 𧩭 (C13276-002), ⿱又有/肴 may be supported in lvl2.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Suggest not to unify if no more cases can be found because both ⿰虫肴 and 𧍂 (U+27342) are kind of common as head characters in ancient books.
Examples for 𧍂 (U+27342)
改併五音類聚四聲篇海，成化丁亥重刊本
同文书局版《康熙字典》
新校經史海篇直音，明嘉靖刻本
續字彙補，和刻本
字彙補，彙賢齋本
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
To add to Kushim's comment in #15443, here are the variants from MOE Dictionary:
Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).
Oppose Unification
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
As #15445/#15452 mentioned, ⿰虫肴 and ⿰虫⿱又有 are surely the variants, both of them are stablly used in dictionaries, that means both of them are valuable in historical usage process. So we don't need to unify the 正字 to the variant form while the variant one has been encoded in the previous, and should encode them separatly.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.
First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.
Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.
There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.
If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
In previous IRG meetings, we already have historical precedence of unification to an existing Extension B character, then subsequently updating the Extension B character to take the canonical shape. Some of these characters even involved the GHZ single sourced characters, as-is this case. IRG should be consistent in its handling of these cases.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another case in WS2021 where we have unified the canonical shape to the non-canonical shape found in some authoritative dictionaries:
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another case in WS2017, which involves a taboo character, however it was not found as a head character.
According to the additional evidences, this character should be viewed as a stable variant shape of 𤠼. There is no doubt for it to be encoded.
Although character analysis is required in coding work, overall, our task is not to provide textual research for linguists and only code for correct character shapes, but to provide code points for social character usage needs. If some glyphs have independent usage cases in the text or have value in distinguishing glyphs, they should be able to be encoded. Discussing these types of characters without reaching a consensus would waste a lot of meeting time in the past and future.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Let me reiterate my point of view in Comment #3897 to support encoding this character separately, and the UCV should be changed correspondingly.
> The two comments together list 22 disunification examples, comment #14276 8 examples and #14290 14 examples. Also that GHZR42524.09 was withdrawn. Withdrawing a character can be because the submitter does not agree to unification. The quote that says unifiable was not made by the submitter. The case for removing 殸 is very strong.
Examples are from Extension B, which are not considered valid prior examples of disunification by IRG.
> The inclusion of ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d seems unreasonable as it is not an example of "differences in relative length of strokes" (j-2). UCV 312d should only cover ⿱𣪊⬚ and ⿹𣪊⬚, and ⿱殸⬚ should be removed from the rule.
UCV #312d should be moved away from the section J-2 and moved into section j-3 Unification of similar shapes.
The fact that 𣪊 is often miswritten as 殸 is not disupted. Sufficient evidence also exists for this particular charcter. For China's case they may prefer to withdraw a form which is malformed, but SAT does not assign "it is an error or not" determination to a character. To suggest to encode a character via IVS implies the characters are unifiable.
Suggest to unify and encode as IVS, and keep the UCV rule as-is.
UCV
Selena WEI
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
TCA doesn't agree that the ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d, although they are both stable variant relationships. We do UCV because the two glyphs are variant relationships, and the other condition is that the glyphs are close enough to be easily connectable. I can't connect them at all.
The given evidence from UK and the evidence from Tao Yang suggest that the phonetic component should be 拏, not 挐. Even though in some sources 挐 is considered a variant of 拏, they are considered separate characters by various versions of Shuowen.
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Agree to unify to 𤸻 (U+24E3B) with a new UCV for 拏~挐.
For WS2024 we considered submitting ⿰口挐 which is used in the English name "𠹵⿰口挐哪布" = "Anna Noble" (《𠸄咭唎紀略》（1853） folio 10b), but we prefer to unify to 𠸎 (U+20E0E) with a new UCV.
Add Radical 195.0 (魚) as secondary radical with FS=1
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
As the evidence shows, this character looks related to 鱗. If yes, I suggest change Radical 195.0 (魚) the radical, and Radical 199.0 (麥) as the secondary one.
The purpose of the second radical is to aid discoverability, but it is unlikely that anyone would expect to find this character under 言 radical, so agree that the second radical is not required in this case.
Add the secondary radical as 107.0 (皮) for the Zhuang use based on Comment #13544, SC=11, FS=3.
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
Based on the glyph of SAT-08382, the IDS ⿱⿲幺言幺灬 seems more appropriate.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
⿱⿲幺言幺灬
Support Ken and Conifer.
IDS
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
⿲幺言幺 and 𮘎 (J-source form) are equivalents in calligraphy. See the examples at https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/變 , such as https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/repi.hng-nkm=07160 and https://www.chise.org/est/view/character/repi.hng-kad=04090 . I believe ⿱𮘎灬 is fine.
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
〾 is used for the TCA conventions. The current T-Source (T2-4278) of U+6220 戠 is different from the right part of this character and the G- and H-Sources of U+6220 戠.
Add Radical 194.0 (鬼) as secondary radical with SC=3
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Secondary radical seems unnecessary as this character is the simplified form of the common character U+993D 餽, so the primary radical should be obvious.
While I agree that R180 音 is logically the correct radical, I note that that there are already very many cases where the traditional form uses the character below 𤇾 as the radical, whereas the corresponding simplified form uses the grass radical (R140). For example, in the URO we have: 塋 (32.10), 煢 (86.9), 榮 (75.10), 滎 (85.10), 犖 (93.10), 熒 (86.10), 瑩 (96.10), 螢 (142.10), 縈 (120.10), 鎣 (167.10); but 茔 (140.5), 茕 (140.5), 荣 (140.6), 荥 (140.6), 荦 (140.6), 荧 (140.6), 莹 (140.7), 萤 (140.8), 萦 (140.8), 蓥 (140.11). As there is a tradition of classifying 𫇦 characters under R140, it is OK to keep UTC-00740 as R140, but we could add R180 音 as a secondary radical (if so, then add secondary radicals for all other existing ⿱𫇦X characters classified under R140).
My understanding is that for IRG work we count 及 as 4 strokes (different from Unihan data). 盍 is 10, so SC = 14. This is consistent with the simplified form: U+28E0D
The current radical is not intuitive for this particular ideograph, so either change it to 113.0 (示), SC=6, FS=5, or add 113.0 (示) as a secondary radical.
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Looking at all of the encoded Vietnamese characters with 娄 on the left side, since 娄 is the phonetic, with the exception of U+21890, which uses # 38, the radicals used are based on the right side semantic element. Since we we have now changed the basis for determining the radical, we might want to go back and the change previously encoded characters at some time.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Change Radical to 12.0 (八) to follow the character 六? SC=11, FS=4
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
Either change Radical to 37.0 (大), SC=11, FS=4, or add it as a secondary radical. The source suggests to me that Radical 37 should be primary.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Radical 37 is phonetic, and the meaning is "cover", hence "盖" as semantic. 皿 is given as the radical based on that analysis. We agree with adding radical 37 as secondary.
Change Radical to 117.0 (立), SC=10, FS=4
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
If we are going to not use the semantic element (中) to determine the radical, we should use consider a new radical variant of 212, since the left side, U+31DE5, is a simplification of 龍.
The small seal on the next page.
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿱郷鱼 not ⿱鄉鱼.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Typographical errors caused by incorrect citations, withdraw it.
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
This character is really questionable, but it is also stable in different edition of 《直音篇》. Maybe it is valuable to encode.
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The following evidence shows other meanings, pronunciations or uses. Lee's comment is reasonable, but it could also be used for other meaning based on the first following. So, it is better to keep it in M-set.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，十二卷
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》，明嘉靖刻本，卷之三
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
𪁾 is another character.
The pronunciation of ⿰关鳥 is zhi4, which is totally different with 𪁾.
The glyph of ⿰关鳥 is quite stable to be encoded. 合併字學篇韻便覽 大明正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海 明正德十一年（1516）金臺衍華寺釋覺恒刻、明嘉靖三十八（1559）年釋本贊重修本 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 明成化七年(1471）大隆福寺首座文儒重刊本 精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海 明刻本 重校經史海篇直音 明刻本 新校經史海篇直音 明萬曆三年（1575）司禮監經廠本
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
I still hope to see the full page of China submitted evidence.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The evidence shown by China derives from 爾雅注 which has "蜪蚅(未詳)". ⿰虫陶 in the evidence could be a font error for 蜪, so China should supply an image of the original woodblock edition of 郝懿行集 to confirm that ⿰虫陶 is shown in the original text.
For the submitted evidence, the current common form is 蚱蜢 (grasshopper, also 蝗虫, 蚂蚱), so the submitted form is acceptable.
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
I think ti's clear to show this is a variant vocabulary of 蚱蜢.The glyph is good.
The first evidence is from 字學指南（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 45b, under the section 異體同音同義/三字仝. Based on the fanqie 敵德, here ⿱牧虫 is likely misinterpretation of the cursive form of 𧎬, a variant of both 𧎢 and 蟘.
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
The text 鉤行之陳…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·十陣》and the text 左右旁伐以相趨…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）·論政論兵之類·略甲》. I don't know why 文史 combine them as if they were from the same source. Note that the text is incorrectly included in 孫臏兵法 on the Internet.
The glyph form is suspicious as ⿱𥫗鼎 does not exist as an independent character or as a component in any other character. I strongly suspect that ⿰金⿱𥫗鼎 is a mistake for U+28BB0 𨮰 zhá is it has the same reading (士戛 is also the fanqie for 鍘 zhá) and same meaning (a type of knife used to cut hay).
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
The full reference for the source should be provided (author, title, publisher, year), as well as the name of the author and title for the piece in which this character occurs.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew. Does it also cite from 残雪’s works?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Andrew. 残雪 is a famous writer in Contemporary Chinese Literature. Mr. Goran Malmqvist (马悦然) once once recommended her to participate in the selection of the Nobel Prize for literature. I can’t believe a character like 狭 and 窄 used in a modern Chinese novel.
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
Please provide full page of evidence so we can understand the context. What are the characters shown in the evidence meant to represent? They look like a list of rime characters. If so, please provide an image of that shows the literary text where Li Yu uses the character ⿰犭斂.
Also, the character ⿰貝斂 is not encoded and not proposed for encoding. Why propose only ⿰犭斂 and not ⿰貝斂 immediately below it? It makes no sense.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Found in https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/稲荷山古墳出土鉄剣.
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Here's an image of the inscription on the sword found at the Inariyama tomb mentioned in #6206
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
Additional evidence for ⿰犭麽 is given in WS2021-02373 GKJ-00551 Evidence 1. Evidence 2 shows the variant form ⿰犭摩 which is not encoded or proposed for encoding.
The evidence appears to show that these three characters are vulgar forms of some other character, but the extract does not show what it is. Can the full page for the evidence be provided so we can better understand the meaning of these characters ?
Also, why are ⿰至及 and ⿰至支 not also proposed for encoding? It seems pointless to encode ⿰至戾 but not the two other characters in the same extract.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Support Andrew’s comment #4696. Is it the vulgar variant of U+81F4 致 and U+2693A 𦤺.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・陳大科本 looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・白口本 (the ancestor of 汲古閣本) looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・天啓年間本 looks like this.
Evidence
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
《説文解字》南宋刊元修 海源閣舊藏本 is hard to identify.
Evidence
Toshiya SUZUKI
Japan
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Considering that "㺉" is one of the heading characters in 説文解字 but the glyph GKJ-00628 is not, dealing GKJ-00628 as malformed character (and unify it with the correctly shaped character) and unify with the correctly shaped glyph would be reasonable attitude for the users of 大徐本説文解字.
But even if the character was really mistakenly generated, if it has been separately used for a long time, the separate encoding might be a considerable option.
Tao Yang, please could you supply more detailed bibliographic information of the evidence 1? Is it taken from 《通雅》? 《漢書補注》? I don't have nice text database to spot where the part was taken from.
There are two pieces of evidence, but there is only one book name. Please confirm the sources.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿰鼠戻. In PRC rule, 戾 and 戻 are different characters based on 《说文解字》, which is different from Japan. It looks a typo, because the real ⿰鼠戾 is shown in the same page. The following is a piece of new evidence for normalized ⿰鼠戾.
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Agree with Eiso Chan's comment #6309.
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
For information, here is the passage from 《蠕范》 1:25b referenced in Evidence 1, which shows the unencoded character ⿰鼠靈 in place of ⿰鼠戻:
Is there any other evidence for this character? We have found so many typos in 《中华大典》 during the previous meetings.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The list of eight rodents given in Evidence 2 (鼸鼶鼮鼣鼭鼤䶅䶈) corresponds to the list of eight rodents given in 説略
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
As the evidence 2 shows, this character has been used in Collating Note so that it has textual research significance.
A similar form (⿰𥝌敂) is mentioned in 四庫全書總目提要, where the author criticizes 合併字學集篇集韻 attributed 䅩(in the form ⿰𥝌⿱攴只) and this character to the radical 禾 instead of 𥝌 (despite the fact that 䅩 also belongs to 禾部 in 康熙字典).
However if we check 禾部 of 合併字學集篇, we find that the form of this character is ⿲禾句支:
In the Commerical Press version of 四庫全書總目 (vol. 9 p. 74), the form ⿰禾𢼒 is adopted.
The left side of the character does not entirely look like 牜, and if it is a variant of 犙 it is not clear to me what it means in this context. Additional evidence would be helpful.
What the evidence described is related to 岳王庙 in Hangzhou City (杭州市). The four sinners in front of Yue Fei’s (岳飛) tomb are 秦桧/秦檜, 王氏, 张俊/張俊 and 万俟𫧯/万俟卨. ⿰饣善 is a typo here. The current evidence is insufficient for the encoding.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Please provide the detailed publishing information of the submitted evidence.
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
Not exactly the same, but we can see a very similar reduction of the 節 component of 癤 in 《番漢合時掌中珠》 where the bamboo radical has been reduced to two strokes (it may even be a printing error for ⿸疒莭):
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
What does it mean here? The character only appears once in this page unlike other terms, so need to confirm that this character is not an incidental mistype.
Unclear evidence response
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
It should mean gas emit from metal, which I think is reasonable.
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
Incorrect data correspondence, delete invalid source name '电离辐射防护与辐射源安全基本标准；快速钍射气仪', add ⿹气土 in WS2024.
Meanwhile, ⿹气二 is still quite stable to be encoded.
The original source of the character is An English-Chinese Lexicon of Medical Terms (Philip B. Cousland, Publication Committee, Medical Missionary Association of China, 1908, https://books.google.ca/books?id=P-kRAAAAYAAJ)
In the context 「苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大」. ⿰禾忠 refers to specific part of a plant. So it is not a new species.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with the comment #13581.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
The text is a comment to 《搜神記·猨乞子》, where monkey mother died after her son. In 求其⿰骨彡而瘞之, 瘞 means to bury, so ⿰骨彡 must mean body. I suspect ⿰骨彡 is corrupted form of 骸. According to MOE dictionary, 亥 has many variants 㐪𠀅𠅆𠦇𢁳𫝅𬽆𬽇𬺷, some of them also look like 彡. I suggest pending more evidences.
I would be careful about assuming that this is an error form. In Vietnamese, this form has a specific meaning, for example, U+2015C 𠅜 (⿱亠例) is thought to be an abbreviation of ⿱麻例 (ma+lệ) where the reduced form 亠 for "ma" indicates an initial "*ml-" in spoken Vietnamese when the character was first used. We need more information.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with comment #13594, component 疒 was usually transfered into ⿱亠⿰亻*, such as U+2015C 𠅜 (⿱亠例)~U+2A724𪜤(⿱亠⿰亻隹）. This phenomenon also exists in the use of '彦', such as U+30A61𰩡(⿱立仁）.
Conifer has shown one example on the 塘汛 symbol on the Chinese traditional maps under #7877. This “character” must be a typo in the submitted evidence. This character should be withdrawn, and China NB and TCA could consider to encode the 塘汛 symbol as the transport and map symbol in future.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Other modern publishing edition.
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
The person mentioned in the submitted evidence, 忽酋 or ～耳, means 布占泰 (Bujantai) who was a Jurchen beile of the Ula tribal confederation. However, the Chinese modern researchers identified the submitted character as two characters. Based on the submitted evidence, it looks the Chinese modern publishing books made this name wrong, so it is OK and necessary to encode this character as soon as possible.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Historically, ‘’ is changed from ‘何叱’. Therefore we can find both glyphs in many documents.
See https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg59/IRGN2549KRResp1.pdf
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
KR disagrees.
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
The website people.aks.ac.kr is also normalizing ⿰忄⿱宷日 to 𪬺, which suggests that they could be unifiable:
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
KR disagrees.
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
In this evidence, 李彥忠, father or 李𢓜, passed the exam at 嘉靖25/明宗1年 (1546).
So the historical material that 李彥忠's father is 李掀, predates the historical material that 李𢓜's grandfather is 李⿰扌頎. Can KR elaborate the statement that the glyph in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 is an error? It will be very helpful. Thank you.
ROK said "KR will add a new KR Norm rule regarding the middle component" in #2716, but maybe it is better to normalize the whole inside component (⿰扌⿱𠂉子) to 斿, not normalize 扌 to 方.
Evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR agrees to add a new Norm rule as suggested by Eiso CHAN.
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
Wrong citation, the original glyph should be 褢 U+8922 in every version of 说文.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Discrepancy with orthography of the current version of 説文解字 does not mean error. While the shape is deformed, it could be derived from synonymous variants such as 褱, 𧙪, 𬽕 etc.
Unclear evidence response
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with #12638, this seems to be a simplification of the the form 褱, similar to the the way 坏 is used for 壞. Modern Chinese editions typically use simplified forms for classical texts, but that does not invalidate the form or the edition.
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
No response given so far to comment #4418 WS2021 v2.0.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Note that the the passage goes "㞋音▲", so if it were 𠬩 the sentence would be a tautology. That is part of reason why we cannot establish probable relation to an existing character. Any suggestions would be welcome.
As I read the second image above, the printed text version, it looks like 01460 is a typo for the character 拏 in 本拏哩迦 (puṇḍarika). So, it would be more helpful to see the full text of the entry 牽我 to the left.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Re #9894:
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
The last stroke of 日 component in Evidence one is missing. And the corresponding entry in 大正藏 edition gives ⿰申⿱𠂉易.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Taisho's glyph is confused and that is why we did not put it in evidence. Although highly unclear, we believe the smaller glyph is intended to be this shape.
▲ 中国艺术研究院音乐研究所: 《曹安和纪念文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2021.5, ISBN 978- 7-5039-6424-4, p. 131
This character is also used as the Pipa fingering letter, and its fingering name is 摭, which is different from Guqin, and it means “to pluck the string to the left with thumb, and to pluck the string to the right with index finger”.
A bit late but we are truly unsure how the middle shape should be rendered. We assume that this shape is the result of normalization (at that time) to 䜌, but any insights will be welcome.
It is hard to identify if the glyph is ⿰臼叒 or ⿰白叒 in Evidence 1 and 2. The glyph in Evidence 3 looks like ⿰𪠨㕛.
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I think the evidence 2 is clearest on the left component. You can see a slit in the middle of 臼, compared with 白 on the same page.
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
The evidence does not directly show a relationship between 毓 (U+6BD3) and WS2001-02259-SAT-06739. Rather, as I understand it, the text says that the ancient form of the second character in the term being glossed, 粥, written 鬻 (U+9B3B), is derived from WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 and 鬲 (U+9B32). It's plausible that these are variants: other sources relate 育 and 毓, and the text here says that WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 is has the sound 育. So they apparently share a reading. However, unless I'm missing something obvious here, it would be good to see other evidence that suggests the variant relationship.
▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263
The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
The text "郯⿰奚各，吳越間地名也" suggests that it is a variant of 谿, a place in 嵊縣, Zhejiang province. I suggest pending more evidences, or make an ad-hoc unification to 谿.
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
The evidence submitted by Tao Yang suggests this is another form of 妓 U+5993, but the pronunciation from CNS11643 database is tán.
Is there more evidence for this character, including evidence of the pronunciation, which can substantiate that this character is non-cognate to 妓? It seems highly unlikely that 妓 would be used in a person's name.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Currently, TCA has not found any other evidence.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
TCA has found the handwritten form of this character.
I am responding in passing to the UK Activity Report about handwritten form transitioning to computer font create an erroneous font glyph.
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
Shape and reading, "sī", suggest this may be a variant of U+9DE5 鷥. But, what is the evidence that justifies this reading? In other cases, such as U+2A028 𪀨 , a variant of 鴉 according to Kangxi, the component 𢆶 represents another phonetic.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card. According to ancient book(重訂直音篇), this character is a variant of 鷥.
https://www.lannangarchives.org/items/f77c92be-f07d-41b7-993a-b3a31f956c97
_Hokkien Spanish Historical Document Series I: Dictionario Hispanico Sinicum: Part 2_, ISBN 978-986-6116-74-2
「Murçíelago. ⿰虫密⿰虫婆 bit po」
I suspect that this is mistranscription of U+8117 脗.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
CMEX does not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, we have found earlier BMP for the applicant. From the Changjie(倉頡) attribute provided, it was "日", not "月".
The evidence in #1228 says this should be read as 玉, i.e. "yù". This doesn't match the reading given originally, "liú". Is there more evidence to support "liú"?
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " liú " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
It would be good to have additional evidence to support the reading given, "dùn". The phonetic is 貭, which is a variant of 質, so I would expect a different reading, such as "zhì". Otherwise, this would appear to be a variant of U+78B7 碷 "dùn"
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The pronunciation of " dùn " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.
Someone happened to share with a friend an excerpt of a Taiwanese ID card in which the name of a parent of the card holder has ⿱米冉; we suspect it is a mistake of 畨(番). (We have not heard back on permission to share images.)
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Thank you for providing the information. In Taiwan, there is a significant difference between "田" and "冉", so it's definitely not possible to confuse them.
Evidence
L F CHENG
Individual
continuation of #15188 (permission has been obtained)
As what I wrote in #122, this character is also used for the common Malaysian Chinese (马来西亚华语) word “tongkang”, which means a type of boat in Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia NB once submitted this character in IRGN1418. Please see the following picture.
The second column makes the component wrong and the third column shows that the origin form (本字) is 舯, which I don’t agree. In fact, ⿰舟冬舡 is a real Malaysian transliteration based on the Chinese Min Nan dialect used in Southeast Asia. This word is written as 舯舡 in Singapore, and these two characters are not related to the original meaning of 舯 and 舡 in Chinese. The initial (聲母) of 中 is 知 in the middle Chinese, and its initials are t- in almost all Chinese Min dialects.
This character and the form of this word has been accepted by Chinese Language Standardisation Council of Malaysia (马来西亚华语规范理事会, 语范), so I think it’s better to accept it like some characters submitted by Macao SARG.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Could you check if it is not a mistranscription of 娟?
New evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
We do not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.
Evidence shown is not primary source. Need new evidence.
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
There are hundreds of variants of 壽, encode every form of them would waste too many code points.
The original TCA evidence is not sufficient for encoding, and the additional evidence provided by Eiso Chan is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character by TCA.
If we accept the reading shown, "shēng", and the phonetic element 升, this is not cognate with 鳽 (U+9CFD), but it would be good to see this character in context to determine how the reading was determined.
New evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The reading was given by the user. It is a phonetic script.
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
徐铁生：中华姓氏源流大辞典，中华书局，2014年1月，page483
Also used in Chinese mainland.
As #7860 points out, this is similar in shape to U+247AC 𤞬, which is also a personal name used in Taiwan. The given reading, "suàn" is no doubt derived from the right side of TD-7521, 𬙬, which is a variant of 算 (suàn). The reading for U+247AC 𤞬 could be "lòng" if it comes from the phonetic 弄, but we have no data. If so, they are likely different characters. It would be good to have more evidence for both characters to determine a possible relationship.
The evidence supplied in #1322 says this is equivalent to 黨 (U+9EE8) "dǎng". The reading given by TCA is "dāng". Is the latter just a guess based on 當 (U+7576) "dāng"?
These two characters belong to different places of residence (as can be seen from the evidence provided by TCA) and the BMP shapes are also different. (printed by MOI in 2004):
The new evidence in #2010 mentioned 蘇子&⿰田詹;. Other persons mentioned in the evidence are 歐陽脩 (歐陽永叔), 王安石 (王介甫) and 秦觀 (秦少游), so 蘇子&⿰田詹; must be 蘇子瞻 (蘇軾). ⿰田詹 is the error form of 瞻 in #2010.
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 719
The original evidence provided by TCA is not sufficient for encoding.
The additional evidence provided by Tao Yang is questionable as the correct title for chapter 4 of this novel is "蟠龍嶺群英相會". Therefore, it seems that the first two characters in this edition are corrupted, and the additional evidence should be rejected.
Recorded by Kanji Database Project as being in the 汎用電子 collection as TK01059400 ⿰王𦊽 (https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/heisei-tk01059400), as well as the similar glyph TK01059160 ⿰王⿱罒𧰨 (https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/heisei-tk01059160).
This character is also used as the variant of U+25762 𥝢 and U+25762 利 as the following evidence shows.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十七
And, the variant of U+7269 物.
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十八
The article shows in the above evidence is 蘇轍’s (蘇子由, and 潁濱遺老) 《齊論》. The following evidence shows the corresponding character is 物. If we can get the earlier version of 《唐宋八大家文鈔》 or 《潁濱文鈔》, it will be better.
This place name is given as 米{⿰米犀}橋 with the note 昔有富人積米{⿰米屖}建此故名. {⿰米犀} and {⿰米屖} should be the same character, and the way the note is written, it should be a common character that does not need an explanation. The two characters could be corruptions or variants of U+7CCF 糏 'rice grits left after hulling' which would fit the sense here. Regardless, additional evidence is needed to determine which of {⿰米犀} and {⿰米屖} is the correct glyph, so suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This situation is similar to 遲 (U+9072) and 遟 (U+905F), and 屖 is always used as the variant of 犀, specially for the components. I think ⿰米犀 and ⿰米屖 are both used for that place, so it is better to keep them both.
The pronunciation and meaning of this character are not provided. It was not a living person and just a simple table, and not in the original handwritten form.
▲ 汤濬, 陶沙, 陶和平, 毛久燕: 《岱山镇志点注本》, 舟山: 岱山县档案局（史志办）, 2019.1, pp. 201-202
Note: 陶沙 here is not our old friend, the main author of GB/T 2312-1980 and the China NB’s proposal on the earliest CJK unification. See http://dsgbgz.dsdj.com.cn/index/news/details/id/312
▲ 黄均铭: 《岱山渔业的历史特点探讨》//中国人民政治协商会议浙江省岱山县委员会文史资料委员会: 《岱山文史资料 第一辑》, 内部发行, 1986.11, p. 117
All other sources that list synonyms for cicada give ... 蛥蚗, 螇螰, 蟪蛄 ... suggesting that ⿰虫産 is an error for 螰, although the two characters are not very similar.
Wikipedia states that ⿰金磨 is also used as a personal name, but I have not been able to verify this (cites 《明孝宗實錄》卷208):
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The wikipedia page Andrew mentioned above actually cites 《皇明宗室宜川王府鎮國中尉守道公（朱惟熍）墓誌銘》，《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》上冊，文物出版社，2015年，第258頁. The《明孝宗實錄》卷208 is for 朱秉桔 only.
The image quality is very poor. Since I don't have the printed book, if anyone can provide a clearer printed evidence please reply and thank you. IMO, in the rubbing, the character looks like 𨮀 rather than ⿰金磨.
Anyway the original evidence is good enough to encode.
The glyph is not very clear in the provided evidence, and I suspect that it may be a corrupt form of another character. Is there any additional evidence to support the exustence of ⿰火規 ?
I agree that ⿰忄字 is a plausible mistake for 悖, but the Ming edition of 宋史 given in #2989 shows ⿰忄字 where the modern edition has 悖 (image of the pdf evidence shown below), so if it is an error it may be considered to be a stable error. Unfortunately there are no Tangut sources for this general's name. As there are two separate pieces of evidence in support of it, I suggest to keep the character in the Main set.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
This is the 《摛藻堂四庫全書薈要》 edition of the 宋史 (349:8a) which also shows ⿰忄字:
We can find out the current form is used in the modern text and several ancient books, so it is better to keep it.
https://sou-yun.cn/yjlh.aspx?book=TuShuJiCheng&id=KR7a0007_284_0001
The webpage mentioned by Eiso in #7235 is not suitable for encoding because the text is extracted from the 古今图书集成全文数据库. The Ming-style character pictures are not from an actual printed book, but digital representations of characters in 古今圖書集成（中華書局影印本） and serve as search placeholders in the database. We should check the original version instead of the digitalized one.
It should be possible to find additional evidence for this person's name. Google Books suggests that he is mentioned in 《地方志人物傳記資料叢刊》 (華北卷) Vol. 21 p. 747, but I cannot access it.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
It is a photocopy of 《清苑县志》. According to comment #9730, more evidences needed.
地方志人物传记资料丛刊 华北卷 第21册，page748
The person mentioned in the evidence is 蔣攸銛 without any doubt. And we can find his introduction on 百度百科. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%92%8B%E6%94%B8%E9%93%A6/4556008
▲ 《續纂江寧府志》，光緒六年刻本，卷之十
▲ 《皇朝經世文編》，道光刻本，卷五十
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ 《乾隆正定府志》，方志集成影本，卷之二十六
▲ 張溥：《漢魏六朝百三家集》，卷十三（張衡《西京賦》）
The submitted characters on three pieces of evidence are all related to 銛. This form is not only used in one source, so it is better to encode it separately.
The only couplet end with unencoded characters is 掃除氛祲靖，班師何⿰赤邑⿰赤邑, which end with ⿰赤邑. So ⿰赤邑 should also be of 陌韻入聲.
If ⿰赤邑 were indeed 郝, as is implied from the structure, it would be of 曉母藥韻開口入聲, which does not rhyme with other characters. So it is very likely a misprint of some character in 陌韻入聲, which brings us to 赩（曉母陌韻齊口入聲, =赫, eminent）. The shape is similar to ⿰赤邑 but rhyme well with other characters. The meaning also fits the context.
It is likely that ⿰赤邑 is transitioned from 赩 through the top-right component change: ⺈→𠚤→口.
Also appears in the word 𣬠⿺毛八, same as 𣬠𣬶 or 雞巴. According to search results, it appears in 金瓶梅 and 紅樓夢 (脂硯齋). https://www.google.com/search?q=%22毛几毛八%22
The text 「石龕老僧立崆谾，以食哺雀雀啄缸。旁有一童睇而⿰目空，闖然石罅露肩腔」 is from 《阻風海幢寺》by 祁寯藻. 海幢寺 is in Guangzhou now. The meaning of ⿰目空 here matches the definition provided by the dictionary in the original evidence.
Therefore ⿰氵追 is a variant of or error for U+6425 搥.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 沙门释法显, 章巽: 《佛国记》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 2016.1, ISBN 978-7-5032-5474-1, p. 45
揵搥, 犍搥 or 揵槌, 犍槌, even 揵捶, 犍捶, is a Sanskrit loanword from Ghaṇṭā/घण्टा/𑖑𑖜𑖿𑖘𑖯. 《海國圖志》 is also a very important book for Chinese history to help Chinese people to understand the world in the end of QIng Dynasty, and 魏源 also used 揵槌 in 卷32 of the same book, so it is better to keep this form for the historical research.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Agree with #10595. When it comes to characters used for transliteration, we cannot assume any cognate relationship since characters are chosen to match the phonetics of the foreign term, the pronunciation of which may vary by time (e.g sanskrit vs. prakrit). Here are additional transliterations of "ghaṇṭā" 犍坻, 犍椎, 犍稚, 揵鎚.
⿰⿱𠂤止頁 could be a variant of 頤, since in the text 却坐支⿰⿱𠂤止頁仰天哭, ⿰⿱𠂤止頁 must refer to certain body part, where 頤 (cheek) fits well here. Note that U+2DB7B 𭭻 (SAT-00097) is also a variant of 頤.
李⿰⿱𠂤止頁 mentioned in the original evidence might be 李頤（482—520）, whose epitaph is available on this website.
In this version, the dot in 夕 also crosses 丿in 夢 (see folio 13b above). Therefore the right-bottom component should be 夕. I don't think we should change the glyph.
Attached PDF file
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社, 1999） pp. 1076 clearly gives ⿰氵⿱宀夕.
We think ⿰氵⿱宀夕 is similar to 波 because 藝文類聚（王元貞刊本）gives 波:
列坐王母堂，艷體餐瑤華 found in a text of 《遊仙詩三首》.
Is this not a mistranscription from the left side of 艷 + the right side of 體?
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I agree that ⿰豊豊 corresponds to 艷體 in the form of the poem quoted in #7485. However, here we have "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" which preserves the five-character poetic metre, so ⿰豊豊 cannot be an accidental mistranscription (I think it is impossible to accidentally mistranscribe 艷體 as ⿰豊豊). It is possible that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" is the original form of the poem, and "艷體餐瑤華" is a revised version which expands the unusual character ⿰豊豊. But even if "艷體餐瑤華" is the original version, I believe that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" must have been a deliberate revision. Therefore, I think the evidence for ⿰豊豊 is satisfactory, and the character should be kept in the M-set.
For every 藝文類聚 characters submitted by UK, I have checked against the 宋紹興刊本, the earliest known version publicly available today, so I can provide more evidences per request.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷89 folio 4 (characters surrounded by the cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, the first character is clearly ⿱毀木, the second character might look like ⿱⿰圼殳木 at the first glance but it should have been ⿱毀木 based on the context: the space is so limited that the component 臼 devolve into 日.
The available image from the 四庫全書 edition (https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=5647&page=8) is even less clear. However, biographies for these two brothers are given in 南齊書 (https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E9%BD%8A%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B739), where their names are written as 劉瓛 and 劉璡. In the cited text the jade radical is changed to the stone radical, so it is clear that the character in question must be ⿰石獻.
I am concerning that the quoted text is quite divergent from the original, that some errors might be mixed in. Below is the transcription of a rubbing of Ming dynasty calligraphy, and the character at the position is 靶.
聖主得賢臣頌 is authored by 王襃（90 - 51 B.C.E）. For such ancient text, the original evidence is probably long lost. Because of that I am not convinced that Ming Dynasty calligraphy would contribute a lot to the text authenticity.
We can go through some Song Dynasty evidences sourced from other books:
唐宋白孔六帖, first published in the end of Southern Song dynasty, is a compilation of 白氏六帖 and 孔氏六帖. From these evidences we can assume that the shift from 靶 to ⿰革舟 happens during the editing process of 唐宋白孔六帖. I agree that ⿰革舟 may be a misprint of 靶, or the editor of 唐宋白孔六帖 changed the glyph sourced from a book unavailable today. Given that ⿰革舟 persists across quite a few 唐宋白孔六帖 versions, I suggest encoding it as-is.
The late Qing manuscript transcription of the Juyongguan inscriptions held at the University of Manchester John Rylands Library transcribes the character as ⿰口𫊗 with the expected dot.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
In "Chü-Yung-Kuan: The Buddhist Arch of the Fourteenth Century A.D. at the Pass of the Great Wall Northwest of Peking" (Kyōto: 1957; Murata Jirō ed.) the character is inaccurately transcribed as U+3615 㘕, just missing the 罒 element.
This character has been included in the so-called “‘教育部本土語言’成果參考字表” in Chinese Taiwan as #6783.
There are three unencoded characters in this table, but ⿰出叕 (#6784) and ⿰耳休 (#6785) have not been submitted by any sources. BTW ⿰出叕 is also included in G4/G5. I suggest TCA do the horizontal extension for this character (⿰勿愛) and submit ⿰出叕 and ⿰耳休 as soon as possible if the table is important for the local people in Taiwan Province, and China NB could do the horizontal extension for ⿰出叕 later or submit ⿰出叕 with TCA at the same time.
外省人返鄉探親促進會成員於國立國父紀念館廣場，手持標語公開表達訴求
1987年5月10日
from Wikipedia https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%E7%B4%80%E5%BF%B5%E6%AF%8D%E8%A6%AA%E7%AF%80%E8%A1%97%E9%A0%AD%E5%AE%A3%E5%82%B3%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95.jpg
Could we see the description part why the right bottom component should be 令? Because, the ⿰口⿸虍？ composition is so common that we have many visually similar characters such as 唬, 㗔, 嘑, 嘘, 𠼥, 𭊌, 𰈈 etc., and some actually have similar pronunciation with 吸.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
董沛文 主编，王燕喜 编校：《老君碑留古字解 玉皇心印妙经直解》 (北京：宗教文化出版社，2013年) [ISBN 978-7-80254-705-6] p. 11:
Jerry You has a useful overview of the text of the 《亳州老君碑》 on his blog at http://blog.ccamc.org/?p=365 showing images of three versions of the text inscribed on stone, but it is difficult to find authoritative printed evidence of the text.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
董沛文 主编，王燕喜 编校：《老君碑留古字解 玉皇心印妙经直解》 (北京：宗教文化出版社，2013年) [ISBN 978-7-80254-705-6] p. 18:
Unclear evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Jerry You has updated his blog because of the WordPress issue, and this is the new address provided by him.
It seems that editors of 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 misinterprets 佳 as 隹 and then derived 音維 from 五隹切. After all, 猚 is not included in 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 as we can see in the evidence 1.
▲ 周志锋, 郑晓芳: 《宁波、舟山方言洗涤义“丈”本字为“净”说》 (The Original Character of Zhang is Jing in Ningbo and Zhoushan Dialects), 宁波大学学报（人文科学版） [JOURNAL OF NINGBO UNIVERSITY (LIBERAL ARTS EDITION)], 2021.9, p. 22
In this paper, the authors show the possible original form of this character may be 滰, 濯, 潒, 漒, 浆 and their comment is 净.
The new evidence provides 渶⿰氵那河. In the original evidences, 「岫巖之精，瀛⿰氵那之靈」refers to 多隆阿's ancestral home. Here both瀛⿰氵那 and 渶⿰氵那 refer to the same river, which is called 英那河 today, sourced from 遼寧省岫巖滿族自治縣龍潭鎮.
It seems a much-quoted passage from 《廣成子傳》, where others usually say 啖. While it might be regarded an assimilated character, I think it'd be better treated as an error making meaning rather obscure, if no other occurrence attested.
In the first evidence, the meaning of ⿰石片 seems to be copied from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 or later revisions, as it is well known that 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 is influenced by 四聲篇海/五音集韻. If the character were indeed ⿰石片, 片 is presumably the phonetic component, and it should not be pronounced as 亭.
An introduction video of this character is here. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ht4y1V7Yy
The video producer/speaker provided more information and explanation, and he used the UK-submitted evidence in IRG ORT. Unfortunately, this character won’t be included in Unicode/UCS/GB 18030 in the next year, but will be included in the near future.
The folio number is incorrect, it should be 《丹陽縣續志》（民國十六年刊本）卷20 folio 2. The text is from 王英冕《皇太后六旬萬壽頌》, based on the context, I think ⿰土旋宮 is a misprint of 璇宮, which means imperial residence.
Though it is a variant of ⿰土𭻾, which is given in 隆慶二年登科錄 folio 58, it must not be 璇 based on the radicals of his brothers' names. We can keep ⿰土旋 per the new evidence.
▲ 王文章: 《第二批国家级非物质文化遗产名录图典（全四册）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2015.12., ISBN 978-7-5039-5447-4, p. 472
As this new evidence and Evidence 2 submitted by UK show, 本地⿰亻⿱山西 is the original name of 枣梆, and this Chinese local opera has been registered in 第二批（中国）国家级非物质文化遗产名录, which the register number is Ⅳ-120.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ 李群: 《传统戏剧》(Traditional Theatre)（《齐鲁非物质文化遗产丛书》）, 济南: 山东友谊出版社, 2008.8, ISBN 978-7-80737-414-5, p. 97
▲ 张玉柱: 《齐鲁民间艺术通览》, 济南: 山东友谊出版社, 1998.6, ISBN 7-80551-821-1/Z·285, pp. 587-588
▲ 寒声: 《寒声文集 第二卷 下 〈中国梆子声腔源流考论〉》, 太原: 三晋出版社, 2010.9, ISBN 978-7-5457-0282-8, pp. 92-93,101
Note: Almost all the names of the Chinese local traditional operas only related to Bangzi (梆子声腔) are named after the geographical name, such as 上党梆子, 河北梆子, 河南梆子 (豫剧) and so on, but the Zaobang Opera is not. There is one city named 枣庄 in 山东省. When we are talking about Zaobang Opera is popular in Shandong, some people would misread this is one kind of local opera in 枣庄, that is wrong.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
▲ 路应昆: 《戏曲音乐入门》 (《iCourse·教材 国家视频公开课配套教材》), 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2018.9, ISBN 978-7-04-048778-7, p. 99
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
▲ 李砚: 《菏泽地方戏曲音乐地理研究》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2016.5, ISBN 978-7-5039-6107-6, p. 82
The glyph in column "原名称" of the evidence is unclear. The left part of "地" looks like "𤣩".
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The quality of the image is not great, but I think it is obvious that the character's structure is ⿱山地, and that the horizontal line seen in the character shown in columns 1 and 3 is not part of the character, but a printing artefact. The character shown in column 5 does not have this printing artefact.
In evidence 2, 張湧泉 and 張新朋 argue that ⿰車責 in 開蒙要訓 should have been 轒. However 轒 (扶云) does not rhyme with 䩹 (五革) and 嚇 (呼訝) afterwards, while ⿰車責 (初革) rhymes well with others.
The middle component is ambiguous, and there is no reading or meaning provided.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Looks to me like the Buddhist term 三昧 with mouth radicals added. The middle component is clearly 日 and could not be anything else. Of course, it is desirable to know the reading and meaning of every proposed character, but that is not always possible, and in the case of mystical syllables used in Buddhist and Daoist texts there may be no specific meaning. The primary purpose of encoding the Daoist-usage characters proposed by the UK is to enable the representation of these particular texts in electronic format, and it is not necessary to know the meaning or reading of these characters to do this. It should be noted that many already-encoded CJK unified ideographs characters, as well as some characters in other extinct scripts such as Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Tangut, and Khitan Small Script, have unknown meaning and pronunciation. The primary criterion for encoding characters is evidence of usage, and we believe that the evidence we have supplied for the Daoist-usage characters is very solid.
Of course, it is desirable to know the reading and meaning of every proposed character, but that is not always possible, and in the case of mystical syllables used in Buddhist and Daoist texts there may be no specific meaning. The primary purpose of encoding the Daoist-usage characters proposed by the UK is to enable the representation of these particular texts in electronic format, and it is not necessary to know the meaning or reading of these characters to do this. It should be noted that many already-encoded CJK unified ideographs characters, as well as some characters in other extinct scripts such as Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Tangut, and Khitan Small Script, have unknown meaning and pronunciation. The primary criterion for encoding characters is evidence of usage, and we believe that the evidence we have supplied for the Daoist-usage characters is very solid.
The pronunciation of this character, and many others, is recorded in the same book.
In the following photocopy version the annotation of ⿰口⿻丅口 is legible, which suggests that the pronunciation is the same as 西:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGGZBCK525_%E5%BE%A1%E6%B3%A8%E9%81%93%E5%BE%B7%E7%B6%93_%E5%8F%83%E5%90%8C%E5%A5%91%E9%87%91%E9%9A%84%E5%A4%A7%E7%BE%A9_%E6%B7%B8%E5%BE%AE%E9%BB%83%E7%B1%99%E5%A4%A7%E9%BD%8A%E7%A7%91%E5%84%80_%E6%A2%B5%E9%9F%B3%E6%96%97%E7%A7%91.pdf&page=347
On the same page of the CUHK version the pronunciation of ⿰口圖, ⿰口粹 can be easily seen:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Potentially be nonce.
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿺鬼咢 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿺鬼咢 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the meanings and rationale of ⿺鬼咢 is. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Potentially be nonce.
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿺鬼索 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿺鬼索 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the meanings and rationale of ⿺鬼索. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The glyph of this character varies a lot among different books. I suggest to postpone this character for further investigation unless some experts can explain which is the right glyph and why. The bottom of the character can be 主、王、玉， the right middle part can have a bar in it, which makes 冋 become 同. What's more, there may be another 言 after the structure ⿵冂⿱𠃍一.
符咒妙术秘法，台北：武陵出版有限公司，2004年
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain why the shape is more important than others.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Have very different shapes in different materials and the submitter cannot provide convincing explanation on the chosen glyph.
The new evidences give ⿰火⿱天角, potentially unifiable with ⿰火⿱夭角. The Erudition database transcribes them as 燆, but there is no confirmative evidence to support that ⿰火⿱夭角 is a variant of 燆.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨我 is actually a disassemble part of Kai Form Daoist talismans.
Talismans are actually drawings without any semantics. So it is impossible that they are used in running texts. The texts around them can only be used to explain the usage, drawing methods, etc. of the talisman. It is impossible that the texts have direct semantic connections with the talisman.
This is roughtly what the talisman should be like when it is assembled. The 亞伐 and ⿱雨我 should be written in red color so normal people won't be able to see them after the Daoist finish.
There is no need to encode ⿱雨我 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
A part of the following talisman. There is no need to encode ⿱雨⿰弓⿺乚攵 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
More illustration:
Kept in Main Set, pending further discussion of the encoding model for Taoist characters, IRG 57.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It happens to be an ideograph in 正统道藏·道法会元. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨焱 can be kept in the M-set.
The character contains ☷ （U+2637，坤卦） which is not a CJKUI. So this character should not be encoded.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Incorporating a non-CJKUI element such as ☷ is not a valid reason not to encode this character. There are other CJK unified ideographs which include elements from other scripts; in WS2021 we have Hanja-Hangul hybrid characters with ᆨ such as KC-00811, KC-01727, KC-02286, KC-03983, KC-03520; and characters derived from Latin script symbols such as UTC-03225 (derived from ℔ pound sign), UTC-03226 (氵+ ʒ = fluidram), and UTC-03227 (氵+ ℥ = fluidounce).
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Every character of Bagua(八卦) can be used in this way and the radical 雨+鬼 can be replace by 雨 or 鬼. This will leads to a set of 64*3=192 this kind of characters. So I sugget to postpone or pending the character and wait until we know how to handle the Taoist characters.
道教諱秘字專用造字集 Big5 Version
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
No reason to postpone this character, as it is clearly attested, and required for the digital transcription of the text used for the primary evidence.
There are only seven other related characters (⿱雨⿺鬼☰, ⿱雨⿺鬼☴, ⿱雨⿺鬼☶, ⿱雨⿺鬼☵, ⿱雨⿺鬼☲, ⿱雨⿺鬼☳, ⿱雨⿺鬼☱) that require encoding, and these may submitted for WS2024 or a later working set.
八卦 with 雨+鬼
八卦 with 鬼
The amount of this kind of characters is only 8*number when talking only the 8 Diagrams(八卦). But the amount will be big if all the 64 Diagrams and the 8 Diagrams(八卦) are considered. The amount will become 72*number(雨、雨+鬼、鬼、雨+食、雨+口……)
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
There is no need to encode ⿱雨⿺⿱甶儿⿰三三 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
More illustration:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
There is no need to encode ⿱雨⿰弜戈 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
More illustration:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
There is no need to encode ⿱雨⿰⿸⿰丿𠃌𠃌⿺几彡 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
More illustration:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Potentially be nonce according to provided evidence.
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿱記耳 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿱記耳 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the rationale of ⿱記耳. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
The transcription into simplified with 弯 on the right is helpful, but not conclusive in determining the original shape. It would be good to have clearer evidence for the original.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨總 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨總 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨總 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
What's more, this can be nonce. The same context in 《廣成儀制・鐵罆斛食集》 shows no ⿱雨總.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨跛 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨跛 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨跛 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨鳥 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨鳥 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨鳥 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿳雨唋土 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿳雨唋土 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿳雨唋土 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿳雨唋土 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided three evidences, ⿱雨㖿 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨㖿 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨㖿 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨㖿 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨梵 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨梵 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨梵 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨梵 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨𭋳 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨𭋳 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨𭋳 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨𭋳 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨仙 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨仙 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨仙 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨仙 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Does the bottom-right component not look like 夂 rather than 又?
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨玃 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨玃 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨玃 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨玃 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨𡂪 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨𡂪 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨𡂪 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨𡂪 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨叹 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨叹 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨叹 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨叹 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨鏡 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨鏡 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨鏡 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨鏡 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
天目運 roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨啊 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨啊 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨啊 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨啊 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨⿺鬼維 is clearly used in a non-text talisman seperately from running texts around the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼維 is not illustrated.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
If you only see the book 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, you may wrongly think that ⿱雨⿺鬼維 is an ideograph. But this is actually because the quality of the book 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集 is not very good, and the publisher did not present the assembled talismans directly to the readers. In this case, it is necessary to have relevant experts to make judgments, or to have intuitive evidence for comparison (such as the evidence submitted by the UK).
⿱雨⿺鬼維 is actually just a sign used in a special kind of drawings(i.e. the assembled talisman). Without pronounciation or semantics, ⿱雨⿺鬼維 cannot be considered as ideographs.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 太乙救苦天尊讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼維 can be kept in the M-set.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨⿺鬼冏 is clearly used in a non-text talisman seperately from running texts around the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼冏 is not illustrated.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 朱陵度命天尊讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼冏 can be kept in the M-set.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
The shape of the character should be further investigated.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
No reason to postpone as the evidence is clear, and the character is required for digitization of the source text.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Shape unstable.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
The evidence from Wang Xieyang shows a different character, and does not affect UK-20753.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨𮫣 is clearly used in a non-text talisman seperately from running texts around the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨𩲕 is not illustrated.
It should be noted that with the exact same context, the ⿱雨𮫣 becomes ⿱雨𩲕 in another version of the talisman.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨⿺鬼水 is clearly used in a non-text talisman seperately from running texts around the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼水 is not illustrated.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The ⿱雨⿺鬼永 is clearly used in a non-text talisman seperately from running texts around the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼永 is not illustrated.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Used obviously in a Kai Form talisman. The talisman is used seperately with running texts around it.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Used obviously in a Kai Form talisman. The talisman is used seperately with running texts around it.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
There is 上岸、结身、自在、出轮回、开摄化、启智慧、鉴邪魅…… terms in the Taoist. All of 雨、雨+鬼、鬼、雨+食 etc. can be added to them. In fact, all words used in daily life can be added these components. For example, I want eat good food, I can write ⿱雨好 ⿱雨食 ⿱雨来 or ⿱雨⿺鬼好 ⿱雨⿺鬼食 ⿱雨⿺鬼来. This is even casually done in carving copies. This will be endless.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
开摄化（開攝化）is a combination of 開 and 攝化. 攝化 is a religious word used by the Buddhism and Taoism. 攝化 means using the light of Buddha's compassion to inspire and save suffering beings. 開（Start）攝化 then means the start of 攝化. 雨+鬼(the evidence on this page)/雨/鬼/口 can be added to 開攝化.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Used obviously in a Kai Form talisman. The talisman is used seperately with running texts around it.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
It happened to be a 青华讳 in《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》.
The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼化 can be kept in the M-set.
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）·小學類韻書之屬（二）·刊謬補缺切韻 pp. 2903
In the new evidences, ⿱雨亘 is a variant of 𩃘.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨亘 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The talisman and the following obviously non-ideograph sign should both be drawn on a fan.
Examples of talismans drawn on a fans: 乾坤一扇，道解千愁！福德正神，祛瘟去晦，护身转运！ 法扇。学术不精，如有冒犯，请多谅解！
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Because there is an ideograph ⿱雨亘 who has the exaclty some glyph with the proposed sign, ⿱雨亘 is OK to be encoded based on the new evidences. However, evidence 1 still should not be accepted.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨⿺鬼𤰜 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨𩵄 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨車 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Please explain the shape of this character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨𤰜 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence 1 shows clearly that ⿱雨⿺鬼扇 is used in a Kai Form talisman that has no semantic connection with texts around it.
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The context says 黑靴樣内加 xxxx( add following things to the black boots)
The black boots can be seen in the whole page. It will be weird to encode signs used in these pair of boots.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The glyph is also unstable in the two evidences:
Even the incantations are printed freely with 口 or without 口
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
About the word 天目運, I used to be wrong.
According to 《道教法术》(刘仲宇2002, page164): “目运，亦称目书。目运，即以眼光闪动于空中，依符形流动书绘。”
It roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
The 天目讳 are used only when you use 天眼 to draw talismans in the air in a ceremony of communicating with Gods. They are used only as parts of talismans.
In Evidence 1, ⿱雨⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is used in a talisman that should be written with 天眼.
In the additional evidence, ⿱雨⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is clearly used in a pair of boots in a talisman.
There is no need to encode some sign created for drawn with eye or drawn in the black boots of talismans.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
About the word 天目運, I used to be wrong.
According to 《道教法术》(刘仲宇2002, page164): “目运，亦称目书。目运，即以眼光闪动于空中，依符形流动书绘。”
It roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
The 天目讳 are used only when you use 天眼 to draw talismans in the air in a ceremony of communicating with Gods. They are used only as parts of talismans.
In Evidence 1, ⿱雨訛 is used in a talisman that should be written with 天眼.
There is no need to encode some sign created for drawn with a special eye.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
重刊道藏辑要·元始大洞玉經 文昌帝君傳本·太微帝君三部八景回元經（氐集三），page7
Used as 讳.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
⿱雨⿰飠知 is used in a Kai Form talisman. The talisman is used seperately with running texts around it. The context says that the following sign should be used with the talisman:
To create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 知化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+食 is added to 知化, 知化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿰食知, ⿱雨⿰食化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集，included in 藏外道書
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
⿱雨⿰飠化 is used in a Kai Form talisman. The talisman is used seperately with running texts around it. The context says that the following sign should be used with the talisman:
To create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 知化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+食 is added to 知化, 知化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿰食知, ⿱雨⿰食化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
No reason to postpone as the evidence is clear, and the character is required for digitization of the source text.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Part of this, not a character
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
The context says 於左、右、上、下⿱丅冂内令書(Write the thing below in ⿱丅冂), i.e.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
合明天帝日 is a special word of the Daoist. The order of 合明天帝日 with 雨 and 口 in 《廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集》 is wrong (合天明帝日).
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
More information:
https://www.douyin.com/zhuanti/7249837737812117562
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?id=00265
http://www.ctcwri.idv.tw/CTCW-CMTS/CMT02%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%83%A8/CMT0202%E7%A5%9E%E7%AC%A6%E9%A1%9E/CMT0202ALL/CH020202%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6/CH020202-1%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%8A.htm
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another page only with 口
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
合明天帝日 is a special word of the Daoist. The order of 合明天帝日 with 雨 and 口 in 《廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集》 is wrong (合天明帝日).
More information:
https://www.douyin.com/zhuanti/7249837737812117562
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?id=00265
A more common form
http://www.ctcwri.idv.tw/CTCW-CMTS/CMT02%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%83%A8/CMT0202%E7%A5%9E%E7%AC%A6%E9%A1%9E/CMT0202ALL/CH020202%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6/CH020202-1%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%8A.htm
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨哈 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans. It is used with following signs:
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨叹 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 东方青灵始老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨哈 can be kept in the M-set.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another page only with 口
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨⿰口明 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans. It is used with following signs:
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨⿰口明 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 南方赤帝丹灵真老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿰口明 can be kept in the M-set.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨啼 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans. It is used with following signs:
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨啼 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 北方黑帝五灵玄老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨啼 can be kept in the M-set.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Another page only with 口
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨𠯐 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans. It is used with following signs:
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨𠯐 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
《广成仪制·玉帝正朝集》
Used as 中央黄帝玄灵黄老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨𠯐 can be kept in the M-set.
The evidences above, as well as what Eiso has provided in comment #2154, suggests that ⿰前刂 is a variant of 剪. Although the original evidence is likely misprint of 蒯, the new evidences are good to be encoded. I suggest moving it back to the M set.
▲ 石泰康, 深圳市宝安区档案局（馆）, 深圳市宝安区史志办公室: 《宝安往事——追溯宝安历史文化遗存》, 北京: 中国文联出版社, 2007.4, ISBN 978-7-5059-5512-7, p. 46
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 吴淑娴: 《中国果树志·荔枝卷》, 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1998.2, ISBN 7-5038-1603-1, p. 162
▲ 广东省农业科学院: 《广东荔枝志》, 广州: 广东省科学技术出版社, 1978.2, p. 68
▲ 广东省惠阳地区地名委员会: 《广东省惠阳地区地名志》, 广州: 广东省地图出版社, 1988.10, ISBN 7-80522-049-2/K·49, p. 181
▲ 缪德良: 《缪氏源流志（第二卷）》, 梅州: 广东省五华县文联, 2004.9, pp. 5-6
▲ 陈速影: 《革命老区上莞——东县革命传统教育基地（2）》, 河源: 中共东源县委党支部史研究室, 2003.9, p. 113
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ 广东省深圳市宝安区沙井⿱𰃮土岗社区停车场
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
This character is also needed for the Cantonese pop songs. The following picture shows the lyric of the song named 《一生一心》 sang by 胡鴻鈞 (Hubert Wu). This is the theme song of one TVB drama 《天梯》 (The Last Steep Ascent) in 2012, which is adapted from a true story happened in Chongqing. However, QQ music made the character wrong (as 学) because it has not been encoded. Please see the traditional Chinese form of the lyric.
The corresponding simplified Chinese version of Hubert Wu’s album had not been published, so it is not easy to know how to handle this character in the lyric book. It is better to ask QQ music to support this character based on the future version of GB 18030 after encoding it.
The first character circled is ⿸尸⿱至皿, does not match the glyph. The second, third characters circled are OK. Same situation in Source 2.
Unclear evidence response
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
In Source 1 the first character is not written carefully, but we believe it is a handwritten form of ⿸尸盖 not ⿸尸⿱至皿. In Source 2 the first two characters are not clear, but the third character is very clearly ⿸尸盖. We believe that the two clear occurences of ⿸尸盖 in Source 1 and the one clear occurence of ⿸尸盖 in Source 2 are sufficient evidence for encoding ⿸尸盖.
It is not easy to confirm if 林&⿱艹暘; mentioned in 《廣東通志》 and 林𦿄 mentioned in 《八閩通志》 are the same person. There is other source related to this character, so it is better to keep it.
The person mentioned in the evidence came from Haikang (aka current Leizhou City under Zhanjiang City 湛江市雷州市). It is better to check the person in 《雷州志》, 《海康志》 and so on. The pdf provided by Huang Junliang in #2259 mentioned 鄭頀 came from 廉州 (aka current Beihai City 北海市). In fact, Haikang and Beihai are not close in my life experience. In the history of Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan, we said 上六府 (广州府, 肇庆府, 南雄府, 韶州府, 惠州府, 潮州府) and 下四府 (高州府, 雷州府, 廉州府, 琼州府). 雷州府 and 廉州府 were established at the same level at that time, so it is hard to imagine that ancient writers would confuse these two places.
TCA suggest that UK could consider changing the glyph [⿰王兾] to [⿰王冀] which is more commonly used in Taiwan today. From evidences, the mentioned ancient place name should be 臺灣南投竹山 (Zhushan, Nantou County, Taiwan).
In Taiwan, when switching from calligraphic glyphs to the printed form, [⿰王兾] was changed to ⿰王冀. Until today.
For supporting documentation, please see IRGN2606 TCAFeedback.
臺灣史料集成編輯委員會編輯，《諸羅縣志》(臺灣史料集成．清代臺灣方志彙刊第3冊)，2005年。
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
▲ 陳慶元, 蕭慶偉, 朱仕玠, 林春虹: 《臺灣古籍叢編 第四輯 小琉球漫志 海東札記 楊廷理詩文選集 東槎紀略》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2017.3, ISBN 978-7-5334-7671-7, p. 81
In current 广东省湛江市遂溪县, there are Chinese Yue- and Chinese Min nan-dialects. 广东省广州市, 佛山市, 惠州市 often use 门𲍏. The Chinese Yue-dialects in 广东省湛江市赤坎区 and 广东省湛江市霞山区 often use 门𲍏, even 门鳝. I add two language tags for safety. 门～ means conger eels.
「Ta-po͘-gín-á ⿰口礁⿰口埔囝仔」
Chiang Ker Chiu 蔣克秋,《廈語易解》（Hokkien Vernacular Lessons for Beginners with a Vocabulary (Word-for-word Method). Singapore: The Chin Fen Book Store 新嘉坡勤奮書局, 1st ed. 1940, 2nd. ed. 1952） [https://x.com/egasmb/status/1825614861105246652]
https://x.com/egasmb/status/1825119374652412151
1847, The beginner's first book in the Chinese language
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_beginner's_first_book_in_the_Chinese_language.pdf&page=108
This character is also used in Macao. Macao SARG could consider if it is suitable to do the horizontal extension in future.
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 15
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 17
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 19
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 134
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p.142
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 134
New evidence
LEUNG Justin Richard
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
A Chinese-English dictionary in the Cantonese dialect, Volume 1 (Ernest John Eitel, revised and enlarged by Immanuel Gottlieb Genähr, 1910), p. 242
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877, p. 223
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910, p. 324
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 289
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 172
A similar character, read "nhép" is found in Vietnamese (Takeuchi Yonosuke, "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm, p 391). It's used as onomatopoeia for biting and sucking sounds.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313. p. 8
▲ A Chinese Chrestomathy in the Cantonese Dialect (1941) P.43
▲ The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary (1947) P.427
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 477
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 489
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 549
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 764
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 504
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 62
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 641
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 763
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 36
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 313
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 284
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 182
Is there a clearer image or other evidence including meaning or reading?. It's hard to tell if this is 𫞽, 賽 or something else.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Please see Dr. Lu’s comment and other evidence in the following pdf.
https://www.ccli.gov.hk/doc/wgcliac2018-07.pdf
Evidence
Jaemin CHUNG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
For convenience, this is from the document cited in Eiso's comment:
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Examples of the glyph in other editions of the telegram code book are given in this document:
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The character is included in GB/T 7590-1987 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第四辅助集. This means that the character ⿰王賽 should be include in the unpublished 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第五辅助集. Nearly all indeographs in 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第五辅助集 are encoded but this one was not.
This song is “Take Me Higher” sang by V6, and the original English version is sang by Dave Rodgers with the same name. This drama is also very popular in China, the Chinese names are 《迪迦奥特曼》 in Chinese mainland, 《超人迪加》 in Hong Kong SAR, 《超人力霸王迪卡》 in Taiwan Province. The Hong Kong SAR version used other OP 《超人的主題曲》 sang by Eason Chan.
UCS has already included all the regional basic standards, G0 & G1 for mainland China, T1 & T2 for TCA, J0 for Japan, K0 for ROK, and KP0 for DPRK. V0-3E41 is included in the Vietnamese standard TCVN 5773-1993 and should be similarly treated. Details are discussed in IRGN2429.
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
This character is also included in the "Bảng Chữ Hán Nôm Chuẩn Thường Dùng" (List of Frequently Used Standard Hán-Nôm) <http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20150123.pdf>. Here is shown an example of its usage in the word "lang ben" (vitiligo, leucoderma, etc.)
In this evidence ⿰茶鳥, quoted from 玉篇, is probably misprint of 鷋, since the former is not found in 玉篇 while the latter is quoted as "𩾞乎官切鳩鷋鳥喙蛇尾也".
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
It is important to note that the Vietnamese is not a misprint. 茶 (Sino-Vietnamese, "trà") is clearly the desired phonetic for "chà". 荼 (SV: đồ) is more commonly used for "dưa", "giưa", etc.
There is still only one piece of evidence with no actual usage to prove the variant has been used in practice. A single and indirect evidence in the dictionary cannot prove that the character's form is reasonable.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Truyện Kiều 1870
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
The actual forms in texts (above and below) do resemble U+2B826. We can consider withdrawing this
The Vietnamese means "to split lengthwise". It's unlikely that this is cognate with the Chinese usage, but since the shapes are identical we can treat both usages as a single character. This is similar to other separately created characters, such as 畑: Vietnamese "đèn" = lamp, Japanese はたけ = dry field.
Is there any explanation on why this character has 崇 as a component?
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The dictionary, Giúp Đọc, just explains the structure: "thủ" = 手 and the phonetic, "sùng" 崇. The final, 'ung' of 崇 is an exact match, so I guess the question is about the initial "s-". There are certainly many cases where the phonetic is not an exact match, but the use of "s-" here to represent a velar does seem to be an outlier. Possibly this is a borrowing from an older stage of Chinese that contained a velar (at least according to Baxter-Sagart reconstructions). For example, "sen" (lotus) is thought to be derived from 蓮, which they reconstruct as *k.[r]ˤe[n]. Similarly, the word river, "sông" is thought to be derived from an earlier Austroasiatic word similar to Mon "kruŋ". Perhaps in some circumstances, the velar was retained.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Seen in the PUA font of Surveying and Mapping of Jiangxi(江西) Province, U+EE9A.
We've normalized this based on the analysis shown in the evidence, which is "(trùng lễ)", i.e. 虫礼. We have found no cases where U+2E564 is used as a phonetic in the composition of Nôm characters. Neither can we find evidence where U+2E564 is used in Hán-Việt texts.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Re above, also note that 𮕤 itself appears to be a variant or even error for 礼.
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Additional evidence from "Kho chữ Hán-Nôm mã hoá", p. 450
In the Vietnamese source, this is a stand-alone character, read "rông" (from "rồng" = "dragon"), meaning "unrestrained, dissolute". The new evidence shows that it can also be used as a component.
The structural description in the evidence suggests that it should look like ⿰日淫.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
I agree with the comment. Structurally, 淫 (dâm) is a better phonetic than 滛 (phonetic "dao"), but if you see here (https://hvdic.thivien.net/whv/滛), many Vietnamese dictionaries consider the two to be equivalent. Here is another example where phonetic 滛 has a reading based on 淫
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Prof. Hồng, the author of the source, explains that the character is written with 滛. His intent in the structural analysis is to show that the intended phonetic was 淫. So, the font is correct.
The evidence from Andrew and Eiso seem to be a non-cognate but identical shaped character, maybe horizontal extension can be done.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
”chùng" means "loose, baggy", so these are definitely non-cognate. It is acceptable to unify non-cognate characters with identical appearance, such as U+7551 畑 (Japanese 'field', Vietnamese 'lamp') or VN-F1BD7 and the variant of U+8B49 證 in #11650. However, VN-F1BD7 should be encoded separately from U+28CA2 and U+30FD3
The glyph in the evidence is shown as below, but it is doubtful if the current normalized glyph is right. We need more evidence or explanation to confirm.
The four dots of the glyph "雨" are inconsistent with the evidence.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Based on the evidence, the phonetic element is the right part, which is 屚 or “漏之省”. 屚 is not a common character for Zhuang people or other people living in Guangdong and Guangxi. For the pronunciations of 漏, almost all the ones for different Yuè-dialects are all [lɐu꜄/꜅] or similar to it; the tones in some sub-dialects are 陽平, because the 陽去 in those sub-dialects have merged to 陽平, such as 云浮云城, 罗定, 郁南, 佛山高明, 湛江赤坎 and so on.
I can understand Conifer's comment, but this current glyph matches the PRC conventions based on the rationale more. It's acceptable for this normalization and it's better to accept it.
The 2.0 glyph is not an improvement, as it does not match the evidence or conform to PRC conventions for 礻 (should not show the final stroke protruding on the left). Therefore suggest reverting to the 1.0 glyph.
If SAT thinks 𡿺 and ⿱巛㐫 are unifiable, maybe it's better to use ⿰阝𡿺 for this character.
Glyph design
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
We have 4 characters in DB that involves 𡿺/⿱巛㐫:
SAT-07072 𰈐 (U+30210)
SAT-01917 𮝟 (U+2E75F)
SAT-04369 ⿰阝𡿺
SAT-03275 𮪱 (U+2EAB1)
Of which SAT-03275 is only taken from a re-created glyph in reprint (the original paper molds were lost during war), so basically 㐫 is the stable choice for any newly cut glyph of this kind in Taisho, which we'd like to follow.
As long as both shapes are unifiable, we prefer keeping current glyph.
The last stroke of the left component is missing in the first evidence, but the second evidence is clear. The current glyph is acceptable without on normalization.
The evidence shows 屛 (SC=11) as the right component, but the representative glyph uses 屏 (SC=9). If the representative glyph is adjusted, the SC, TC, and IDS will need to be adjusted accordingly: 11, 16 & ⿰石屛.
The first evidence has the source "孽海", which is presumably the late-Ming erotic novel 僧尼孽海. In an edition of this novel i found (《出像僧尼孽海》卷一, src: https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/he21/he21_01138/he21_01138_0001/he21_01138_0001.pdf) this glyph is written as [⿺毛玍]:
The character 玍 is encountered at least from the Song dynasty. It's original meaning is 株 [tsɿ⁵²] "tree stump" and it has an extended meaning "bald" (source: 黄沚青、 張涌泉《“玍”字考》, 2017). Maybe the meaning "penis" is yet another semantic extension, cf. Russian "гонять лысого" (gonyat lysogo, "to masturbate"; lit. "to drive the bold one"). But as the dialectal word "penis", which is written as 玍, could also be written as 卵, 㞠, 膦, 䐯, 浪, [⿺毛乱] (so its reading is not anywhere close to [tsɿ⁵²]), it seems that 玍 with extended "bald">"penis" semantics was used to write an another synonymous (but not etymologically related) word.
So, the 毛 may be an auxiliary semantic element here (cf. other vulgar characters like 𣬠𣬶(=雞巴) "penis", etc.) to indicate that 玍 is used in its extended vulgar meaning. Thus, I propose to change IDS from [⿺毛主] to [⿺毛玍] or add an another glyph with 僧尼孽海 as a source.
Glyph design
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Consider changing the glyph to ⿺毛玍 based on comment #8367
Reading 'ha' indicates that the right side component is 夏, so normalize the glyph form to ⿰口嗄.
Normalization
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
In 2020, a Chinese rapper Nineone (乃万) claimed to be 哈人 in the variety show Youth With You Season 2 (《青春有你 第二季》). She was born in 陕西省西安市. When the Xi’an people wrote 哈, there are at least two meanings: evil or and stupid or blockhead. See https://www.aihip-hop.com/12972.html .
However, when the Northeast people write 哈, that means “what”, such as 干哈, which is similar to 啥.
The submitted evidence is related to Chinese Sichuanese dialect (Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects). There are at least three meanings mentioned in the evidence, the first red square includes two meanings I mentioned above in Xi’an. It is easy to know the right part must be 嗄, because the initial is 生母 in 廣韻. Please also compare 哈 with 啥.
We agree with Huang Junliang and the editors of the 上海古籍出版社 1999 edition of 藝文類聚 that the right side should be ⿱宀夕. Therefore no glyph change is required.
There is no reason to replicate the exact glyph form given in the source evidence, so we normalize the 'mouse' radical to the standard form of the character.
The glyph doesn't match the evidence. The glyphs in the evidence have no dot here.
Normalization
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Normalize right side component to 𫊗 with the expected dot.
Normalization
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I doubt it should be normalized when the shape is consistent unless you have a consistent normalization rule. It might make the relationship with the original source obscure.
Normalization
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It is difficult to be certain from the rubbing and available photographs whether there is a dot or not in the inscription. In any case, normalization of the right side to 𫊗 is acceptable and preferable because this is the expected form of the character as a variant of U+3615 㘕 (cf. the transcription given in the first additional evidence).
In principle UK normalizes glyph forms for characters in Chinese sources to match PRC conventions, so in this case I agree with Henry that it is reasonable to normalize 口䕶 to ⿰口護. Therefore we should consider reverting to v. 1.0 glyph.
We noted and explained this difference in the spreadsheet:
The right side component is written as 𫩧 (U+2BA67) which we normalize to 含. Cf. U+246A5 𤚥 in UK-20681-1.jpg, UK-20681-2.jpg, UK-20713.jpg which is written as ⿰牟𫩧. We suggest making a UCV for 含~𫩧.
Normalization
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Without semantic or phonetic information, not sure if the normalization of 令 to 今 (contrary to evidence glyphs) is justified.
Normalization
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Elsewhere in this edition of 《梵音斗科》 the character 𤚥 (U+246A5) is written as ⿰牟𫩧 (as shown below). If we accept that ⿰牟𫩧 is a unifiable variant of U+246A5 then it makes sense to normalize ⿲口牟𫩧 to ⿰口𤚥 with a new UCV for 含 = 𫩧.
Will V source update the glyph to use the more common form of 善?
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
We can consider an update
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
I checked other glyphs that have the same element, 善. Almost all of the characters with 善 on the right use the same design as VN-F00EC, many with 善 on the left do too. Since this includes many encoded characters it's not a trivial effort, requiring a proposal and review.
Shape of 羊 radical does not match the evidence, but it appears that Vietnam convention is to use the straight 羊 radical (e.g. U+7F9D 羝, U+2636B 𦍫, U+263AC 𦎬, U+2B155 𫅕, and WS217-03523 V-F1AE0; but note that U+7FB6 羶 has a bent ⺶ radical).
Normalization
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
#4646 is a valid observation. The NomNaTong font contains 44 characters with 羊 as an immediate component (not counting 羊 as a component of another component character). All except for 2, U+2637A and U+7FB6 use 羊 with a straight stroke. If any change were to be made, we would probably normalize U+2637A and U+7FB6 to straight 羊.
Image from Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn shown above shows ⿱𬼀見 rather than ⿰𬼀見. Consider modifying glyph and IDS to match the glyph form shown in Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Agree with UK about representative glyph and IDS: #9473
The evidence shows ⿱𦍌介 on the left, but I suppose that 养 is better.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
I think that this is a glyph mismatch. If you look closely at the representative glyph that was provided, the vertical stroke of the upper-left component is the same (curved) stroke as the upper-left curved stroke of the lower-left component.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The component on the left is the simplified form of 養, which should look something like this:
Should the lower right component be 攵 instead of 女 (c.f. U+27012 )?
Normalization
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
This could possibly be 攵, but I don't have access to the source text cited by Prof. Hồng. Most of the glyphs with the component 嫩 have 攵, but U+21128 / V2-7259 "non: 𡄨 has 女. But, as you can see in the 2nd character of line 1369 of Kiều, the glyph is clearly 攵.
It would be reasonable to normalize VN-F170F and V2-7259 to 攵
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
We have updated the font to reflect the proposed change.
The form of 灵 used for almost all V-source characters is the same as the G-form (i.e. no protruding horizontal stroke). Only U+306FB (Ext. G) and U+31ADF (Ext. H) use the same form of 灵 as shown for this character (VN-F1A08). It would be nice if Vietnam could use a consistent form of 灵 for all characters.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Will do this the next time the font is open for change.
Font glyph component 乃 is strange, and does not match the evidence. Please confirm whether this is the preferred Vietnam form of 乃, and if not then correct the font glyph.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
This form is similar to many others, such as V2-6E38 𠂫. The form that looks more like 乃 would also be acceptable, but there is no point to do this unless we change the 50 odd glyphs, mostly encoded, to use it.
Based on Comment #14070, the publishing source information of the submitted evidence should be changed, unless Tao Yang disagrees and provides other pieces of evidence on those three sources (段氏說文注訂 段氏說文注訂 贵州通志).
If the explanation of Comment #14144 is right, it looks this character looks related to U+304EB 𰓫, right?
I support to encode this character in this WS, but maybe we need to do more research on the local dialect to get more detailed information in future.
Comment
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
This character is supposed to related to U+304EB 𰓫. FYI, the character used to replace ⿰扌厘, i.e. 峡, is highly possible to have no relation to ⿰扌厘. Meanwhile, dialects can change over time, which leads to much difficulty to explain the meaning or pronunciation academically.
⿱不貴 is not encoded. My strong opinion is that every Chinese simplified character that we encode should have a corresponding traditional form, and if it does not then we should simply add the corresponding traditional form to the same working set.
Based on the analysis of different IRG experts, this character is to record the Lisu word “bird”. The following picture shows the Lisu Zhushu form, Fraser form (ꓠꓬꓹ) and IPA form (niɛ³⁵) of this word. The current Hanzi form is not related to the corresponding Lisu Zhushu form.
We have known this character is different from 鸭 for the Lisu uses, that means it is OK to encode, but it is too early to confirm the rationale now, because we still don’t know how the Lisu people read the Han character and the phonology and readings of the corresponding Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialect of the nearest place. If we can’t confirm these when we encode this character in UCS and Unicode, I suggest not include the kMandarin property value in Unihan database.
Comment
Kushim JIANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
▲ China NB. Proposal to Encode the Lisu Monosyllabic Script. WG2 N5047 = L2/19-208: pdf page 56.
▲ 木玉璋. 傈僳族音节文字字典. 知识版权出版社, 2006: page 193.
The three Lisu Zhushu characters recording “bird” /niɛ˧˥/ are different.
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
This character has been added to Service platform for National Professional and technician qualification test (全国专业技术人员资格考试报名服务平台) in China, which the PUA code is U+E022.
In this case, even characters around 𩸧 (and their annotations) in 四聲篇 are preserved in 直音篇 in their original ordering：「𩹅，音英(字)；𩸧，音泥；𩸅，音甫.」
And 𩸧 is not included in 直音篇 elsewhere if I read correctly. Therefore, ⿱浞魚 here is likely a misprint of 𩸧. But given that ⿱浞魚 has been included in 漢字海, which quotes 直音篇, better just encode it as-is.
Maybe this kind of fish mentioned in the evidence means swordfish (剑鱼 or 箭鱼 in modern Chinese). The evidence shows this fish looks like 𩵓 (not 魛). 𩵓 means 鳓鱼 in modern Chinese. The Taizhou people write it as 肋鱼 now. 《汉语大字典》 cited 𩵓 from 《嘉定赤城志》, and 《浙江通志》 shows “似箭而小，身薄，細骨滿肋”.
These two kinds of fish are similar, and both common in Taizhou.
https://www.sohu.com/a/402497931_99943212
Variant of 𧌘(U+27318)?
Based on the evidence, "[⿰虫服]𧔥 " , "猰窳, "檮杌", "饕餮" are all creatures recorded in 山海經. The first one was written in different ways according to different documents, such as 肥𧔥, 𧌳𧔥, 蜰𧔥, 𧌘𧔥.
GKJ-00586 should not be "postponed for evidence" but rejected or withdrawn. Any character submitted without evidence at the time of submission (unless due to a technical error) should be rejected as not meeting the required IRG standards for submission.
⿰犭⿱𠂉奇 is not encoded or proposed for encoding, but it is recorded as a family name in 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》 and 《中华千家姓氏录》 so it could be a candidate for inclusion in a future submission.
Note that the original evidence is published earlier than 宋史（明成化刊本）, so we can not invalidate this evidence. In fact, it is interesting to note that the toc of 宋史（明成化刊本）卷451 gives 徐應德.
There is very little point in encoding only ⿱宀鹿, so I hope that China will submit ⿱宀艸 and ⿱宀日 for the next working set, otherwise it will still not be possible to represent this text in digital format -- and there is no other use for ⿱宀鹿!
Text is from 文獻通考 卷336 龜茲. The earliest available version is [http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412004000629 元泰定刊本]. The third evidence is a reprint of 元泰定刊本.
Evidence 1 is likely to show a PUA font error where a PUA character for U+2B9EF 𫧯 was intended, but a different font was used to print the book which had ⿰饣善 for that PUA code point.
The new evidence for ⿰饣善 as a derived simplification for 饍 is sufficient, although additional evidence from China would be welcome.
Based on these evidences, the submitted character was originally from 化學指南(1873) by 畢利幹(Anatole Billequin). Could you provide the clear evidence of the original glyph in this book?
The following is the comment on the Early Chinese chemical characters from the Script Ad Hoc group in L2/22-023, which is also the recommendation for section 3 of my feedback on IRGN2492.
The following is the comment on the Early Chinese chemical characters from the Script Ad Hoc group in L2/22-023, which is also the recommendation for section 3 of my feedback on IRGN2492.
The following is the comment on the Early Chinese chemical characters from the Script Ad Hoc group in L2/22-023, which is also the recommendation for section 3 of my feedback on IRGN2492.
The following is the comment on the Early Chinese chemical characters from the Script Ad Hoc group in L2/22-023, which is also the recommendation for section 3 of my feedback on IRGN2492.
The following is the comment on the Early Chinese chemical characters from the Script Ad Hoc group in L2/22-023, which is also the recommendation for section 3 of my feedback on IRGN2492.
This character is really “combined” by two characters 子 and 宫, but the evidence shows the reading is “kung” (aka ɡōnɡ) with the individual and clear meaning. It is better to treat it as one separate Hanzi, not the Han ligature.
The inner component of 291-1 variant is 王, and the evidence shows 𡈼. Maybe ROK could add a example picture based on UCV #1. However, the current glyph has followed the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
The evidence shows this character is the old form of 顯 U+986F, but I can’t find the original form. I think other experts could pay more attention on this.
Other
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Yes, it is odd. I cannot find any evidence for an old or variant form of 顯 which looks like this. My suspicion is that it is simply a corrupt form of 費.
Need a new rule to normalize the component 丷 to 八. KR Norm. 21-2 is to normalize 八 to 丷, so it is not suitable for this case. However, the current glyph follows the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
The character under 12 and 13 in the submitted evidence has been encoded as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
However, the current SAT-05235 glyph for U+2D5B2 𭖲 doesn’t match the source and #2388, so maybe SAT should update the glyph later.
On the other hand, all the evidence shows U+2D5B2 𭖲 has the fanqie as the common Hanzi/Kanji. And the situation of the submitted character is the same as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
The evidence only shows that this character is used to indicate the reading of the intial of 搊, whos readings in other sources are variously given as 楚鳩切, 初尤切, 楚蒐切. The reading for 簉 (U+7C09) is 初救切, thus matching the one of the initials. Given the shape, this is possibly a variant of 簉,
This character is also used in 《碣石調·幽蘭》 which is the earliest 古琴文字譜, that means the variant of 牽. It is also one fingering letter name now. This is the last unencoded Han character in 《碣石調·幽蘭》, so it will be very useful to encode it. There are other unencoded punctuation in 《碣石調·幽蘭》.
Comment
HKSAR
Hong Kong
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
It is a variant of 牽 according to the MOE variants dictionary (https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?educode=A02498-009):
Variant of 𧆣? The evidence has explained the glype shape: 「從凷」, 𧆣/𧆨 is variant according to 康熙字典（同文書局本）.
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
It should be the variant of 虎.
Evidence 1 shows it is the component of 𧆨, Evidence 3 shows it is the component of 𧆣. As #2983 shows 𧆣 从凷虍聲, and 虍 is the head of tiger, so it is acceptable that this book treated the phonetic element is 虎. This form is similar to U+2719E 𧆞 and U+2E4DC 𮓜.
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
⿸虍丁 is used as the component in the following characters, and all of them are related to 虎. It is OK to keep this character, because no rule to unify it with any other encoded characters.
The new evidences does not prove that this glyph is a standalone character with independent pronunciation and interpretation, rather than a disassembled stroke. So what is the necessity to encode it again?
The term being defined, 般利伐羅句迦, is a transliteration of Sanskrit "Parivrājaka", which can also be written 簸利婆闍迦. Since the characters 般, 簸 and 01903 here are all being used for their sound only, there is not necessarily any semantic relationship, or even guarantee that the readings were equivalent when the term was transliterated.
Comment
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Note that 般 and 簸 do share the same onset and nucleus in Middle Chinese which is meaningful in this type of transliteration (cf. 般若 ~ paññā), which is also the reason we associate this character with 簸.
When we see the left component of the next character of the submitted character in Evidence 1 more carefully, we can find the current form is not the common one for the left component 犭.
It should be the following.
This is the transitional form from 犭 to 彳, and the next character has not been shown as U+3042D 𰐭.
犭 and 彳 are often interchanged to make more possible variants in the ancient books, but the possible variants could be used as other characters with other the completely irrelevant pronunciations and meanings. Therefore, it is very dangerous to unify 犭 and 彳 in general.
山 and 宀, 木 and 扌 are similar to this pair.
Note 張子盛 mentioned the Jianzi fingering letter 揉 (mapped to 犭 commonly) could also be written as 彳 form in 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 and 《松風閣琴譜》 (not the Siku version). But I excluded 彳 form as 猱 in my list, because 彳 has other meaning of Jianzi fingering letter and 𢔟 U+2251F is a different character commonly, which can’t be used as the name of Jianzi fingering letters.
The text says that U+2E803 is the name of something written as SAT-06780. I can't find a defintion of U+2E803, but with the 邑 radical, it could be a place name. Given the resemblance of SAT-06780 to 縣 (U+7E23), it's likely that the text is saying that U+2E803 is the name of a "county" (or similar subdivision), i.e. 縣 (U+7E23). So SAT-06780 is probably a variant of 縣.
This is a good example for the so-called “stable error”.
According to the evidence, this character is only used for the 反切上字 of 𨺙 U+28E99.
Yi Bai provided two variants of 𨺙 U+28E99, one is 陧, the other one is 倪. 陧 is a 入聲字, that is not related to 計 here; the 韻 of 倪 and 計 are both 齊 and the tones are both 去聲. The evidence shows the word 陴𨺙 that must be the variant form of 俾倪. The most common 反切 related to 計 for 倪 should be 五計反/切, but the submitted character must not be the variant of 五, so it is better to keep as-is in main set. At least, we can know the 聲母 of the submitted character is 疑母, that matches the rationale for the phonetic element, so the radical assignment is also right.
The new evidence shows the character is used for the old name of one river without more information. When we search the river name in the ancient books, the greatest possibility is a river as the tributary of 湘江 in current 湖南省. So, it could be marked as hsn.
This entry looks like a variant spelling of 拂懔 (Byzantium) as found in 大唐西域記, see https://baike.baidu.com/item/拂菻国/1334530. That would make 01482 a variant of 拂.
My take on the way the reading is shown in #3072 is that the author considers it a "serious" reading, in the sense it is accepted in some dictionaries, but he suggests that it is ultimately erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the character's origin as a character created in Japan to represent "ものがたり”, when it is just an error form of 話.
The following two modern editions of the similar sentences of #1195 give 岸 and 堓 (variant of 岸), and the second evidence of #1202 has shown it is the variant of 岸.
▲ 王士祯, 阮亭: 《水月令》//黄承增: 《广虞初新志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 1390
▲ 周衣德, 杨安利: 《周衣德集》, 合肥: 黄山书社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-5461-0765-3, p. 593
As suggested in above, this has a similar shape and the same reading "miǎo" as 渺 (U+6E3A), or possibly the variant 𣺌 (U+23E8C). If the source is handwritten, it's easy to imagine them being identical.
▲ 张殿英: 《杨家埠木版年画》, 北京: 人民美术出版社, 1990.5, ISBN 7-102-00765-5/J·710, pp. 157-158
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 金良年: 《中国神秘文化百科知识》, 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1994.12, ISBN 7-80511-682-0/G·167, pp. 232-233
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 陆锡兴: 《汉字民俗史》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-100-17227-1, p. 436
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The website of CCDI (中共中央纪律检查委员会, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China) showed these four characters in 康百万庄园 in one article. https://www.ccdi.gov.cn/yaowen/201704/t20170408_146614.html However, they have not shown the picture.
Why is this marked as similar to 軲 (U+8EF2). I'm not aware of any xie-sheng connection between 古 and 占 and the given readings are "gū" and "zhān". Is there any evidence for the similarity?
Other
Selena WEI
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
The reading of a name character is provided by the user, TCA is not that concerned about the reading of the name character.
Re #6938 above. The reading given for WS2021-01661:TC-3C54 is "pàn", while this is "xī". If that information is reliable, then I don' think these are cognate. The relationship with KC-10920 is more believable, since the reading 힐 (hil) has the same initial ㅎ (h) as in the phonetic 兮 혜 (hyey).
It would be interesting to see the original source of this character, since I can easily imagine this as quickly written variant of 默 (U+9ED8), also read "mò".
The other real use is shown as below. This picture is from the video in Bilibili.com (https://b23.tv/qwlhJHI 02:36). Note the subtitle of this video shows some wrong character, such as 籺 should be 𬖋 (U+2C58B).
In the real use, the users always use 捆 as the replaced character, because the proper one has not been encoded yet, such as the introduction of this kind of Hakka food in the official website of People’s Government of Guangdong Province, PRC (http://www.gd.gov.cn/zjgd/lnms/mzms/content/post_110842.html ), and they need to clarify “捆” here does not mean to tie, should be to roll. The TV presenter needs to explain the same thing in one CCTV 10 program (https://haokan.baidu.com/v?pd=wisenatural&vid=8337990229278444770).
This kind of Hakka food looks similar to the fresh spring roll in Vietnam, but the stuffing is not richer than the Vietnamese one, only taro, mushroom, sauerkraut, carrot and corn. Almost all the presenters read the character as kǔn in Putonghua for this use, but I have not confirm if the hakka reading and if it is suitable in Putonghua for this use.
The reading suggests the right hand side should have been 属 instead of ⿸尸禺. Could there be confirmation on the correct shape based on the romanization of the person's name?
Note that 觱 doesn't match the pronunciation which provided in the original evidence.
Other
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
Expanding on the point in #4863, the evidence in #1350 suggests TE-3836 as a variant of 觱, found in the compound 觱沸 ("bì fèi"). This could be fortuitous, with TE-3836 being just a name, but can TCA provide the source of the reading "jiǎn", or is that just a guess based on the phonetic 減 ( jiǎn)?
Other
Selena WEI
TCA
[ Unresolved from v6.0 ]
The reading of a name character is provided by the user, TCA is not that concerned about the reading of the name character.
The reading given is "luò", which is identical to that of 駱 (U+99F1). This suggests that they are variants and that the component 名 should be 各, in which case they we might consider unification. It would be good to clarify the meaning and the reading.
The new evidence shows that ⿰金苦 is a valid character with the reading "kǔ". However, the original evidence attributes supplied reading "nuò", which is almost certainly a misidentification for U+9369. We should avoid adding "nuò" in the Unihan data.
The reading given is "qì", but the evidence provided in #1584 gives this character as the reading for 𪚬 (U+2A6AC), which Kangxi gives as 古暗切音淦 = Mandarin "gàn". What is the evidence for the reading "qì"? Is this possibly a variant of 淦 "gàn" as given in Kangxi?
It reads as 不𣪏縱其湠漫兮，⿰木勿孰爲之涯滸, where ⿰木勿 should be a function word. If ⿰木勿 is indeed 於, the sentence can be roughly translated as "Do not let the Yellow River rove freely, otherwise where could be its boundary".
The evidence is from 仁化縣志（清光緒刊本）, I have extracted the evidence directly from the NLC provided PDF without transcoding, but it seems not better than the original evidence, which I think is already reasonably clear.
The text gives 「～，俗名莙薘」. I guess ⿱艹舔 is a variant of 菾. I didn't find ⿱艹舔 in 嘉靖仁化縣志、萬曆仁化縣志、康熙仁化縣志; I do find 莙薘 in 韶州府志（清康熙刊本）卷1 folio 16.
Other
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
莙荙 is commonly used as the cuisine in 韶关市 (仁化县 is a part of 韶关市 now).
In fact, the local name is 猪乸菜 (vegetable for sow feeding), but the phonetic moral of 莙荙 is better than 猪乸菜.
▲ 莫熙穆, 陈定如, 陈章和, 广东省畜牧局, 华南师范大学固氮牧草研究中心: 《广东饲用植物》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1993.6, ISBN 7-5359-1064-5/S·132, pp. 147-148
This character should be treated as the local variant, not the local name. It is OK to keep it.
Agree with #8367 about 毛 as a signifier of vulgarity or offensiveness. Other examples found in the text with this 毛 radical include 𣬿 (U+23B3F) "cào" and 𣬼 (U+23B3C) "bī". Also, compare WS2021:UK-20403, ⿺毛别
The above picture is a part of the performance script of a play for Cantonese Yueju Opera named 《唐伯虎點秋香》, which the author is 唐滌生 and wrote in 1956. (According to 谢伟国《任剑辉唱腔艺术特色浅谈》, 《南方语言学（第六辑）》, p. 264) The first and important movie version was starring 任劍輝 (唐伯虎) and 白雪仙 (秋香) in 1957, but this part was removed in this movie version. We can find this part in the live recording. In the 1975 version (《三笑姻緣》), which was starring 龍劍笙 (唐伯虎) and 梅雪詩 (秋香), other play authors reorganize the script. They kept the 小曲 and the lyric for the previous one (【鸾凤和鸣】), but changed the lyric for the one I mentioned in the picture (【秋水龙吟】). 1975 version is still common now for Cantonese Yueju Opera and Cantonese Yuequ Show. In 1993, the new version was starring 周星馳 (唐伯虎) and 巩俐 (秋香). The play authors replaced 【秋水龙吟】 to 【粉墙花】 and also changed the lyric as the theme song. In the movie, 唐伯虎 and other roles also sang a song based on 【粉墙花】 as 《烧雞翼，我鍾意食》. Note that 小曲【粉墙花】 is adapted by 周璇’s 《花花姑娘》.
藝文類聚 and 初學記 are different text system. Many, if not most, pre-Tang texts we can read today are sourced from them. Since ～ and 嫡 are very different and ～ prevails in multiple versions of 藝文類聚, we should encode it for digitalization purpose.
This should be an instance of Latin-Han hybrid whose encoding model is a subject of discussion.
Other
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Exactly, this is not a Han character. It's temporarily appear on this group of publicity materials. And we could replace 也 with every component to indicate all of the characters including the component.
Comment
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
See this SCMP article for additional background discussion of the "X也" gender-neutral 3rd-person pronoun. Refusing to encode this character would be doing a great disservice to the user community who want to use this gender-neutral pronoun form.
Comment
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Additional discussion on twitter showing a glyph form similar to that proposed by the UK with 㐅 rather than X:
Comment
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
After discussing with some of my "transgender" friends, they all don't like to be described as ⿰㐅也. Some of them even think 㐅 indicates they are not persons and it comes out from some self moving people who are not belong to their group.
Comment
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Re Comment #9489: Please note that this character is not intended for use by transgender people who identify with a specific gender. As noted in Evidence 1 (highlighted in red at the bottom), this character is intended for use by *non-binary* people who do not identify as either male or female: "{⿰㐅也}為中性代詞，代表非二元性別認同的跨性别人士". The character should be encoded for those people who wish to self-identify using the non-binary pronoun ⿰㐅也. Of course, cis and trans people who do identify with a specific gender will not want to use this pronoun, which is fine!
Per Kangxi Dictionary：「【午集下】【禾字部】 【字彙補】於劫切，音謁。禾敗不生。」𥠍 and ⿰木𤯚 share the same pronunciation. However, 合併字學集篇 predates 字彙補 so we can't say ⿰木𤯚 is an error.
The current official name of this river is 英那河 on National Database of Geographical Names of China, and it also mentions the other name as 英纳河.
Some materials use 英那河.
▲ 徐琳瑜, 杨志峰, 章北平, 江进: 《城市水生态安全保障》（“十三五”国家重点图书出版规划项目 流域生态安全研究丛书）, 北京: 中国环境出版集团, 2021.6, ISBN 978-7-5111-4527-7, p. 200
Some materials use 英纳河.
▲ 赵志中, 陈安东, 任舫, 杨勇, 贾庆黎, 贾建团, 翟菊, 杨更, 杨艳华, 王敏: 《中国冰川地质公园》 (The Glacier Geoparks of China), 北京: 地质出版社, 2017.11, ISBN 978-7-116-10705-2, p. 88
Based on the materials, this river was named after the hero 刘英纳.
▲ 中国民间文学辽宁卷大连市卷编委会: 《中国民间文学集成辽宁卷 大连市卷（上卷）》, 沈阳: 沈阳出版社, 1989.9, ISBN 7-80556-049-8/I·23, pp. 617-618
I still do not suggest IRG to encode the characters in this way even all characters will be finely collected and submiited one by one in future. There will be at least 10000 characters to be encoded in this way. Supporting all Daoist characters will become unnecessary burden to most devices if there is a certain number of Daoist characters encoded in future. This may lead to that national bodies and companies stop trying to support the whole CJKUI character set, which may cause more unexpacted problems.
I stick to my opinion although I must repect IRG's decision. And I will suggest Chinese government not to support these characters in future version of national standards.
开摄化（開攝化）is a combination of 開 and 攝化. 攝化 is a religious word used by the Buddhism and Taoism. 攝化 means using the light of Buddha's compassion to inspire and save suffering beings. 開（Start）攝化 then means the start of 攝化. 雨+鬼(the evidence on this page)/雨/鬼/口 can be added to 開攝化.
If IRG is going to encode them one by one, then please prepare to be criticized for it and overwhlemed by this kind of characters.There are countless words used in Taoism and many of them can combine with 雨+鬼/雨/鬼/口/尚……
I have stated the problems very clearly in my proposal IRGN2518 and experts gave their opinions about Daoist characters in IRGN2579. But none of the proposals change IRG's decision, which was very frustrating. In the last IRGmeeting, I was stopped by other experts saying there is no problem in encoding most of Taoist characters submitted in IRG WS2021, which was also disappointing.
I was planning to write another proposal about the characters but finnaly decided not after more upsetting things happened. I realized that I don't have the time, knowledge and the patience to change the situation. So this will be my last comment on Daoist characters in IRG.
There is other usage in Cantonese. Please see 粤语攴攴斋微信公众号睇新闻学粤语Vol.15. The author just used the traditional form, but this form is also needed for the daily life in Guangdong Province.
According to https://www.ccli.gov.hk/doc/wgcliac2018-07.pdf, the proposed Cantonese reading for this character is "coi3", based on the phonetic 賽. Is that reasonable?
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
The G-Source reference value should be G5-426A based on Comment #14826 if HE.
In response to Wang Yifan: while 母 itself does not have initial M, 母 is featured as (part of) a phonetic component in other words pronounced as syllabic m, such as 姆 ḿ and 梅 m̂.
The reading of puh for this character is unexpected. This hymn is available on several websites (e.g. http://hymn.pct.org.tw/Hymn.aspx?PID=P2011080400003) where the unencoded character is represented as "puh", so the reading "puh" should be correct. But why has a character with a grass radical and 吐 phonetic been created to represent the reading "puh"? Is this a mistake?
Other
LEUNG Justin Richard
Individual
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Re: Andrew West
The word "puh" means "to bud; to sprout". The character is probably 會意, with 吐 having the meaning of "to stick out; to become visible" (as in phrases like 吐穗 or 吐絮 in Standard Mandarin).
It is easy to know the meaning is “to taste”. There are three use cases for the Chinese Hakka word “to taste” in 江西省赣州市 and 广东省梅州市, and the they all use “尝下” or “尝一下” directly. It looks the character is the related character of 尝, but it is not related to U+4459 䑙 “to lick”.
▲ 温昌衍: 《石城（高田）客家话的否定词》//陈振宇, 盛益民: 《汉语方言否定范畴研究》, 上海: 中西书局, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5475-1746-8, p. 247
(This is a use case for 江西省赣州市石城县高田镇.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《客家方言词语考释》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2019.10, ISBN 978-7-218-13543-4
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市梅县区.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《五华客家话研究》, 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2010.6, ISBN 978-7-5623-3299-2, p. 393
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市五华县.)
The most common form for “to lick” is 舐 in Chinese Hakka-dialects, and some places use one word which has the corresponding word in Chinese Yue-dialects, which the final consonant is still -m, not -n for 丹 in Hakka.
▲ 张维耿: 《客方言标准音词典》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 978-7-306-04342-9, p. 239
If IRG experts have comments on this character, I should ask other Chinese Hakka-dialects researchers to get their comments.
They show the reading is tâm, but I can’t read this Romanization scheme. Yi Bai shows the reading as tʰiam44陰平 in 广东省韶关市新丰县, tʰiam31上聲 in 广东省梅州市梅江县.
舔 is not included in 廣韻, but Kangxi Dictionary gives the fanqie as 他點切 cited from 《篇海》. I check the reading for 点 in 《客赣方言调查报告》, all the dialectal places give the head of final vowel as -i-, and I check the reading of 点 in above page, they show the Romanization form is tiám which the -i- is still here, that means this character is still not related to 舔 or U+4459 䑙.
The kana よ on the map looks full size to me, though I would expect ょ. Is there any other data? I took a look on various map apps in the vicinity of 砺波市庄川町名け原, but couldn't find any finer resolution names that matched this.
Other
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
It is common for small kana to be rendered as regular kana in some contexts. Also, the small ケ in the same evidence image is also rendered as a regular kana, which is another clue.
Other
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v5.0 ]
Due to Japanese legislative niceties, names officially registered until 1980s might have big kana while small kana is expected.
The place name is read "Hishirimo", and the reading of this character, "hishiri", does not suggest any obvious semantic relationship with the standard reading of 䦧 or 䦧, which is "seme(gu)" meaning "blame, curse, attack" etc. 䦧 or 䦧 are probably not interchangeable with UTC-03233, hence not unifiable.
Other
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
https://www.weblio.jp/content/ひしる
The verb "hishiru" is found in 『精選版 日本国語大辞典』 as "to shout" and in 『和歌山弁Explorer』 (Wakayama dialect) as "to be furious". Perhaps it is also in the local dialect of "Hishirimo". Neither meaning is far from "blame, curse, attack".
Agree with #8850 that the structure is similar, but note that the derivation is very different, since the phonetic for VN-F1B4A is 𠬠 (một), which is a simplified form of the right side of 没. So, this is a simplified form of 𧋶 (U+272F6), non cognate with U+2723B. There are a few cases where the full form 殳 is used for with phonetic values related to "một", such as V4-4541 ⿰殳失 (mất), which is a simplified form of V4-4C41 𪶟 (U+2AD9F), so it is possible that U+2723B exists for "mọt", but in general, it's best to keep characters using 𠬠 and 殳 separate.
The shape of "艹" represented by T9-7C3F is extremely uncommon, and this should be normalized. TCA suggest pending this character. If the character could be confirmed for normalization, we will submit it again for WS2024.
IRG Working Set 2021v7.0
Unification
Unifiable to 𧍂 (U+27342)?
U+27342 comes from Kangxi, with the given text: 【備考】【申集】【虫字部】 【五音篇海】音肴。又音豪。 which indicates they are the same character.
⿱又有 (A03305-013) ~ 肴 (A03305)
⿰山⿱又有 (B00831-005) ~ 崤 (B00831)
⿰飠⿱又有 (B05734-001) ~ 餚 (B05734)
Since ⿰言⿱又有 (C13276-008) ~ 𧩭 (C13276-002), ⿱又有/肴 may be supported in lvl2.
Suggest not to unify if no more cases can be found because both ⿰虫肴 and 𧍂 (U+27342) are kind of common as head characters in ancient books.
Examples for 𧍂 (U+27342)
改併五音類聚四聲篇海，成化丁亥重刊本
同文书局版《康熙字典》
新校經史海篇直音，明嘉靖刻本
續字彙補，和刻本
字彙補，彙賢齋本
Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).
Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.
First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.
Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.
There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.
If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.
We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.
Although character analysis is required in coding work, overall, our task is not to provide textual research for linguists and only code for correct character shapes, but to provide code points for social character usage needs. If some glyphs have independent usage cases in the text or have value in distinguishing glyphs, they should be able to be encoded. Discussing these types of characters without reaching a consensus would waste a lot of meeting time in the past and future.
Unify to 𪄻
Level 2 UCV for 舂 and 春
The form using 春 instead of 舂 is particularly common in 《集韻》.
Unify to 惱.
This is a variant of 惱 without a doubt in the included evidences.
Potentially new UCV level 2 甾 & 𡿺.
Unify to 惱; and add level 2 UCV 甾 & 𡿺.
We have one existing disunification case in Extension B where U+254F2 is disunified from U+78AF. They are both variants of 瑙 U+7459.
We have another disunification case in Extension A where U+4409 is disunified from U+8166 because they are non-cognate.
Note, ROK has a normalization rule #190-1 in IRGN2573 which covers this exact case:
Therefore the variation should be systematic and pretty common in handwriting.
The new evidence confirms that it is a trivial variant of 𣱖 which should be unified with 𣱖 (U+23C56) by UCV 47.
If UCV #47 is considered to be referred, it may need to be extended.
Unifiable with 淅?
𦎼 (U+263BC) / 𦎯 (U+263AF).
> The two comments together list 22 disunification examples, comment #14276 8 examples and #14290 14 examples. Also that GHZR42524.09 was withdrawn. Withdrawing a character can be because the submitter does not agree to unification. The quote that says unifiable was not made by the submitter. The case for removing 殸 is very strong.
Examples are from Extension B, which are not considered valid prior examples of disunification by IRG.
> The inclusion of ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d seems unreasonable as it is not an example of "differences in relative length of strokes" (j-2). UCV 312d should only cover ⿱𣪊⬚ and ⿹𣪊⬚, and ⿱殸⬚ should be removed from the rule.
UCV #312d should be moved away from the section J-2 and moved into section j-3 Unification of similar shapes.
The fact that 𣪊 is often miswritten as 殸 is not disupted. Sufficient evidence also exists for this particular charcter. For China's case they may prefer to withdraw a form which is malformed, but SAT does not assign "it is an error or not" determination to a character. To suggest to encode a character via IVS implies the characters are unifiable.
Suggest to unify and encode as IVS, and keep the UCV rule as-is.
Only for record, but unified to 鷇 (U+9DC7) as a result of UCV #312d.
Unify to 𮈺 (U+2E23A), whose outer part of right component is a very common variant of 虍.
Unify to 𤸻 (U+24E3B) or potentially withdrawn.
The given evidence from UK and the evidence from Tao Yang suggest that the phonetic component should be 拏, not 挐. Even though in some sources 挐 is considered a variant of 拏, they are considered separate characters by various versions of Shuowen.
For WS2024 we considered submitting ⿰口挐 which is used in the English name "𠹵⿰口挐哪布" = "Anna Noble" (《𠸄咭唎紀略》（1853） folio 10b), but we prefer to unify to 𠸎 (U+20E0E) with a new UCV.
Attributes
#36, IRGN954AR
#3, IRGN2221
Change Radical to 196.0 (鳥), SC=18, FS=2
#11, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
莽 is counted as 11 sometimes in Kangxi Dictionary and sometimes as 12.
Main difference is the bottom component is sometimes written as 廾 and sometimes written as ⿰𠂇十 in Kangxi Dictionary.
Etymologically speaking the bottom component is also a grass radical so should be counted as 4 strokes therefore 莽 = 12.
#33, IRGN2221
#35, IRGN2221
#23A, IRGN1105
The 新借 reading of 鸟/鳥 in Zhuang is niuj (-j means 上声 here). I have not collected the 老借 of 鸟/鳥, but 鸟/鳥 reads as niu5 in Cantonese, and almost all the 老借 readings of the -iu of Cantonese in Zhuang are -iu or -eu, that means we can guess the 老借 reading of 鸟/鳥 could be niux (-x means 阳上 here, and 了 reads liux, 秒 reads miux). So, 鸟/鳥 must be the phonetic element for the Zhuang use.
#20, IRGN954AR
#67, IRGN954AR
FS=1
#36, IRGN954AR
#19a, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN954AR
#77 IRGN954AR
U+223F8 𢏸
IDS1: ⿰弓⿱亠糸
IDS2: ⿰弓⿱亠糸 (GT)
IDS3: ⿰弓⿱亠.糸.
U+2C0CE 𬃎
IDS1: ⿰木⿱玄小
IDS2: ⿰木⿱亠糸 (T)
IDS3: ⿰木d⿱亠.糸.
The IDS should be changed from ⿰睿⿱只又 to ⿰睿⿱只夂.
An alternative IDS is ⿰土⿳𠂊冖巾.
#76, IRGN954AR
FS is yet to be changed to 1.
Support Ken and Conifer.
#32, IRGN954AR
#19, IRGN1105
⿰舌尔 is suitable only for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA. In TCA conventions, the top component of 舌 (U+820C) is 干 not 千, but the top component of the left part of this character is 千 not 干.
#25, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#12, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
⿰月署 is acceptable for IRG encoding works, but it is not suitable for TCA.
#42, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
#12, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
based on Comment #15154.
based on Comment #15154.
#72, IRGN954AR
follow 䪯 U+4AAF
#15, IRGN954AR
#31, IRGN954AR
#11, IRGN2221
#58, IRGN954AR
While 娄 has radical 119.0 (米) in the code charts, it is under radical 38.0 (女) in Hanyu Dazidian, CNS11643 as well as the Moji Joho database, same as the radical of its traditional counterpart, 婁.
娄 also has a codepoint of U+5A04 which sits squarely in the block of characters with 女 radicals in the URO, so I believe the change to make it under radical 119.0 (米) is an error.
The code charts should be corrected and this character should use 女 as the radical.
And, the secondary radical could be 38.0 (女). But, we also need to update the RS of 娄 in URO.《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6) chose 米 as the basic radical, and 女 as the secondary radical.
Cf. In 《现代汉语词典》 (Ed. 6), the basic radical of 鸡 is 又, and the secondary radical is 鸟.
We also found other similar issues in URO.
The radical of 馮 is 馬, but the radical of 冯 is 冫.
The radical of 問 is 口, but the radical of 问 is 门.
We should handle this kind of issues more macroscopically. I don’t hope we give three radicals for this character.
See also: 00095, 00094, 00092.
#36, IRGN954AR
#15, IRGN954AR
#44, IRGN954AR
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Evidence
▲ 王元鹿, 邓章应, 朱建军, 李静, 李明, 邱子雁: 《中国文字家族》 (刘志基: 《文字中国》), 郑州: 大象出版社, 2007.12, ISBN 978-7-5347-4920-9, p. 101
▲ 陈燕: 《汉字学概说》, 天津: 天津人民出版社, 2003.12, ISBN 7-201-03058-2, p. 243
▲ [光緒]湄潭縣志（清光緒刊本）卷6 folio 11a
湄潭縣 is in 貴州省遵義市.
兴仁县人民政府：贵州省兴仁县地名录，page197
I suggest to postponed this character.
中国测绘科学研究院：库外字代码对照表
▲ Program schedule of Cantonese Yueju Oprea named 《山乡恩仇记》
The current name is 《山乡风云》, and the corresponding novel is named as 《山乡风云录》.
「香港出品 何濟公」 https://hochaikung.com.hk/
997788.com page
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
On the other hand, this place is under 清新区, and 氹塘/凼塘 is a common stable word in 清远市.
▲ 广东省地理学会科普组: 《广东农谚》, 广州: 科学普及出版社广州分社, 1983.2, 统一书号: 16051·60185, p. 77
Seen in 中国测绘科学研究院《库外字代码对照表》：
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
文清公薛先生文集，明萬曆42年[1614]薛士弘刻，卷1。
https://reurl.cc/RW8XpZ
▲ 《霸州志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之五
Also see WS2021-04607:GKJ-00233.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
The third 說文 evidence implies that it is a misprint of 鷽.
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1231270/1/59
月湖園主人 著『小鳥の飼方 : 趣味と副業』,小鳥文開堂,大正15. 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1016797/1/48
細川潤次郎 著『吾園随筆[ヨウ]編』巻2,西川忠亮,大正11. 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/985319/1/59
遵古本正韻石齋海篇，明崇祯刻本
▲ 《大清歷朝實錄》(1934, 滿日文化協會影印本) 清世祖實錄卷64 folio 12b
Out of scope: Note that KC-12267 ⿰涑𡡅 is misinterpretation from ⿰潄鳥, KR should update the glyph and IDS of KC-12267. KR can consider HE in the future.
增補文成字彙 清乾隆七年（1742）京都文成堂刻本
飲月軒詩鈔 清道光二十一年(1841）家刻本
均薻 清乾隆中綿州李氏萬卷樓刻嘉靖十四年（1809）李鼎元重校印本
▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999031766 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 71b
⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.
Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 李昉、李穆、徐鉉：《太平御覽》，嘉慶仿宋刻本，卷第九百二十八
▲ 穆希文：《蟫史集》，萬曆刻本，卷之三
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，十二卷
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》，明嘉靖刻本，卷之三
The pronunciation of ⿰关鳥 is zhi4, which is totally different with 𪁾.
The glyph of ⿰关鳥 is quite stable to be encoded.
Seems like misprint of 鴞.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 23a, 鳥部/5畫, quotes 類篇.
鴞 is already included in this dictionary (folio 22b), so ⿰另鳥 is placed here intentionally. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 《精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海》, 日内閣文庫藏本, 卷之四
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 大乘經音義第一之七, 貞, 不空羂索神變真言經一部三十卷, 第一帙, 第四卷
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
▲ 《職方典》，古今圖書集成本，第六百八十一卷（《蘇州府物産考》）
▲ 婺源縣志（民國刊本）卷11 folio 19b
I agree with Eiso that in evidence 1 ⿰虫亞 is a variant of 瘂. Can China provide the full page of evidence 2.
Yes it's a variant form of 啞, but stable enough to be encoded.
▲ 郝懿行: 《爾雅義疏》, 郝氏家刻本, 下之四
——李清照《武陵春》
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 10a
▲ zi.tools: cursive script examples of 特
Here is the complete page of the second evidence:
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 96b
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
▲大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b. 虫部/6畫, quotes 龍龕. （⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𢪛）
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b（⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𭣣）
Here is a 龍龕 evidence:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 9a（虫部，平聲）
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
Please confirm the evidence source name.
贵州通志
初学记
类编图经集注衍義本草
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 39
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 42
This is a common character used in Ningpo cuisine.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 106
▲ 傅国通, 郑张尚芳: 《浙江省语言志》, 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-213-06955-0, p. 245
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b 虫部/6畫 （長隆切）, quotes 會玉川篇.
叔 has 8 strokes. Maybe the character was normalized from ⿰虫尗 or it is misprint of some known character.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷13 folio 6b, 虫部, quotes 玉篇.
An earlier revision gives 蠦:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（國立故宮博物院藏金刊元修本）卷13 虫部. So ⿰虫庐 is derived from 蠦.
四书章句集注
劉大司成文集
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷1 金部/17-24畫, (⿰金𣡸) quote 搜真玉鏡
I can't find a UCV for 𣡸/欝. If we don't have one, please also consider add such UCV so ⿰金𣡸 can be unified to ⿰金欝.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18574&page=9#box(302,293,1,2)
▲ 玉篇（元刊本）：「錊，子對切，錬也」
鄦齋叢書
隷辨
泵浦
▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 197
Here is the bamboo slip for reference:
▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（貳）文物出版社2010 pp. 68
繡像永慶昇平全傳
This character looks like the variant of 錞.
集韻 清康熙間曹寅刊楝亭五種本 箝小韻
We have the UCV for 夗 and 死.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第五
▲ 吴大澂: 《説文古籀補》, 光緒二十一年重刻本, 卷第十二
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 30b (Lineage: 朱磐烑/奠埦/覲鈭/宸澻/拱欆/多㷿/謀𡊀/統⿱𡖅金)
It is probable that ⿱𡖅金 represents an intermediate form between ⿱死金 and ⿱夗金.
《蜀都賦》：「藏鏹巨萬，䤨摫兼呈。」
Could you check if the original evidence is correct?
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko19/bunko19_f0021/bunko19_f0021_0001/bunko19_f0021_0001_p0081.jpg
The submitted character might be a misprint form of 鏃?
嘉靖御倭江浙主客军考
陈明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗
[咸淳]臨安志
史記
唐詩百名家全集一百種
詩法入門
Therefore I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence, or withdraw.
Andrew's evaluation appears to be confirmed.
▲ 盛益民, 李旭平: 《富阳方言研究》 (吴语重点方言研究丛书), 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2018.8, ISBN 978-7-309-13379-0/H·2767, p. 41
It looks like word used for Chinese Wu-dialect.
▲ 三晋文字编. pp. 616
The character is a transcription of the seal script form from 《中國古印：程訓義古璽印集存》.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//張天翼: 《探勝》, 北京: 生活·讀書·新知三聯書店, before 1949, p. 60
▲ 沙汀: 《苦難》//施方穆: 《抗戰前後 八十家佳作集 上集》, 香港: 新流書店, 1947.9, p. 545
The simplified form is shown as below.
▲ 沙汀: 《苦难》//赵家璧: 《二十人所选短篇佳作集》, 广州：花城出版社, 书号: 10261·282, 1982.12, p. 491
沙汀 is an important writer in the history of modern Chinese literature, who came from current Anzhou, Mianyang, Sichuan (四川省绵阳市安州区). 围子 or ～子 means Paguma larvata based on the following page. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-05-28/0828163005s.shtml
⿰犭围 has not been encoded yet.
摩麟近詩
增補文成字彙
Agree with Conifer, Evidence 4 is not clear enough to confirm what it is.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第九百一十三
On the other hand, in other edition of 《太平御覽》, the character is written as 㺊.
▲ 《太平御覽》, 嘉慶仿宋刻本, 卷第九百一十三
▲ 《重修政和證類本草》, 四部叢刊本, 卷第十
However, the following edition gives 尾.
▲ 《證類本草》, 四庫本, 卷十
The following edition gives 僦.
▲ 寇宗爽: 《圖經衍義本草》, 正統道藏本, 卷十七
The following editions give 㩆.
▲ 《博物彙編 草木典》, 古今圖書集成, 第一百六十二卷
▲ 李時珍: 《本草綱目》, 萬歷刻本, 卷十七
The modern scholars use the submitted form, and this character can be found in almost all the modern versions, so it is OK to accept it.
▲ 李时珍, 黄志杰, 胡永年: 《本草纲目类编中药学》, 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2015.3, ISBN 978-7-5381-9021-2, p. 243
▲ 刘衡如, 刘山永, 钱超尘: 《〈本草纲目〉研究》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5114-7, p. 826
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 錢恂藏揚州使院本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷之一
Also, the character ⿰貝斂 is not encoded and not proposed for encoding. Why propose only ⿰犭斂 and not ⿰貝斂 immediately below it? It makes no sense.
I suspect it is a misprint of 猼.
The evidence is quote from 《史記·司馬相如列傳》. 說文字母集解 is authored 井上夬菴 by published in 寬保01年（1741）.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 6 gives 猼.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（宋刊本）卷117 folio 4 gives 猼.
史記（清武英殿刊本） also gives 猼.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Consider pending more evidences.
樂府詩集
Error form of 𢶉?
覆宋本重修廣韻卷5：「𢶉，射中聲，普麥切。」
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
▲ 乾隆大理府志卷12 folio 7 // 故宮珍本叢刊 v. 230
玀⿰犭舞 is same with 玀⿰犭武(雍正廣西通志90:2). Alternative words are 羅武(康熙楚雄州志1:40) and 羅婺(乾隆雲南通志24:30).
Also, why are ⿰至及 and ⿰至支 not also proposed for encoding? It seems pointless to encode ⿰至戾 but not the two other characters in the same extract.
▲ 邢准：《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》，金刻本，卷第二十六
https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/b3/6d.html
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・白口本 (the ancestor of 汲古閣本) looks like this.
《説文解字五音韻譜》明・天啓年間本 looks like this.
But even if the character was really mistakenly generated, if it has been separately used for a long time, the separate encoding might be a considerable option.
Tao Yang, please could you supply more detailed bibliographic information of the evidence 1? Is it taken from 《通雅》? 《漢書補注》? I don't have nice text database to spot where the part was taken from.
汉书补注 P4130
Details on this page.
說文解字 清嘉慶九年（1804）陽湖孫星衍平津館校刻宋小字本
說文解字注箋 民國三年（1914）京師補刻清光緒二十年（甲午1894）番禹徐氏桂林刻本
正字通 清康熙九年（1670）序弘文書院木刻本
正字通 清康熙間芥子園刻本
通雅 清康熙五年（1666）姚文燮浮山此藏軒刻本
御定佩文韻府 清乾隆間寫摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本
黔游记
古經解彙函二十三種·说文解字 清同治十二年(1873）粵東書局刻本
粵雅堂叢書·續黔書 清道光光緒間（1821-1908）南海伍氏刻本
養素堂文集 清道光十五年（1835）束華書屋刻本
平津館叢書·說文解字 清光緒十一年（1885）吳縣朱氏槐廬家塾刻本
成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076735.cn/page/n46/mode/2up
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
詩識名解
蠕范
中華大典醫藥衛生典 藥學分典十
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
⿰鼠戾 is intermingled in Evidence1.
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 鼷.
湖海樓詩藳
古文竒賞
全上古三代秦汉三国六朝文
五種遺規
漢書地理志補注
古学彚刊:第二集
where the second character (鼶) is written as ⿺鼠虎. Evidence 2 notes that the original form of 鼶 is ⿰鼠秃 which makes little sense as it is not close phonetically or graphically. Based on the new evidence, the original form of 鼶 is written as ⿺鼠虎, and ⿰鼠秃 is a mistake for ⿺鼠虎.
I suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰鼠虎 to match the new evidence.
景定建康志 52巻 [宋]周應合撰 四庫全書本 卷四十六
蘇魏公集 73巻 [宋]蘇頌撰 四庫全書本 卷六
中華書局校勘信息表
▲ 新刊大宋演義中興通俗演義（明嘉靖刊本）卷8 folio 6
▲ 陳仁錫：《八編類纂》，明刻本，卷之二百六十
Therefore, ⿸鹿日 is a mistake for U+232F4 𣋴.
Based on this evidence, ⿸鹿心 should be a mistake for U+9E83 麃.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷23 folio 17a (⿸𢉖國 = ⿸鹿國 by UCV 443), 鹿部, quotes 奚韻.
I agree with Lee that ⿸鹿國 is related to ⿸鹿囯. The fanqie 苦君切 suggests that ⿸鹿國、⿸鹿囯、⿸鹿苦 might all be variants of 麕.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 鹿部, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷15 鹿部, (⿸鹿𫀄) quotes 搜真玉鏡.
The shape was then normalized to ⿸鹿戚 in later revisions:
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）卷15 鹿部
▲ 李元: 《蠕範》, 同治刻本, 卷六
▲ 朴仁范, 尹明浩: 《国家中医药管理局民族医药文献整理丛书 乡药集成方：校勘注释（下册）》, 长春: 吉林科学技术出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 7-5578-0244-8, p. 2029
▲ 谢宇: 《女性常见病药草治疗》, 北京: 华夏出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-5080-5029-4, p. 178
▲ 侯玲文: 《上古汉语朝鲜语对应词研究》, 北京: 民族出版社 , 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-105-10271-6, p. 256
▲ 国家中医药管理局: 《中华本草》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1999, ISBN 7-5323-5106-8, p. 667
▲ 陈丕显, 陈金祥: 《长阳县志（民国二十五年纂修）》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2005.9, ISBN 7-80192-609-9/K·443, p. 85
长阳县 means 湖北省宜昌市长阳土家族自治县.
▲ 王云, 孙立新: 《人是铁，饭是钢：谷物坚果增智慧》, 北京: 现代出版社, 2011.10, ISBN 978-7-5143-0076-5, p. 108
A similar form (⿰𥝌敂) is mentioned in 四庫全書總目提要, where the author criticizes 合併字學集篇集韻 attributed 䅩(in the form ⿰𥝌⿱攴只) and this character to the radical 禾 instead of 𥝌 (despite the fact that 䅩 also belongs to 禾部 in 康熙字典).
However if we check 禾部 of 合併字學集篇, we find that the form of this character is ⿲禾句支:
In the Commerical Press version of 四庫全書總目 (vol. 9 p. 74), the form ⿰禾𢼒 is adopted.
⿰𥝌敂 in 新編併音連聲韻學集成
⿰𥝌敂 in 重訂直音篇
▲ 陈企望: 《神农本草经注》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2018.11, ISBN 978-7-5152-1714-7, p. 1275
▲ 惠永正: 《中药天然产物大全 11 下 中药》, 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 7-5478-0202-1, p. 8760
▲ 任继昉: 《“转注字也是半形半声的字”——于安澜先生“转注”观的启示》//张生汉: 《于安澜先生纪念集》, 开封: 河南大学出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-81091-846-6, p. 199
▲ 曾昭聪: 《魏晋南北朝隋唐五代词源研究史略》, 北京: 语文出版社, 2010.4, ISBN 978-7-80184-999-1, p. 30
▲ 许志刚: 《诗经论略》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.1, ISBN 7-5610-3909-3, p. 304
符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.
龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.
覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.
宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.
古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
汉字海
▲ 陈是集; 郑行顺: 《海南先贤诗文丛刊 溟南诗选（外一种）》, 海口: 海南出版社, 2004.2, ISBN 7-5443-0962-2/I·38, p. 14
The new evidence is related to WS2021-04688.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
▲ The Movie “Snow White and the Seven Fellows”/“Suit Koo Chup Yew”(《雪姑七友》), Hong Kong: 新風影业公司 & 邵氏兄弟有限公司, 1955.2.6
The movie was adapted from the Disney movie “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. The directs are 周詩祿 and 盧雨岐, and this version of the song in the movie was sang by 梁醒波, 鄧寄塵 and so on. The song sounds like one 小曲 in Cantonese Yueju Opera (粤剧) and Cantonese Yuequ Show (粤曲). In the first known masterpiece of 唐滌生 after 1945, 《釣魚郎》, the name of this 小曲 was recorded as 《雪姑七友》 as the BGM of a part of 浪里白. In other versions, this song is treated as the traditional song.
(日)山井鼎輯，《七經孟文考文補遺 二百卷》第12冊，頁90
https://reurl.cc/bDqg2X
▲ 李昉, 孙雍长, 熊毓兰: 《太平御览 第八卷》, 石家庄: 河北教育出版社, 1994.7, ISBN 7-5434-2215-8, p. 327
▲ 姚振中: 《阅读舞台（舞台美术卷）》, 上海: 百家出版社, 2008.12, ISBN 978-7-80703-876-4, p. 221
Note that 𱉾～冠 is a kind of military officer’s hat in Han Dynasty, and Peking Opera inherited it. This character will be useful for the Chinese local opera and Hanfu with 𱉾 U+3127E.
▲ 曹洪欣, 张志斌: 《中医养生大成 第一部（养生通论）下》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 7-5335-3767-8, p. 2392
▲ 龙一夫, 游凤澄: 《中国中医西医治疗保健养生大全》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 1994.3, ISBN 7-207-02763-X/R·62, p. 537
▲ 郑观应, 董沛文, 盛克琦: 《郑观应养生集——修真四要·道术·中外卫生要旨》 (唐山玉清观道学文化丛书), 北京: 宗教文化出版社, 2015.10, ISBN 978-7-5188-0096-4, p. 460
This character looks stable for 中医 usage.
▲ 王缵叔, 徐怀东: 《食经·食单·食疗方》, 西安: 西北大学出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5604-1339-0/G·181, p. 231
The traditional form ⿰魚要 hasn't been encoded, while the simplified form could be accepted.
▲ 丹波康赖: 《医心方 下》(中医典籍丛刊), 北京: 华龄出版社, 2020.9, ISBN 978-7-5169-1688-9, p. 1078
▲ 鄢良, 李瑶, 吕燕: 《中华养生经籍集成》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2012.5, ISBN 978-7-5152-0183-2, p. 379
中国养生文献全书·第三卷
太平惠民和劑局方
淄川方言志
黎川方言研究
澄海方言研究
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，四庫全書，卷四十二
▲ 李文瑞, 李秋贵: 《中药别名辞典》, 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-5046-0446-1/R·102, p. 654
▲ 高学敏: 《中医药学高级丛书 中药学 上册》, 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000.11, ISBN 7-117-03790-3, p. 255
▲ 冉先德: 《全新修订经典版 中华药海 上卷 第一册》, 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨出版社, 1993.4, ISBN 7-80557-593-2, p. 61
▲ 程超寰: 《本草释名考订》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.7, ISBN 978-7-5132-1473-5, p. 296
▲ 老中医养生堂: 《本草纲目白话解（彩图版）》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-5335-5689-1, p. 261
▲ 陈仁寿, 刘训红: 《江苏中药志 第三卷》, 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5713-1211-4, p. 336
▲ 郑恢: 《事物异名分类词典》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2002.9, ISBN 7-207-05045-3/G·1052, p. 96
漢字海
▲ 周路红: 《古代名医学术懿行研究——走近中医》, 天津: 天津科技翻译出版有限公司, 2013.11, ISBN 978-7-5433-3323-9, p. 75
▲ 唐慎微, 陆拯, 郑苏, 傅睿, 岳雪莲, 薛今俊: 《重修政和经史证类备用本草》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5132-1219-9, p. 1509
Note: 𥤶 U+25936 is the variant of 屁.
The evidence above is from 中药大辞典.
▲ 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1
▲ 何谏, 王瑞祥, 何永: 《生草药性备要》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2015.12, ISBN 978-7-5132-3073-5, p. 4
▲ 朱晓光: 《岭南本草古籍三种》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5067-1922-3, p. 32
▲ 赵其光, 朱蕴菡, 王旭东: 《本草求原》, 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.11, ISBN 978-7-5132-3492-4, p. 61
Note: 何谏’ hometown is 番禺县 (current 广州), 赵其光’s home town is 冈州 (current 江门新会), so it is easy to confirm this character is used for Cantonese. If my guess is right, this character should read as zi1.
古今合璧事類備要 宋刻本
杜工部草堂詩箋 元刻本
新編類意集解諸子瓊林 元刻本
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
集韻
新訂中州全韻
類音
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
▲ 刘明玉: 《中国脊椎动物大全》, 沈阳: 辽宁大学出版社, 2000.4, ISBN 7-5610-3904-2, p. 41
If experts think this to be unclear, I'd like to buy a hard copy and take a picture myself.
https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
▲ 李行健: 《学生现代汉语规范词典》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2016.3, ISBN 978-7-5326-4501-5, p. 782
▲ 程前: 《汉英化学化工科技词汇》, 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5025-1699-9, p. 1221
▲ 王秀山: 《现代汉英化学化工词典》, 西安: 陕西人民教育出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-5419-1023-6/Z·55, p. 828
▲ 张洋: 《精编德汉化学化工词典》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5608-4673-6, p. 723
▲ 张键: 《新英汉化学化工大词典》, 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2009.1, ISBN 978-7-80198-313-8, p. 1546
▲ 梅森 (L. F. A. Mason): 《摄影加工化学》(Photographic Processing Chemistry), 北京: 中国电影出版社, 1982.12, 统一书号: 15061·183, p. 357
▲ 弗雷德里克 A. 洛温海姆 (F. A. Lowenheim): 《现代电镀 第三版》 (Modern Electroplating, Third Edition), 北京: 机械工业出版社, 1982.9, 统一书号: 15033·5233, p. 362
▲ A. G. E. 皮尔斯 (A. G. Everson Pearse): 《组织化学（增订第二版）》 (Histochemistry: Theoretical and Applied), 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1959.4, 统一书号: 14048·1727, p. 535
▲ 中国人民解放军第一五七医院: 《简易护士西学中教材（试用本）》, 广州: 中国人民解放军第一五七医院, 1975.3, p. 88
▲ 广西植物研究所: 《广西植物名录 第二册 双子叶植物》, 桂林: 广西植物研究所, 1971.12, p. 625
〈吳川方言〉, by 李全佳, in《文風學報》, issue 2/3 (1948), p. 56
张菊生先生七十生日纪念论文集 414页
▲ 牟百谦: 《从英语学习词典的新发展看积极型中型英汉词典的编纂》, 《辞书研究》, 1999.1, ISSN 1000-6125, p. 96
王仁兴: 《国菜精华 商代—清代》, 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-80768-233-2, p. 574
▲ 陈万青, 谢洪方, 陈驰, 肖建良: 《海错溯古——中华海洋脊椎动物考释》, 青岛: 中国海洋大学出版社, 2014.4, ISBN 978-7-5670-0170-1, p. 25
This dictionary also gives 𪖙.
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=416&bid=17310.0
Other medicinal materials, such as "榆白皮", also mention "𪖙". Does 中药大辞典 also use "⿰口𪖙"?
國家圖書館藏張鼎思明萬曆31年本
▲ 张律, 朱成: 《龙游乡味：如皋饮食文化散论》, 合肥: 合肥工业大学出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5650-4305-5, p. 19
Note: The authors used 卤肖, but they have shown it meant one character, also see http://daj.nantong.gov.cn/ntsdaj/dfwh/content/24c1efd0-2c7b-4876-9d5e-63d04aee6e08.html. 通州 here means 江苏省南通市.
▲ 《江苏地方志》, 2013年, 第3期
▲ 张布: 《慈禧太后与花蓝布印》, 北京: 昆仑出版社, 2011.1, ISBN 978-7-80040-966-0, p. 244
▲ 南京中医药大学 (编著). 中药大辞典 (下册) (第2版). 2006.
The glyph should be changed accordingly.
The glyph should be ⿰名無, cause there are 3 other variants in the same book.
李丽：近代化学译著中的化学元素词研究，北京：中央民族大学出版社，2012年6月，P44
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 邱智宏：《談新元素的命名》（臺灣師範大學科學教育中心, September 1998） p. 15
See WS2021-04156.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
The pieces of evidence show the classical 對聯 used for 洪門. The meaning of this pair of sentences is shown as below. (1: original form, 2: corresponding meaning, 3: 平仄)
上聯：
𪵸𤄱滈&⿰氵崗;&⿰氵一;派江汕汘沽𣵛
地鎮高崗一派溪山千古秀
仄仄平平仄仄平平平仄仄
下聯：
𣶯潮汏海&⿰氵三;河洽𣲙澫&⿰氵年;流
門朝大海三河峽水萬年流
平平仄仄平平仄仄仄平平
Note: ⿰氵崗 has not been submitted to IRG.
We can also find this 對聯 in 高溪庙 in current 福建省漳州市云霄县东厦乡高溪村后山坳.
▲ 陈名实: 《闽台古建筑》, 福州: 福建美术出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5393-3888-0, pp. 289-290
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1F36.
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
Meanwhile, ⿹气二 is still quite stable to be encoded.
⿹气土 has been included in WS2021 as 01956.
⿰禾𰢫與⿹气養之關係 The Relation of Oxygen to Bacterial Life.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANLC416-13jh008014-59011_〓學新編.pdf&page=51
食品检验及分析法
地名大词典·二
帝制时代的中国法
简明纺织品词典
p. iv
p. 373
▲ 延一: 廣清涼傳, 大正新修大藏經, 卷上
Maybe SAT can provide more explanations.
Also be GHF-0543.
Here is the cursive form of 穗 (link from zi.tools)
which might look like ⿰禾忠 on the first glance. 穗 (ear) also fits in the context: 「苗行宜疎，疎則穗大」can be roughly translated as "the plant should be well spaced for better ear formation".
Since ⿰禾忠 is very likely misinterpreted from 穗 or 穂, I suggest pending more evidences.
In the context, the meaning of “苗行宜疎，疎則⿰禾忠大，來年任麥” is the same as the ancient proverb “稀穀大穗，來年好麥”.
國家圖書館藏二十四卷本
國家圖書館藏二十四卷本
管子（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本）卷19 folio 4 has 蘟.
▲ The evidence also gives 蘟 in subsequent text.
Another version of 正统道藏 also sure the same source, while the text version use 灘 instead.
▲ 周嘉胄：《香乘》，四庫全書本，卷二十
This character is the variant of U+9175 酵.
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，清知不足齋叢書本，卷下
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，續古逸叢書本，卷下
This form is stable in 《居家必用事類全集》, it is OK to encode it.
▲ 《居家必用事類全集》，明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本，巳集
▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)
▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
▲ 邹汉勋: 《宝庆疆里图说》//邹汉勋, 蔡梦麒, 湖湘文库编辑出版委员会: 《湖湘文库甲编 邹叔子遗书七种》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2011.2, ISBN 978-7-80761-518-7/G·961, p. 368
▲ 四川省水利厅: 《低水头农村水电站修建技术》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1958.6, 統一書号: 15118·8, p. 57
▲ 吴观周: 《给妹妹的信（研究无线电）》//蒋逸霄: 《红藏——进步期刊总汇（1915-1949） 〈上海妇女〉②》, 湘潭: 湘潭大学出版社, 2014.6, ISBN 978-7-81128-686-1, p. 279
▲ 南京部队政治部电影工作站: 《电影放映教材（试用本）》, 1971.8, p. 148
▲ 上海物理学会中学物理教学研究委员会: 《高中物理教学参考读物 电场》, 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1959.5, 统一书号: 7150·527, p. 56
▲ 中央人民政府第一機械工業部電器工業管理局: 《電工手册》, 北京: 機械工業出版社, 1953.9, 書號: 0257-0-71, p. 5
東方雜誌.第32卷·Feb.1,1935,V.32,Num.3
▲ 梁冠廷, 熊道儿: 《粤剧小曲集》, 广州: 广东粤剧院艺术室, 1982, p. 192
挨糯(口痕)打士丹
I no understand
米（口痕）打士丹椏罅
my understand alla
▲ 丘鶴儔: 《琴學新編 第二集》, 香港: 正昌隆號, 1923.1, p. 20
▲ 李新宇, 周海婴: 《鲁迅大全集 第28卷 学术编 鲁迅辑校石刻手稿 墓志 （下）》, 武汉: 长江文艺出版社, 2011.9, ISBN 978-7-5354-4404-2, p. 162
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Phrase_Book_in_the_Canton_Dialect_or_Dialogues_on_Ordinary_and_Familiar_Subjects.djvu/44
▲ 石朝江: 《中国苗学》 (《国际视野中的贵州人类学 苗学辑》), 贵阳: 贵州大学出版社, 2014.07, ISBN号 ：978-7-81126-703-7, p. 159
▲ [開慶]四明續志（宋開慶元年刊本）卷1 folio 16b
The new evidence gives ⿰土柰, potentially unifiable with ⿰土奈.
For reference, see also the UCV 奈/柰 proposed by Eiso in WS2021-02879.
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NTL-9900014811_新編廣東省城白話.pdf/43 (https://taiwanebook.ncl.edu.tw/zh-tw/book/NTL-9900014811)
許雪航編《新編廣東省城白話》 page 40, column 2-3, ⿰扌生鼻涕, equivalent to 擤(sang3)鼻涕
▲ 《大南一統志》, 卷之十三
This person’s name is 阮輝～ and his brother is 阮輝𠐓.
This character and 𠐓 (U+20413) both have not the V-Source reference.
▲ 計六奇: 《明季北略》, 清印本, 卷之二十
This evidence shows ⿰亻奂, but it is the unifiable form per UCV #401.
When this character will be shown on the future code chart of GB 18030, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰亻奂.
Note. KR cannot access 『安東權氏佐尹公派譜』(1930) via Internet.
▲ 赵东升, 王明霞, 徐立艳: 《满族文化研究丛书 布占泰传》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2006.4, ISBN 7-80702-163-2, p. 132
▲ 李莉: 《辉发源流考》, 长春: 吉林文史出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5472-3665-9, p. 279
A Chinese drama “Rule the World” (《独步天下》) starring 唐艺昕 and Raymond Lam (林峯) was published in 2017. The role of Bujantai was played by 晏紫东.
《朝鮮王朝實録》 gives two characters. Are there more additional evidence for this one?
See https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg59/IRGN2549KRResp1.pdf
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ 承政院日記 3074冊 高宗 33年 8月 20日
Here the emperor gave 李⿰土攸鎔 a stallion (兒馬) in August 20th, 高宗 33年. But 李⿰土攸鎔 does not have any job titles or ranks, unlike other people mentioned here. I think he could be an imperial descendant, otherwise it is hard to imagine the emperor will give horse to a random people.
I could not find more evidences of 李⿰土攸鎔 in 承政院日記, however I do find 9 evidences of 李𪣢鎔(이문용), he has a unfortunately short lifespan (1882-1901).
For example, in August 21st 高宗 34年, exactly one year later, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion again (승정원일기 3087책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 34년 8월 21일).
And in August 20th 高宗 35年, the emperor gave 李𪣢鎔 a stallion (승정원일기 3100책 (탈초본 139책) 고종 35년 8월 20일).
From the examples above, I suspect 李⿰土攸鎔 and 李𪣢鎔 are the same person. Since 汶(
문) and 攸(유) have different pronunciations and 𪣢 seems more stable, ⿰土攸 is likely misinterpreted from 𪣢. Can Korea provide more evidences of ⿰土攸?
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
Therefore, KR will change glyph to ⿱齊山.
▲ 장서각[부여 은산 함양박씨 구당(九堂) 박세영(朴世榮) 종가])
We can learn that 具安民 is from 綾城 and living in 江華 and his father 具湘 is a 叅奉. Here is 具湘 from 司馬榜目:
▲ 만력43년을묘사마방목(萬曆四十三年乙卯司馬榜目)』(국립중앙도서관[일산古6024-95])
The information here is consistent with the 壬子增廣司馬榜目. It seems to me ⿰土相 is misprint of 湘, can KR provide more evidences?
KR will withdraw.
We can find 朴恂 in 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』:
Note that their father's information here is consistent. Here we can learn that 朴恂 has a brother named 朴恦 and 朴贒 was still alive as of 1653.
▲ 『정묘식년사마방목(丁卯（1653）式年司馬榜目)』.
I think 朴恦 and 朴⿰忄⿱宷日 probably refer to the same person. Maybe 朴恦 changed his name. After all changing name is not very uncommon as we can see in the page above, 李澐 changed his name to 李沇.
For character 𪬺, I couldn't find more evidences for 朴𪬺. But we do have 李𪬺 in 承政院日記 승정원일기 821책 (탈초본 45책) 영조 12년 3월 12일 병오 29/31 기사, suggesting that 𪬺 is also a name character.
The website people.aks.ac.kr is also normalizing ⿰忄⿱宷日 to 𪬺, which suggests that they could be unifiable:
Many data provided by HUANG Junliang are extracted from Internet.
They are digitalized data, NOT the original documents.
KR suggests that he provide original documents, NOT the digitalized data, to facilitate discussion.
▲ 侯兴泉, 吴南开: 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2017.5, ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9, p. 271
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷39 folio 7a
However, in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七(규장각한국학연구원[奎貴11655]), 李彦忠's father is 李掀, they are from 星州, too.
▲ 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 卷之七
Since 掀 and 頎 have different pronunciations, I think ⿰扌頎 might be a misprint of 掀.
In the original evidence, 李𢓜 passed the exam at 萬曆16/宣祖21年 (1588).
Here I provide an older 國朝榜目 evidence, according to the catalog, this version was created in 1796.
▲ 卷之三(한국학중앙연구원 장서각[K2-3538])
In this evidence, 李彥忠, father or 李𢓜, passed the exam at 嘉靖25/明宗1年 (1546).
So the historical material that 李彥忠's father is 李掀, predates the historical material that 李𢓜's grandfather is 李⿰扌頎. Can KR elaborate the statement that the glyph in 『국조방목(國朝榜目)』 is an error? It will be very helpful. Thank you.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷表七 folio 2b
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷236 folio 17a
▲ 資治通鑑（宋紹興二年至三年兩浙東路茶鹽司公使庫刻本）卷260 folio 13b gives 汭. See also 新唐書·成汭
▲ 李子峰: 《民國叢書 第1編 16 社會科學總論類 海底》, 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1989.10, p. 114
▲ 李子峰: 《海底》, 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 2010.1, ISBN 978-7-5392-5532-3, p. 133
You can get more details in Comment #13887 under WS2021-01987.
▲ 律科榜目·劉運啓
New evidence:
▲ 律科榜目·劉運漢
▲ 文獻通考（元泰定元年(1324)西湖書院刊後至元五年(1339)余謙修補本）卷319 folio 12b
▲ 白氏長慶集（四部叢刊景江南圖書館藏日本活字本）卷64 folio 5
The text gives 九～燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌. A more popular version to date is 九微燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌, yet I don't think ～ is a variant of 微.
～夷爭笑.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本 故善012362-012371）卷2 folio 5b, 音謹, 金部10畫, quotes 龍龕手鑑.
▲ {{龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏南宋刊本 故善001281-001286）卷1 folio 5a gives ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 (missing one horizontal stroke). 金部/平聲. ⿰金⿱龷⿻𠀐一 is likely unifiable with ⿰金堇.
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ 祝穆: 《古今事文類聚續集》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十五
▲ 李昉: 《太平御覽》, 四庫全書本, 卷八百七
Therefore, this character is stable enough to encode separately.
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
▲ 張深切: 《日語要領》, 北京: 新民印書館, 1942.9, p. 46
This author thought this one is like U+30FF ヿ, but not Japanese kokuji.
▲ 謝求生: 《文法中心現代日文綜合讀本》, 廣州: 廣州日文專脩館, 1936.9, p. 25
This author pointed out this one belongs to kana directly. I think all pieces of current evidence are sufficient to encode this one as kana in UCS and Unicode. tomo should be re-encoded as kana. As Andrew wrote, tomo is incorrectly encoded in Ext. C as U+2A708 𪜈, that was not a good choice for it.
▲ 小宫山博史; 孙明远: 《日文数字字体分类试案》//孙明远: 《方寸之间——汉字文字设计文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7395-6, p. 298
(This book has not been published when I post this picture here, but we have planned to publish this book in April, 2023. The chief editor, Prof. Sun Mingyuan, has agreed us to use this picture only in IRG review works.)
As this evidence shows clearly, this one is treated as Katakana, and U+2A708 𪜈 is also treated as Katakana. On the other hand, the Katakana like 井 and 子 have not been encoded yet. (Yifan has more knowledge on the Katakana like 井 and 子.)
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074392
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
The other version of 一切經音義 is written as 簉 (U+7C09). In addition, in 叨簉, the reading of 簉 is 搊瘦切. Therefore, [⿱𥫗适] is very likely a misprinted form of 簉.
In this case, it is semantically obvious that it should have 扌, and all witnesses agree.
▲ 魏仲舉: 《五百家注昌黎文集》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
The related sentence is cited from 《荀子》, and some versions give 齫.
Two modern publishing books also related to 韩愈 (韩昌黎) also give the corresponding simplified form ⿰齿羽.
▲ 刘国盈: 《韩愈评传》, 北京: 北京师范学院出版社, 1991.6, ISBN 7-81014-532-0/I·13, p. 191
▲ 宗传璧: 《韩愈诗选注》, 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1986.6, 书号: 10275·38, p. 227
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
▲ 《碣石調幽蘭》//楊宗稷: 《琴粹》, 風鹤琴齋藏本, Volumn 3, folio 2//楊宗稷: 《琴學叢書》, 舞胎仙館藏本
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第四, p. 949
Why does SAT select ⿰申𬀷 not ⿰申⿱𠂉易?
▲ Evidence 1
▲ Evidence 2
▲ 大正新修大藏經
慧琳一切經音義
希麟一切經音義
▲ 中国艺术研究院音乐研究所: 《曹安和纪念文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2021.5, ISBN 978- 7-5039-6424-4, p. 131
This character is also used as the Pipa fingering letter, and its fingering name is 摭, which is different from Guqin, and it means “to pluck the string to the left with thumb, and to pluck the string to the right with index finger”.
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之十五
ISO/IEC TR 10036:2020, glyph identifier 10074396
https://www.iso.org/standard/79490.html
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
一切经音义三种校本合刊
▲ 李文鳳：《越嶠書》，明藍格鈔本，卷之十六
This is a Chinese ancient book to record Vietnamese history in Ming dynasty. It looks this is a character used for a Vietnamese person name.
▲ 李登: 《重刊詳校篇海》, 燕京藏萬曆刻本, 卷之三
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 十一卷
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第二
The previous page to Evidence 2:
The radical of KC10204 looks like 土. Maybe ROK should confirm the evidence of KC10204.
In 一切經音義, we can find 3 ways of writing: 廣雅, 廣疋, and 廣⿱冖龰. Therefore, ⿱冖龰 should consider unifying with 疋 U+758B.
▲ 盛京通志（清乾隆嘉慶間刊本）卷126 folio 8b
Text is from 朱佩蓮《聖駕東巡盛京恭謁祖陵大禮慶成詩（癸亥）》:「風馬飛揚來掩⿰氵葢，雲旂搖曵下褊𮖽」
▲ 愛新覺羅·弘曆: 《御製詩五集》, 四庫全書本, 卷八十九
The modern publishing version gives 濭.
▲ 香山公园管理处: 《清·乾隆皇帝咏香山静宜园御制诗》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2008.9, ISBN 978-7-5008-4196-8, p. 61
香山 here means current 香山公园 in 北京市. The following is current 静宜园.
▲ 中国舞台美术学会: 《建筑丨静宜园：香山红叶，三山五园》, 2022.1.23, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9lggHmbmi-Kz65IV_ZHobA
中華字海:
▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263
The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 未集
▲ 王仁昫, 裴務齊: 《裴務齊正字本刊謬補缺切韻》
玄應一切經音義
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之十五
▲ 陳繼儒: 《𣈿曝餘談》, 萬曆刻本, 卷之上
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷十一
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第七
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
2. 四国遍路日記: 澄 禅 (Chōzen). 宮 崎 忍 勝 (Miyazaki, Ninshō) (ed). 四国遍路日記
(Shikoku Henro Nikki). 大東出版社, 1977.
3. 新潮日本語漢字辞典: 新潮日本語漢字辞典 (Shinchō Nihongo Kanji Jiten). 新潮社, 2007.
See IRGN2485.
Is there more evidence for this character, including evidence of the pronunciation, which can substantiate that this character is non-cognate to 妓? It seems highly unlikely that 妓 would be used in a person's name.
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).
▲ 北郭集（明成化刊本）卷2 folio 13b
(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 盛羽: 《中国传统镂版印花工艺研究》, 北京: 中国纺织出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5180-5192-2, pp. 159-160
▲ 《職方典》, 古今圖書集成本, 第九百三十一卷, 浙江總部彙考一
▲ [康熙]浙江通志（清康熙刊本）卷14 folio 4b gives 粞.
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 329
https://www.lannangarchives.org/items/f77c92be-f07d-41b7-993a-b3a31f956c97
_Hokkien Spanish Historical Document Series I: Dictionario Hispanico Sinicum: Part 2_, ISBN 978-986-6116-74-2
「Murçíelago. ⿰虫密⿰虫婆 bit po」
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 366
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
▲ 吴其濬: 《植物名实图考长編》, 北京: 商務印書館, 1959.12, 統一书号: 13017·188, p. 273
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 45
But it's a wrong shape of 岏.
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷18 folio 8b
The text is from 郭應酉《重建社稷壇記》. Here ⿰⺼亡 seems to be a kind of animal.
新刻辨疑正韻同文玉海
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70809
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAwNjA0LTAwNA
The glyph on the evidence doesn’t match WS2021-00938:TC-3047.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=71073
一切經音義
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷7 folio 23a, 皿部, 羊益切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2023/23130-uax45-japan-place-names.pdf
https://b23.tv/QU1C4wN
If we can confirm this character is really used in Japan as the geographic name, it looks better to add it into Moji Joho in future.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 folio 26b, 耳部/4畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷216 folio 11b
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正刊本）卷217 folio 1b
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+A0100.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F1B9E.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F0610.
観智院本『類聚名義抄』
▲ 異體字研究資料集成 一期 別卷二 龍龕手鑑: p. 40
文獻通考
續古文苑
學詁齋文集
▲ 揚州畫舫錄（清乾隆刊本）卷12 folio 8a
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 69a
▲ 盱眙朱氏八支宗譜（1929）卷4 folio 86a
Lineage: 石城安恪王朱宸浮/拱𣑁/多⿰火寽
https://ksbookshelf.com/nozomu-oohara/WaseikanjiJiten/WaseikanjiJiten_6b.html
On the other hand, this character is also registered as KC-12693.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162287
Maybe Japanese and Korean experts know more details for this character used in Japan and Korea.
The second column makes the component wrong and the third column shows that the origin form (本字) is 舯, which I don’t agree. In fact, ⿰舟冬舡 is a real Malaysian transliteration based on the Chinese Min Nan dialect used in Southeast Asia. This word is written as 舯舡 in Singapore, and these two characters are not related to the original meaning of 舯 and 舡 in Chinese. The initial (聲母) of 中 is 知 in the middle Chinese, and its initials are t- in almost all Chinese Min dialects.
This character and the form of this word has been accepted by Chinese Language Standardisation Council of Malaysia (马来西亚华语规范理事会, 语范), so I think it’s better to accept it like some characters submitted by Macao SARG.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（南宋刊本）卷3 folio 48a. 𨕙、𮞰、⿺辶旱 and ⿺辶⿸昇丶 are all variants of 邊.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷231 folio 14a
▲ 居延漢簡考釋（1949） pp. 173
陳直 suggested that ⿰金左 might be a variant of 釱.
▲ 居延漢簡解要（中華書局）// 籍合網
Of course the academic discussion above does not apply to the original evidence provided as a person name.
found in 《五音集韵》五脂 徹 三等
▲ Sidney Lau: A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary, Hong Kong: Information Services Department, 1976.8, p. 209 (Entry 698.11)
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 21b 心部/入聲.
「俗，於角反。正從巾作」. So ⿰忄屋 is a variant of 幄. In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉,「從中」is an error of 「從巾」.
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 55b
Lineage: 樂安靖莊王宸湔/拱榮/多煨/謀⿰忄屋
▲ 音韻闡微（清光緒淮南書局刊本）卷10 二十五有 folio 13a
In this evidence, ⿰日咅 is misprint of 暗.
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）第十一冊小學類佛經音義之屬 p. 5527
▲ 山東通志（清乾隆元年 [1736] 刻道光十七年 [1837] 補刻）卷15之2 folio 94
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 325
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 42a
(Lineage: 瑞昌悼順王宸㵾/栱樛/多煪/謀墭/統⿰金升)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷2 folio , 金部/6畫, 升叔切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
Here is an evidence of ⿰金𫝢󠄂(𫝢+VS19), a variant of ⿰金升:
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金崇慶間刊元代修補本）卷2 folio 3a
The wrong glyph of 漯.
There are hundreds of variants of 壽, encode every form of them would waste too many code points.
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
▲ 水東日記（明刊本）卷10 folio 2b
《蒙古字韵》卷下 P18, from left to right 2nd column, last second character.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）表13 folio 22
The new evidence shows that ⿰貝見 is non-cogante with 賏: 趙伯賏 and 趙伯⿰貝見 are brothers.
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):
Also used in Chinese mainland.
▲ 古尊宿語錄（續藏經本）卷45·寶峰雲庵真淨禪師偈頌·南臺石頭真堂
▲ 曹學佺: 《石倉歷代詩選》, 文淵閣四庫全書本, 卷二百二十八, 宋詩一百五, folio 1A
▲ 墨莊漫錄（明萬曆刊本，清勞格校並錄，錢曾、鮑廷博校跋）卷7 folio 3b
▲ 確山縣志（乾隆7-10 [1742-1745]刊本）卷三 folio 5
In this evidence, ～縣 is a place name in 江西. I don't know where it is though.
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷51 folio 44a (⿰木⿱品亐 = ⿰木⿱品亏 by UCV #93)
This name is named after current 小嶝岛 in 福建省厦门市翔安区.
廣韻 寧宗本
集韻 金州本
類篇 汲古閣影宋抄本
▲ 四川鹽法志（清光緒刊本） 卷3 folio 43b
Note: 勘子 can be found in 曾祥其《画家黎雄才的五通桥往事》：「笔者了解到，原来的巴盐生产、保管、运输、销售都不是使用麻袋包装，而是使用“勘子”（一种竹子锤破编制的筐，因为巴盐不会撒、漏）。」
Therefore 勘 is the phonetic component, thus the rationale of ⿱竹勘 is reasonable.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
▲ 江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 23b
Lineage: 奠坫/覲𨯤/宸沂/順昌/多⿰火慶
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集.小學類字書之屬（中華書局, 2008, ISBN 9787101060355）pp. 4231
In the new evidence, 張湧泉 considers ⿱蒜心 as a variant of 蒜.
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（三）（中華書局，2008, ISBN 9787101060355） pp. 3601
The base version mentioned in the new evidence has been provided in the comment #1997.
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F136B.
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 719
▲ 長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成（中華書局，2014，ISBN 9787101101683）（三）pp.130
▲ 刘大钧.再读帛书《缪和》篇[J].周易研究,2007(05):3-10. pp. 3
In new evidences, ⿰隺頁 is a variant of 鶴.
▲ 唐詩紀事（明嘉靖洪楩刊本） 卷81 folio 4a
Another version gives 藴:
▲ 唐詩紀事（明嘉靖張子立刊本）卷81 folio 4a
Per TCA's given reading yùn, ⿱艹𧪍 might be a variant of 藴.
The additional evidence provided by Tao Yang is questionable as the correct title for chapter 4 of this novel is "蟠龍嶺群英相會". Therefore, it seems that the first two characters in this edition are corrupted, and the additional evidence should be rejected.
▲ 貴州通志（清乾隆刊本）卷27 folio 27
Evidence has ⿰金勲, unifiable to ⿰金勳.
Similar to 裔.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
▲ 《古今圖書集成》，方輿彙編山川典第三十五卷中條山部
▲ [康熙]臨晉縣志（清康熙刊本）卷7 folio 7a
▲ 新建龍天廟碑記//《三晉石刻大全 陽泉市盂縣卷》
The text mentions three villages: 上羅, 下羅 and 羅⿰山掌. The stela is now held in 山西省陽泉市盂縣萇池鎮羅掌村龍王廟, so 羅⿰山掌 is a historical name of 羅掌.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十七
And, the variant of U+7269 物.
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十八
The article shows in the above evidence is 蘇轍’s (蘇子由, and 潁濱遺老) 《齊論》. The following evidence shows the corresponding character is 物. If we can get the earlier version of 《唐宋八大家文鈔》 or 《潁濱文鈔》, it will be better.
▲ 茅坤：《唐宋八大家文鈔》，四庫全書本，卷一百五十五（《潁濱文鈔》）
All in all, it is better to keep this character.
王国平 总主编，杭州文献集成 第27册 武林坊巷志 5，杭州：浙江人民出版社，2014年10月，page216
▲ 文苑英華（明隆慶刊本）卷923 folio 3 has 𣄣.
Attached PDF file
▲ 欽定全唐文（清嘉慶刊本）卷422 folio 4 has 𣄣.
Based on the evidences, I guess ⿰方無 is a corrupted form of 𣄣/旟.
▲ 曹學佺：《石倉歷代詩選》，四庫全書本，卷三百二十七
▲ 六十種曲（明汲古閣刊本）亥集·白兔記第二十五齣寇反
▲ 宋史（中華再造善本影印元至正本）卷表八 folio 22b
▲ 宋書（明萬曆二十二年刊南監本）卷67 folio 20a
▲ 宋書（明汲古閣刊本）卷67 folio 11a
▲ 謝康樂集（明天啓崇禎間七十二家集刊本）卷1 folio 6a
▲ 管城碩記（清康熙刊本）卷21 folio 4a
▲ 佩文韻府（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 58b
▲ 御定歷代賦彙（清康熙刊本）外集卷12 folio 7a
As shown in the new evidences, the shape ⿱山皅 is stable across multiple sources. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 翠屏集（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 21a
⿰王⿱十且 is probably unifiable with ⿰王直, though in this evidence, 珽⿰王⿱十且 is likely a misprint of 埏埴.
The text has 「葉箋，霅川人，⿱𥫗異之從弟，～之從兄」. ⿱𥫗異 is .
The person name 葉～ also appears in folio 20:
Attached PDF file
I suspect in the original evidence, ～ is a corrupted form of 籈, and ⿱𥫗異 is a corrupted form of 簨.
For more info, see CBDB/葉籈 and CBDB/葉簨.
Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 陈耆卿, 徐三见: 《嘉定赤城志》, 北京: 中国文史出版社, 2004.9, ISBN 7-5034-1425-1, p. 346
▲ 喻長霖: 《台州府志 十五册》, 上海: 遊民習勤所, 民國二十五年 (1936), folio 8A
▲ 字學三正（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 71 gives ⿱⿰龵龵下, potentially unifiable to ⿱玨下. They are all variants of 拜.
Since ⿱⿰龵龵下 preserves the 手 radical, if we agree that ⿱玨下 is unifiable with ⿱⿰龵龵下, I suggest we encode ⿱⿰龵龵下 instead.
⿱玨下 is also similar to
▲ 汤濬, 陶沙, 陶和平, 毛久燕: 《岱山镇志点注本》, 舟山: 岱山县档案局（史志办）, 2019.1, pp. 201-202
Note: 陶沙 here is not our old friend, the main author of GB/T 2312-1980 and the China NB’s proposal on the earliest CJK unification. See http://dsgbgz.dsdj.com.cn/index/news/details/id/312
▲ 黄均铭: 《岱山渔业的历史特点探讨》//中国人民政治协商会议浙江省岱山县委员会文史资料委员会: 《岱山文史资料 第一辑》, 内部发行, 1986.11, p. 117
▲ 陈玉中, 李响, 杨衡善: 《峄县志点注（三）》, 枣庄: 枣庄出版管理办公室, 1986.7, p. 757
▲ 赵亚伟: 《峄县志（点注本）（下）》, 北京: 线装书局, 2007.9, ISBN 978-7-80106-697-8, p. 548
▲ folio 6a
▲ 重修常州府志（明萬曆刊本）卷9上 folio 51a
▲ 武進縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷6上 folio 53b
And a higher resolution copy of the original evidence:
▲ 武進陽湖縣合志（清道光刊本）卷15 明職官表郡職 folio 5b
The new evidences prove that the shape is stable across multiple sources. I suggest to keep it.
▲ 新城縣志（民國24年刊本）卷21 folio 25.
Both 新城縣志 and 河北通志稿 are authored by 王樹枏, so the text is identical to each other.
BTW the source should be corrected as 《河北通志稿》 方言篇卷下 folio 12.
I searched 螇 in 爾雅|説文解字|方言 from the 四部叢刊 texts:
説文解字（四部叢刊景日本岩崎氏靜嘉堂藏北宋刊本） has 螇鹿.
方言（四部叢刊景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本） has 螇螰
爾雅（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本） has 螇螰
爾雅（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本） also have 螇蚸, but that is not the name of cicada.
Based on these evidences, I agree with Andrew that ⿰虫産 is an error for 螰. But since we have two evidences, better just encode it.
▲ 重刊詳校篇海（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 130
▲ 李玉尚: 《感潮区变化与青浦沿湖地区的血吸虫病——以任屯为中心》//《成蹊集——葛剑雄先生从教五十五年誌庆论文集》编委会: 《成蹊集——葛剑雄先生从教五十五年誌庆论文集》, 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2019.11, ISBN 978-7-309-14697-4/K·713, p. 609
Note: the first dot is missing in the new evidence, but it is easy to identify the outside component should be 疒 based on the submitted evidence.
▲ 寶祐四年登科錄（明嘉靖元年汀州知府胥文相刊本） folio 55b
▲ 《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》下冊，文物出版社，2015年，pp215
Here is the original rubbing:
Attached PDF file
▲ 《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》上冊，文物出版社，2015年，pp258.
The image quality is very poor. Since I don't have the printed book, if anyone can provide a clearer printed evidence please reply and thank you. IMO, in the rubbing, the character looks like 𨮀 rather than ⿰金磨.
Anyway the original evidence is good enough to encode.
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
The author argues that 龍～ is derived from 龍媒.
▲ 杨成志: 《云南民族调查报告》//李文海, 夏明方, 黄兴涛: 《民国时期社会调查丛编 一编 少数民族卷》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2014.10, ISBN 978-7-5334-6620-6, p. 53
▲ 劉襄勤公奏稿（清光緒刊本）卷7 folio 41b
▲ 胡震亨: 《海盐县图经》, 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-80715-482-2, p. 120
The evidence is from 錢塘縣志（明萬曆刊清光緒重刊本）.
The text is from 《錢塘賦》 by 葛澧, active in late Southern Song.
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷94 folio 8 gives 㵅.
⿰氵貧 is likely mutated from 㵅 -> ⿰氵𮙿 -> ⿰氵貧.
https://sou-yun.cn/yjlh.aspx?book=TuShuJiCheng&id=KR7a0007_284_0001
▲ 御定歷代賦彙（清康熙刊本）卷37 folio 17a
▲ 錢塘縣志（清康熙刊本）卷34 folio 9a
▲ 古今圖書集成（中華書局影印清康熙刊本）卷284
The text is authored by 彭孫貽（1615-1673）.
▲ 海鹽縣續圖經（清乾隆刊本）卷1 方域篇古蹟 folio 4
▲ 茗齋集（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏手稿刻本寫本） gives ⿰虫⿱八𠃔, unifiable variant of 蛻.
This is the most authentic version since it is reproduced from the author's manuscript.
But we'd better encode ⿰虫充 since we already have two evidences.
This indicates that ⿰土取 is a variant of U+966C 陬.
▲ 山东省曹县档案局, 山东省曹县档案馆: 《曹县志 上部》, 1981.8, p. 110
▲ 《魯齋文集》, 崇禎刻本, 卷二
▲ 明嘉靖四十一年進士題名碑（北京國子監，嘉靖四十二年立，拓本局部）
https://twitter.com/DevinFitzger/status/1506710457909841921
西洋四書
https://twitter.com/piramiide/status/1627123448416989185
https://archive.org/details/howtospeakcanton00ballrich/page/128/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/howtospeakcanton00ballrich/page/154/mode/1up
▲ 大美聯邦志畧（1861）美華書院刊本卷上 folio 36a
The text seems to be derived from the Evidence 1, with ⿱刻士 written as 刻士.
地方志人物传记资料丛刊 华北卷 第21册，page748
▲ 金史紀事本末（清光緒刊本）卷30 folio 16a (a little bit corrupted)
▲ 寄菴詩钞（清嘉慶刊本）東遊草續 folio 19
▲ 《淄川高氏族谱 卷八》, 2002.8, p. 692
This book gives 坛.
▲ 遺山先生文集（明弘治刊本）卷32 folio 10a
The 元遺山先生文集（清光緒刊本） gives 驅.
In the new evidence, ⿰馬立 might be a variant of 駈, which is variant of 驅.
▲ 《續纂江寧府志》，光緒六年刻本，卷之十
▲ 《皇朝經世文編》，道光刻本，卷五十
▲ 《乾隆正定府志》，方志集成影本，卷之二十六
▲ 張溥：《漢魏六朝百三家集》，卷十三（張衡《西京賦》）
The submitted characters on three pieces of evidence are all related to 銛. This form is not only used in one source, so it is better to encode it separately.
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二
▲ 屈大均, 李育中, 邓光礼, 林维纯, 熊福林, 陈伟俊: 《广东新语注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1991.5, ISBN 7-218-00351-6/Z·26, pp. 51-52
Note: 永安 here means current 广东省河源市紫金县, so the language tag should be hak.
The text is a 5-syllable gushi authored by 金幼孜 (1368—1432).
In this poem, every couplet with encoded characters, end with 陌韻入聲 according to 洪武正韻.
脉，明母陌韻開口入聲
㦸，見母陌韻齊口入聲
北，幫母陌韻開口入聲
隙，溪母陌韻齊口入聲
息，心母陌韻齊口入聲
跡，精母陌韻齊口入聲
屴，來母陌韻齊口入聲
色，審母陌韻開口入聲
測，穿母陌韻齊口入聲
策，穿母陌韻開口入聲
懌，喻母陌韻齊口入聲
益，影母陌韻齊口入聲
冊，穿母陌韻開口入聲
The only couplet end with unencoded characters is 掃除氛祲靖，班師何⿰赤邑⿰赤邑, which end with ⿰赤邑. So ⿰赤邑 should also be of 陌韻入聲.
If ⿰赤邑 were indeed 郝, as is implied from the structure, it would be of 曉母藥韻開口入聲, which does not rhyme with other characters. So it is very likely a misprint of some character in 陌韻入聲, which brings us to 赩（曉母陌韻齊口入聲, =赫, eminent）. The shape is similar to ⿰赤邑 but rhyme well with other characters. The meaning also fits the context.
It is likely that ⿰赤邑 is transitioned from 赩 through the top-right component change: ⺈→𠚤→口.
▲ 四川通志（清乾隆刊本）卷40 folio 69
▲ 三洞羣仙錄（正統道藏·正一部）序 folio 4a
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷4 立部去聲.
⿱知立 is likely a variant of 智.
▲ 文榕生: 《中国古代野生动物地理分布》, 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 2013.6, ISBN 978-7-5331-6533-8, p. 708
▲ 心知堂詩稿（清道光刊本）卷17 folio 9
▲ 葛洪: 《抱朴子内篇》, 重刊道藏輯要, follio 11A
雷伦《口语字辨正》2012
The book suggests that the character records the word {𬊯}.
雷伦《口语字辨正》2012
The book suggests that the character records the word {𬊯}.
▲ Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 廣州音字彙. Hong Kong: 世界書局, 1971. p. 69
▲ 冯卓慧: 《中国青铜乐钟考古》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2023.1, ISBN 978-7-5039-7339-0, p. 2
▲ 王子初: 《巡礼周公——音乐考古与西周史》//中国艺术研究院音乐研究所, 中国艺术研究院艺术与文献馆: 《山高水长——纪念杨荫浏先生诞辰120周年文集》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2021.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7018-4, p. 350
▲ 傅庚生: 《中国文学批评通论》 (叶嘉莹, 陈斐: 《民国诗学论著丛刊》), 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2018.1, ISBN 978-7-5039-6265-3, p. 8
《排斥凍霜新歌》(瑞成書局, 1933年), p. 1
https://dl.lib.ntu.edu.tw/s/kua-a-tsheh/item/691337
https://dl.lib.ntu.edu.tw/s/kua-a-tsheh/media/701325
▲ 张正明, 科大卫 (David Faure), 王勇红: 《明清山西碑刻资料选 续二》, 太原: 山西经济出版社, 2009.5, ISBN 978-7-80767-183-1, p. 218
紅樓夢（戚序本）第二十八回（CADAL 掃描）
「女兒樂。一根𣬬⿺毛八徃裡戳。」
▲ 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
▲ 䜱䜪亭集（清咸豐七年（1857）刻本）卷5 folio 14a
The text 「石龕老僧立崆谾，以食哺雀雀啄缸。旁有一童睇而⿰目空，闖然石罅露肩腔」 is from 《阻風海幢寺》by 祁寯藻. 海幢寺 is in Guangzhou now. The meaning of ⿰目空 here matches the definition provided by the dictionary in the original evidence.
▲ 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. 274
▲ 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. 275
In 新集藏經音義隨函錄, ⿸疒麦 is the 反切下字 of 拯, that means the 韻母 should be 拯 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻上聲).
In 一切經音義, ⿸疒麦 is the 反切下字 of 瞪, that means the 韻母 should be 證 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻去聲).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𤷖 (U+24DD6) is 里孕切, and the 韻母 of 孕 is also 證 (曾攝開口三等蒸韻去聲).
The Cantonese used character uses 麥 as the phonetic element, 梗攝開口二等耕韻入聲.
▲ 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. 276
▲ 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. 267
▲ 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. 267
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》, p. 2617
▲ 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. 269
▲ 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. 269
▲ 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. 278
▲ 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. 277
許雪航編《廣東省城白話》第廿陸(26)頁 第卅五課疾病類
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NTL-9900014811_新編廣東省城白話.pdf/29
https://taiwanebook.ncl.edu.tw/zh-tw/book/NTL-9900014811
Evidence that addresses the concern in #2945 and is identical to the usage in 《简明粤英词典》
▲ 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. 278
▲ 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. 278
▲ 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. 273
Therefore ⿰氵追 is a variant of or error for U+6425 搥.
▲ 沙门释法显, 章巽: 《佛国记》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 2016.1, ISBN 978-7-5032-5474-1, p. 45
揵搥, 犍搥 or 揵槌, 犍槌, even 揵捶, 犍捶, is a Sanskrit loanword from Ghaṇṭā/घण्टा/𑖑𑖜𑖿𑖘𑖯. 《海國圖志》 is also a very important book for Chinese history to help Chinese people to understand the world in the end of QIng Dynasty, and 魏源 also used 揵槌 in 卷32 of the same book, so it is better to keep this form for the historical research.
▲ 趙浚谷文集（明萬曆八年周鑑刻本）卷1 folio 3a
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:431638413$56i
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AHarvard_drs_54453019_約伯記畧.pdf&page=8
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:54453019$8i
▲ 罗源县民间文学集成编委会: 《中国民间歌谣集成福建卷 罗源县分卷》, 福州: 罗源县民间文学集成编委会, 1989.11, p. 272
https://books.google.com/books?id=FuPQJsJy8-oC&pg=PP12
▲ 陳卓瑩: 《粤曲寫唱常識》, 廣州: 南方通俗出版社, 1952.12, 書號: 0160, p. 64
The columns mean different tones for 舒声 in Cantonese.
1st: 阴平/上平 -> -1
2nd: 阳平/下平 -> 4
3rd: 阴上/上上 -> 2
4th: 阳上/下上 -> 5
5th: 阴去/上去 -> 3
6th: 阳去/下去 -> 6
Lesson 22
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023344355/page/91/mode/1up
Lesson 24
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023344355/page/97/mode/1up
▲ 《新梁山伯祝英台》, 1951, Director: 陳皮; Scriptwriter: 謝虹; Stars: 任劍輝, 黄超武, et. al
▲ 胡棟榮: 《粤曲知識漫談·粤曲唱腔藝術的總概况——唱腔運用總則》, 澳門: 澳門嶺南音樂曲藝會 & 澳門: 澳門嶺南文化戲曲出版社, 2004.5, ISBN 99937-639-2-0, p44
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_Chinese_and_English_vocabulary,_in_the_Tie-chiu_dialect.djvu/249
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/韻畧易通/二江陽
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=13828&page=26
https://www.kangxizidian.com/kangxi/0987.gif
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 263
▲ 俄羅斯科學院東方研究所聖彼得堡分所, 中國社會科學院民族研究所, 上海古籍出版社 (編). 俄羅斯科學院東方研究所聖彼得堡分所藏黑水城文獻 4 漢文部分 TK158-TK300. 上海古籍出版社, 1997: p. 43.
▲ 欽定全唐文（清嘉慶刊本）卷841 folio 16b
古今韻會舉要 元刊本
(corrupted form of ⿰舟卭)
古今韻會舉要 應永五年日本重刊本
▲ 秦婦吟（唐天復鈔本，Pelliot chinois 3381）
▲ 秦婦吟（後周顯德馬富德抄本，Pelliot chinois 3780）
⿰⿱𠂤止頁 could be a variant of 頤, since in the text 却坐支⿰⿱𠂤止頁仰天哭, ⿰⿱𠂤止頁 must refer to certain body part, where 頤 (cheek) fits well here. Note that U+2DB7B 𭭻 (SAT-00097) is also a variant of 頤.
李⿰⿱𠂤止頁 mentioned in the original evidence might be 李頤（482—520）, whose epitaph is available on this website.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷16 folio 6
▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷16 folio 12
▲ 新編古今事文類聚（明經廠刊本）續集卷22 folio 21a
▲ 賦苑（明萬曆刊本）卷5上 folio 49a
▲ 唐類函（明萬曆刊本）卷100 folio 4b
▲ 佩文韻府（清康熙刊本）卷26下 folio 177a
▲ 駢字類編（清雍正刊本）卷145 folio 53a
Per new evidences, I think the shape ⿱唯角 is stable enough for encoding purpose.
▲ 梅鼎祚：《陳文紀》，四庫全書本，卷八
▲ 愛新覺羅·玄燁：《御定淵鑑類函》，四庫全書本，卷九十三
▲ 《漢魏六朝百三家集》，光緒信述堂重刻本，卷二
▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷49 folio 14b L8
▲ 藝文類聚（文淵閣抄本）卷49 folio 17a
藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）is missing juan 49-53, so I don't have earlier evidences.
明萬曆十五年（1587）王元貞刻明補修本
南宋紹興時嚴州刻本
Siku Quanshu 四庫全書 revised it to 悍.
▲ 四分律（趙城金藏本）卷12
▲ 張英 等：《古香齋淵鑑類函》，清刻本，卷一百九十九
The above one is the additional evidence.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本） 卷59 folio 14.
In this version, the dot in 夕 also crosses 丿in 夢 (see folio 13b above). Therefore the right-bottom component should be 夕. I don't think we should change the glyph.
Attached PDF file
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社, 1999） pp. 1076 clearly gives ⿰氵⿱宀夕.
We think ⿰氵⿱宀夕 is similar to 波 because 藝文類聚（王元貞刊本）gives 波:
▲ 藝文類聚（王元貞萬曆刊本）卷59 folio 29a
Is this not a mistranscription from the left side of 艷 + the right side of 體?
▲ 中華再造善本//藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷78 folio 7 (blue square, also ctext with worse image quality)
For every 藝文類聚 characters submitted by UK, I have checked against the 宋紹興刊本, the earliest known version publicly available today, so I can provide more evidences per request.
▲ 管城碩記（清志寧堂刊本）卷21 folio 11b
The new evidence may contain other unencoded characters than .
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷82 folio 11 (characters surrounded by cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, I think the bottom left component is clearly 木 and the middle part 叔 is reasonably clear.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷89 folio 4 (characters surrounded by the cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, the first character is clearly ⿱毀木, the second character might look like ⿱⿰圼殳木 at the first glance but it should have been ⿱毀木 based on the context: the space is so limited that the component 臼 devolve into 日.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷91 folio 7a // 中華再造善本 (in cyan rectangle)
▲ 淵鑑類函（清康熙刊本）卷426 folio 14a
New evidences give the normalized form.
康熙字典 清武英殿刊本
This character, attested in 康熙字典, may be a corrupted form from ⿰扌變. (See also {{WS2024-01690}}.)
▲ 中華再造善本 // 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷97 folio 4b (look for green rectangle)
▲ 全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文（清刊本）全晉文卷100 folio 8b
⿰口塋 might be a variant of 𡃅, which is also sourced from 寒蟬賦 according to GHZ. ⿰口營 might be a phonetic variant of 𡃅.
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
▲ 白氏六帖事類集（北宋刊本）卷6 folio 28b
▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（南宋刊本）卷19 folio 3b
https://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/200021269
《聖主得賢臣頌》：「庸人之御駑馬亦傷吻弊策而不進於行……及至駕齧𦡀𩥵乗旦王良執靶韓哀附輿縦騁馳騖忽如影靡過都越國蹶如歴塊追奔電逐遺風周流八極萬里一息何其𨖚哉人馬相得也」
▲ 白孔六帖（文淵閣抄本）卷32 folio 21b
▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（明抄本）卷32 folio 18a
▲ 唐宋白孔六帖（南宋刊本）卷32 folio 17b
We can go through some Song Dynasty evidences sourced from other books:
▲ 白氏六帖事類集（北宋刊本）卷9 folio 16b gives 靶
▲ 文選〔李善註〕（宋淳熙八年尤袤刊本）卷47 folio 2b gives 靶
▲ 漢書（南宋福州刊元遞修本）列傳34下 (27) folio 10b gives 靶
唐宋白孔六帖, first published in the end of Southern Song dynasty, is a compilation of 白氏六帖 and 孔氏六帖. From these evidences we can assume that the shift from 靶 to ⿰革舟 happens during the editing process of 唐宋白孔六帖. I agree that ⿰革舟 may be a misprint of 靶, or the editor of 唐宋白孔六帖 changed the glyph sourced from a book unavailable today. Given that ⿰革舟 persists across quite a few 唐宋白孔六帖 versions, I suggest encoding it as-is.
▲ 《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（二）（中華書局，2008 ISBN 9787101060355）》pp 3237
關雲龍 suggests that ⿱艹狵 might be a variant of 𦯏.
字彙補 清康熙五年彙賢齋刻本
▲ 《明朝的宗室困局与北疆危机——以嘉靖朝朱充灼叛乱为例》[1] pp102
▲ 饒宗頤. [民國]潮州志叢談志. 事部 folio 9a (also presents his younger brother, 充⿰火𦖠)
References:
[1]顾锦春.明朝的宗室困局与北疆危机——以嘉靖朝朱充灼叛乱为例[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,48(02):99-105+170.DOI:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5579.2016.02.012.
▲ 长江水产研究所: 《淡水养鱼》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1975.10, 统一书号: 16144·1714, p. 159
▲ 黄勤忠: 《烹饪原料知识（上）（第四版）》, 北京: 中国商业出版社, 2000.5, ISBN 7-5044-1406-9, p. 144
▲ 鹿文远: 《钓鱼技巧》, 西安: 陕西科学技术出版社, 1987.5, ISBN 7-5369-0278-6/Z·33, p. 24
▲ 中国宗教历史文献集成. 102, 民间宝卷 / 周燮藩主编; 濮文起分卷主编. 合肥: 黄山书社, 2005. p. 民 2-288.
▲ 马本立: 《湘西文化大辞典》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2000.7, ISBN 7-80520-903-0/G·137, p. 538
In the above picture, ⿰扌一, ⿰扌二, ⿰扌十, ⿰贝Ｂ, ⿸尸Ａ have not been encoded.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 79
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 121
There are three unencoded characters in this table, but ⿰出叕 (#6784) and ⿰耳休 (#6785) have not been submitted by any sources. BTW ⿰出叕 is also included in G4/G5. I suggest TCA do the horizontal extension for this character (⿰勿愛) and submit ⿰出叕 and ⿰耳休 as soon as possible if the table is important for the local people in Taiwan Province, and China NB could do the horizontal extension for ⿰出叕 later or submit ⿰出叕 with TCA at the same time.
外省人返鄉探親促進會成員於國立國父紀念館廣場，手持標語公開表達訴求
1987年5月10日
from Wikipedia https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%E7%B4%80%E5%BF%B5%E6%AF%8D%E8%A6%AA%E7%AF%80%E8%A1%97%E9%A0%AD%E5%AE%A3%E5%82%B3%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95.jpg
https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/download/WSL_TPS_Huibian.htm
http://ccamc.org/blog/?p=365
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷10 folio 17a, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏本）vol 3 65b 雜部. (See also 四部叢刊 version)
The character is noted as 周易卦名. If so ⿱三⿰三三 would be a variant of ䷋ (否卦). If it is 坤卦, the shape should be ䷁.
▲ Chinese phonetic vocabulary (初學粵音切要). Hong Kong: London Missionary Society’s Press 香港英華書院活板. 1855. folio 8
https://twitter.com/piramiide/status/1627123448416989185
〓𠾵時 adjust
https://books.google.com/books?id=eSBDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA150
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷11 folio 5a：「五佳切，水名，又鳥名」
It seems that editors of 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 misinterprets 佳 as 隹 and then derived 音維 from 五隹切. After all, 猚 is not included in 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 as we can see in the evidence 1.
The second evidence is good to encode.
▲ 朱文公校昌黎先生文集（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏元刊本）卷8 folio 4
「膏理易滋榮〈理或作～〉」here ～ is similar to 理.
▲ 宋教仁集
This evidence is copied from WS2021-01658 easily, which is provided by Tao Yang.
▲ 甘水仙源錄（正統道藏·洞神部·記傳類）卷2 folio 11b
▲ 大明正德重刊改併五音集韻（明正德金台衍法寺釋覺恒刊本）卷15 folio 42a, 喻母乏韻, note that the top left part of 木 component is corrupted.
▲ 大明萬曆己丑重刊改併五音集韻（萬曆甲午晉安芝山開元寺刊本）卷15 folio 42a
I can't find this character in 成化庚寅重刊五音篇韻.
《寧波方言詞典》(江蘇教育出版社, 1997年), p. 218
▲ 周志锋, 郑晓芳: 《宁波、舟山方言洗涤义“丈”本字为“净”说》 (The Original Character of Zhang is Jing in Ningbo and Zhoushan Dialects), 宁波大学学报（人文科学版） [JOURNAL OF NINGBO UNIVERSITY (LIBERAL ARTS EDITION)], 2021.9, p. 22
In this paper, the authors show the possible original form of this character may be 滰, 濯, 潒, 漒, 浆 and their comment is 净.
▲ 籌辦夷務始末（故宫博物院）卷41 folio 11b
The new evidence provides 渶⿰氵那河. In the original evidences, 「岫巖之精，瀛⿰氵那之靈」refers to 多隆阿's ancestral home. Here both瀛⿰氵那 and 渶⿰氵那 refer to the same river, which is called 英那河 today, sourced from 遼寧省岫巖滿族自治縣龍潭鎮.
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng,_Volume_067_(1700-1725).djvu/61
▲ 考古圖（元大德刊本）卷3 folio 17b
▲ 欽定日下舊聞考（清乾隆刊本）卷2 folio 2b
Suggest encode it as-is now that we have two new evidences.
Error of 𥑈?
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金刊元修補本）臺北故宮藏本. 卷12 folio 37b: 石部/5畫. 「他丁切，平，庁也」, quotes 陰祐餘文.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷12 folio 58b:「他丁切，玉～也」. Here the text 玉～也 seems to be error of 「平，庁也」.
Also Kangxi Dictionary: 「【午集下】【石字部】 【集韻】湯丁切，音㕔。𥓓材也。 又【篇海】玉𥑈。」
In the first evidence, the meaning of ⿰石片 seems to be copied from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 or later revisions, as it is well known that 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 is influenced by 四聲篇海/五音集韻. If the character were indeed ⿰石片, 片 is presumably the phonetic component, and it should not be pronounced as 亭.
▲ [光緒]嶧縣志（清光緒刊本）卷16 folio 6a
The video producer/speaker provided more information and explanation, and he used the UK-submitted evidence in IRG ORT. Unfortunately, this character won’t be included in Unicode/UCS/GB 18030 in the next year, but will be included in the near future.
▲ 河源縣志（清康熙刊本）卷7 folio 31a. I guess it could be a variant of some common character.
▲ 穀城山館文集（明嘉慶萬曆間刊本）卷25 folio 41 from《明誥贈通議大夫都察院右副都御史前⿸厂盩厔知縣介菴王公神道碑銘》
Though it is a variant of ⿰土𭻾, which is given in 隆慶二年登科錄 folio 58, it must not be 璇 based on the radicals of his brothers' names. We can keep ⿰土旋 per the new evidence.
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 28-46
It seems that there is sufficient evidence to encode ⿰彳孟, but unfortunately it was not included in China's submission for WS2024.
▲ 古刻叢鈔（蘭陵孫星衍清嘉慶16年刊本）folio 11a
▲ 王文章: 《第二批国家级非物质文化遗产名录图典（全四册）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2015.12., ISBN 978-7-5039-5447-4, p. 472
As this new evidence and Evidence 2 submitted by UK show, 本地⿰亻⿱山西 is the original name of 枣梆, and this Chinese local opera has been registered in 第二批（中国）国家级非物质文化遗产名录, which the register number is Ⅳ-120.
▲ 李群: 《传统戏剧》(Traditional Theatre)（《齐鲁非物质文化遗产丛书》）, 济南: 山东友谊出版社, 2008.8, ISBN 978-7-80737-414-5, p. 97
▲ 张玉柱: 《齐鲁民间艺术通览》, 济南: 山东友谊出版社, 1998.6, ISBN 7-80551-821-1/Z·285, pp. 587-588
▲ 寒声: 《寒声文集 第二卷 下 〈中国梆子声腔源流考论〉》, 太原: 三晋出版社, 2010.9, ISBN 978-7-5457-0282-8, pp. 92-93,101
Note: Almost all the names of the Chinese local traditional operas only related to Bangzi (梆子声腔) are named after the geographical name, such as 上党梆子, 河北梆子, 河南梆子 (豫剧) and so on, but the Zaobang Opera is not. There is one city named 枣庄 in 山东省. When we are talking about Zaobang Opera is popular in Shandong, some people would misread this is one kind of local opera in 枣庄, that is wrong.
▲ 路应昆: 《戏曲音乐入门》 (《iCourse·教材 国家视频公开课配套教材》), 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2018.9, ISBN 978-7-04-048778-7, p. 99
▲ 李砚: 《菏泽地方戏曲音乐地理研究》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2016.5, ISBN 978-7-5039-6107-6, p. 82
▲ 石田先生集（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 3a (a little bit corrupted)
▲ 元詩選（清康熙長洲顧氏秀野草堂刊本）二集·己集·檜亭稾 folio 4b
▲ 浙江省民政厅: 《浙江省标准地名志 第一卷》, 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2021.9, ISBN 978-7-5326-5767-4, pp. 123-124
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷40 folio 17
▲ 汲冢周書（嘉兴路儒学元至正十四年刊本） 卷5 folio 5
▲ 開蒙要訓（後唐天成四年(929)抄本，Pelliot chinois 2578）
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類字書之屬（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）pp. 4088
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）, 車部/11畫, 初革切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
In evidence 2, 張湧泉 and 張新朋 argue that ⿰車責 in 開蒙要訓 should have been 轒. However 轒 (扶云) does not rhyme with 䩹 (五革) and 嚇 (呼訝) afterwards, while ⿰車責 (初革) rhymes well with others.
▲ 碑傳集（清光緒十九年（1893）江蘇書局刻本）卷末下 folio 10b
Text is from 《太子少保兩廣總督世襲一等輕車都尉贈太子太師兵部尚書敏肅盧公坤神道碑序》 by 阮元.
先天斗母奏告玄科 : 先天斗母奏告玄科
In this text the left side has been simplified to U+20ADA 𠫚, and so has the left side of UK-20686 below it.
Note that the typseset edition normalizes the right side from 𫩧 shown in the woodblock edition to 含.
In this text the left side has been simplified to U+20ADA 𠫚, and so has the left side of UK-20685 above it.
In the following photocopy version the annotation of ⿰口⿻丅口 is legible, which suggests that the pronunciation is the same as 西:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGGZBCK525_%E5%BE%A1%E6%B3%A8%E9%81%93%E5%BE%B7%E7%B6%93_%E5%8F%83%E5%90%8C%E5%A5%91%E9%87%91%E9%9A%84%E5%A4%A7%E7%BE%A9_%E6%B7%B8%E5%BE%AE%E9%BB%83%E7%B1%99%E5%A4%A7%E9%BD%8A%E7%A7%91%E5%84%80_%E6%A2%B5%E9%9F%B3%E6%96%97%E7%A7%91.pdf&page=347
On the same page of the CUHK version the pronunciation of ⿰口圖, ⿰口粹 can be easily seen:
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿺鬼咢 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿺鬼咢 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the meanings and rationale of ⿺鬼咢 is. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿺鬼索 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿺鬼索 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the meanings and rationale of ⿺鬼索. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷43 folio 7
The new evidence gives exactly the ⿰口屠 form.
符咒妙术秘法，台北：武陵出版有限公司，2004年
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷82 folio 1
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷214 folio 1
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷214 folio 9
The new evidences give ⿰火⿱天角, potentially unifiable with ⿰火⿱夭角. The Erudition database transcribes them as 燆, but there is no confirmative evidence to support that ⿰火⿱夭角 is a variant of 燆.
Talismans are actually drawings without any semantics. So it is impossible that they are used in running texts. The texts around them can only be used to explain the usage, drawing methods, etc. of the talisman. It is impossible that the texts have direct semantic connections with the talisman.
This is roughtly what the talisman should be like when it is assembled. The 亞伐 and ⿱雨我 should be written in red color so normal people won't be able to see them after the Daoist finish.
There is no need to encode ⿱雨我 at all since it is just a part of a drawing.
More illustration:
More illustration:
道教諱秘字專用造字集 Big5 Version
There are only seven other related characters (⿱雨⿺鬼☰, ⿱雨⿺鬼☴, ⿱雨⿺鬼☶, ⿱雨⿺鬼☵, ⿱雨⿺鬼☲, ⿱雨⿺鬼☳, ⿱雨⿺鬼☱) that require encoding, and these may submitted for WS2024 or a later working set.
《道法會元》（明正統道藏本）卷83 folio 13a:
八卦 with 鬼
The amount of this kind of characters is only 8*number when talking only the 8 Diagrams(八卦). But the amount will be big if all the 64 Diagrams and the 8 Diagrams(八卦) are considered. The amount will become 72*number(雨、雨+鬼、鬼、雨+食、雨+口……)
More illustration:
{{WS2024-04087}}
More illustration:
More illustration:
The evidence UK provided is from a book named "梵音斗科". ⿱記耳 is only found in this book, which is written and published by Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) in the Qing Dynasty.
Considering that:
• ⿱記耳 is seen only in a song for a special ceremony to communicate with a God. Meanwhile, the ceremony was recorded only in the book "梵音斗科". The book has not been reorganized and published again since its initial publication, and the ideographs have not been quoted by anyone.
• Mr. Lou Jinyuan(娄近垣) should be famous at least among the Daoists in the Qing Dynasty. But we don't know if he is still well-known nowadays. The submitter didn't provide any related illustrations.
• The submitter didn't explain the rationale of ⿱記耳. For self-published books, ideographs used in them can be created very freely.
So:
After analysis, we can find that there are one or two factors that argue for encoding, but two or three factors that argue against encoding. Since it is not required for use in government databases, I think it is reasonable to ask for further investigation.
▲ 林則徐集·公牘·奏稿九·英人偷襲師船已予反擊並葡人出爲轉圜摺 p. 684 - p. 685
⿰口丹𠺮哪 is a transliterated form of the name of a British warship.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨總 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨總 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨總 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨跛 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨跛 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨跛 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨鳥 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨鳥 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to our database, ⿱雨鳥 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨⿺鬼雲 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided two evidences, ⿳雨唋土 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿳雨唋土 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿳雨唋土 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿳雨唋土 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided three evidences, ⿱雨㖿 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨㖿 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨㖿 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨㖿 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨梵 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨梵 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨梵 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨梵 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨𭋳 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨𭋳 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨𭋳 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨𭋳 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨仙 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨仙 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨仙 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨仙 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨玃 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨玃 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨玃 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨玃 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨𡂪 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨𡂪 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
According to page 17 of the same book(廣成儀制・鐵鏆施食集), ⿱雨𡂪 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨𡂪 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨叹 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨叹 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨叹 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨叹 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidence, ⿱雨鏡 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨鏡 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨鏡 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨鏡 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
According to the provided evidences, ⿱雨啊 is a non-ideograph sign created for talismans drawn by a special eye. It can only be used as parts of talismans. Thus, ⿱雨啊 should not be encoded as a CJKUI.
Also according to the provided evidence, ⿱雨啊 is used with following signs:
According to our database, ⿱雨啊 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼維 is not illustrated.
⿱雨⿺鬼維 is actually just a sign used in a special kind of drawings(i.e. the assembled talisman). Without pronounciation or semantics, ⿱雨⿺鬼維 cannot be considered as ideographs.
Used as 太乙救苦天尊讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼維 can be kept in the M-set.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼冏 is not illustrated.
Used as 朱陵度命天尊讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼冏 can be kept in the M-set.
The shape of the character should be further investigated.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨𩲕 is not illustrated.
It should be noted that with the exact same context, the ⿱雨𮫣 becomes ⿱雨𩲕 in another version of the talisman.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼水 is not illustrated.
In the evidence I uploaded, it is also teaching how to draw the same talisman. In the context of 青玄祭煉鐵罐施食全集, 霐⿱雨澄𬯿⿱雨𣷠 are clearly illustrated as 三清諱, while the non-ideograph ⿱雨⿺鬼永 is not illustrated.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
In the same column, the following drawing is listed with the talisman.
If ⿱雨⿺鬼開 can be encoded, then logically, of course the ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 can also be encoded. Every component in ⿴〇⿲⿱⿳承功脱化光⿱⿳萬類孤魂 are regular components for Han ideographs.
Furthermore, to create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 開攝化 and 开摄化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+鬼 is added to 開攝化, 開攝化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿺鬼開, ⿱雨⿺鬼攝, ⿱雨⿺鬼化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿺鬼化 can be kept in the M-set.
▲ 刊謬補缺切韻（唐鈔本）Pelliot chinios 2011 folio 4r
▲ 敦煌經部文獻合集（中華書局，2008，ISBN 9787101060355）·小學類韻書之屬（二）·刊謬補缺切韻 pp. 2903
In the new evidences, ⿱雨亘 is a variant of 𩃘.
The talisman and the following obviously non-ideograph sign should both be drawn on a fan.
Examples of talismans drawn on a fans:
乾坤一扇，道解千愁！福德正神，祛瘟去晦，护身转运！
法扇。学术不精，如有冒犯，请多谅解！
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
The "ideograph" should be excluded from extension J draft unless text use cases can be found.
More information at:
The black boots can be seen in the whole page. It will be weird to encode signs used in these pair of boots.
Even the incantations are printed freely with 口 or without 口
According to 《道教法术》(刘仲宇2002, page164): “目运，亦称目书。目运，即以眼光闪动于空中，依符形流动书绘。”
It roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
The 天目讳 are used only when you use 天眼 to draw talismans in the air in a ceremony of communicating with Gods. They are used only as parts of talismans.
In Evidence 1, ⿱雨⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is used in a talisman that should be written with 天眼.
In the additional evidence, ⿱雨⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is clearly used in a pair of boots in a talisman.
There is no need to encode some sign created for drawn with eye or drawn in the black boots of talismans.
According to 《道教法术》(刘仲宇2002, page164): “目运，亦称目书。目运，即以眼光闪动于空中，依符形流动书绘。”
It roughly means that flash your 天眼's gaze in the air, flow and draw according to the shape of the symbols.
The 天目讳 are used only when you use 天眼 to draw talismans in the air in a ceremony of communicating with Gods. They are used only as parts of talismans.
In Evidence 1, ⿱雨訛 is used in a talisman that should be written with 天眼.
There is no need to encode some sign created for drawn with a special eye.
Used as 讳.
To create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 知化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+食 is added to 知化, 知化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿰食知, ⿱雨⿰食化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
To create new Daoist talismans, every ideograph, every word and every sentence in Chinese can be used as base ideographs. By adding different components to these ideographs, countless new signs and new talismans can be created.
Daoist talismans are used to fullfill prople's ideas. Because prople's ideas are varied, the users also need the talismans to be created as they want.
In this case, encoding every element that seems to be an ideograph in talisman will be ridiculous and unhelpful to the users. We have encoded 知化, and that's enough.We don't have to encode every sign created based on this word. When 雨+食 is added to 知化, 知化 becomes signs(i.e. ⿱雨⿰食知, ⿱雨⿰食化) can be only used in talismantic drawings.
https://www.douyin.com/zhuanti/7249837737812117562
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?id=00265
http://www.ctcwri.idv.tw/CTCW-CMTS/CMT02%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%83%A8/CMT0202%E7%A5%9E%E7%AC%A6%E9%A1%9E/CMT0202ALL/CH020202%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6/CH020202-1%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%8A.htm
More information:
https://www.douyin.com/zhuanti/7249837737812117562
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?id=00265
A more common form
http://www.ctcwri.idv.tw/CTCW-CMTS/CMT02%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%83%A8/CMT0202%E7%A5%9E%E7%AC%A6%E9%A1%9E/CMT0202ALL/CH020202%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6/CH020202-1%E5%A4%AA%E4%B8%8A%E6%B4%9E%E7%8E%84%E9%9D%88%E5%AF%B6%E7%B4%A0%E9%9D%88%E7%9C%9F%E7%AC%A6%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%8A.htm
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨叹 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Used as 东方青灵始老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨哈 can be kept in the M-set.
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨⿰口明 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Used as 南方赤帝丹灵真老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨⿰口明 can be kept in the M-set.
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨啼 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Used as 北方黑帝五灵玄老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨啼 can be kept in the M-set.
It is systematically created by adding 雨+口 to base idegraphs 合明天帝日.
According to our database, ⿱雨𠯐 can be used as a God's name. However, we found only one related case. Because the secret names of Daoist Gods can be created freely, we consider it a nonce ideograph which is still not qualified for encoding.
If the submitter can provide more text use cases, then it is OK to encode it.
Used as 中央黄帝玄灵黄老君讳. The original talisman evidence should be rejected. But this new evidence can be accepted so ⿱雨𠯐 can be kept in the M-set.
正统道藏·法海遗珠·卷六
正统道藏·道法会元
Pronunciation: k ̕a˥ (雷州)
Meaning: 捕魚簍子
《建甌方言詞典》, (江蘇教育出版社, 1998), p. 155
《現代漢語方言大詞典》, (江蘇教育出版社, 2002), p. 370
《福州方言詞典》（江蘇教育出版社, 1998） p. 133
https://taiwanlanguage.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/查某•諸母（tsa-bɔˋ）──女人/), citing 《綜合閩南語、台灣語基本字典初稿》
https://books.google.com/books?id=FUKhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA25
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（中華再造善本影印金刻本）卷19 folio 10a, quotes 會玉川篇.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇.故善012372-012376. 卷4 folio 5a
The evidences above, as well as what Eiso has provided in comment #2154, suggests that ⿰前刂 is a variant of 剪. Although the original evidence is likely misprint of 蒯, the new evidences are good to be encoded. I suggest moving it back to the M set.
▲ 題韻直音篇（明成化刊本）卷5 folio 16b
In the new evidence, the author 章黼 clearly noted that ⿰前刂 is a variant of 剪.
▲ 甬言稽詁（天一閣藏稿本）卷3
Hence 應鐘 stated the rationale of this character:「⿸疒秀者，即瘜之轉音。瘜从息聲，古音爲之，類之幽聲近，長言轉平，故音如秀」
▲ 石泰康, 深圳市宝安区档案局（馆）, 深圳市宝安区史志办公室: 《宝安往事——追溯宝安历史文化遗存》, 北京: 中国文联出版社, 2007.4, ISBN 978-7-5059-5512-7, p. 46
▲ 吴淑娴: 《中国果树志·荔枝卷》, 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1998.2, ISBN 7-5038-1603-1, p. 162
▲ 广东省农业科学院: 《广东荔枝志》, 广州: 广东省科学技术出版社, 1978.2, p. 68
▲ 广东省惠阳地区地名委员会: 《广东省惠阳地区地名志》, 广州: 广东省地图出版社, 1988.10, ISBN 7-80522-049-2/K·49, p. 181
▲ 缪德良: 《缪氏源流志（第二卷）》, 梅州: 广东省五华县文联, 2004.9, pp. 5-6
▲ 陈速影: 《革命老区上莞——东县革命传统教育基地（2）》, 河源: 中共东源县委党支部史研究室, 2003.9, p. 113
▲ 广东省深圳市宝安区沙井⿱𰃮土岗社区停车场
The corresponding simplified Chinese version of Hubert Wu’s album had not been published, so it is not easy to know how to handle this character in the lyric book. It is better to ask QQ music to support this character based on the future version of GB 18030 after encoding it.
▲ 龙湾区档案馆：《永强方言实用词语》，北京：新华出版社，2018年5月
As the new evidence shows, ⿱从土 and ⿱从工 both mean the same character, and they should be unifiable. So, the current UK glyph could be kept.
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:SSID-14623716_正音咀華.pdf/319
Cantonese, today written as 屙.
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:SSID-14623716_正音咀華.pdf/311
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
In this article the author argues that ～ is variant of 螮.
▲ 《東方雜誌》, 第4卷, 第十一期, 1907.12, p. 163
第三十八課 煎 -> 第二部分 -> 第二
煎共{火窄}有乜唔同呢
▲ 古今图书局: 《古今笔记精华录》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, ISBN 7-80520-714-3/I·396, p. 301
▲ 胡朴安: 《中华全国风俗志 上编》, 石家庄: 河北人民出版社, 1988.2, ISBN 7-202-00107-X/K·23, p. 251
▲ Pelliot Chinois 4525(1) 20
▲ Gulik, R.H.Van, _Erotic colour prints of the ming period_, with an essay on Chinese sex life from the Han to the Ch'ing Dynasty, B.C. 206 - A.D. 1644 (privately published at Tokyo). 1951 pp. 91
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金崇慶刊本）卷12 folio 3a, 尸部, quotes 會玉川篇.
kFanqie 布典切
This shows that ⿰土囦 is not an error for U+315AE 𱖮 (⿰土困)
▲ [萬曆]廣東通志（明萬曆刊本）卷51 folio 32b
possibly a variant of 渊（𣴺, U+23D3A） or 氹.
▲ 秋澗先生大全集（四部叢刊影印明弘治刊本）卷53 folio 3b
▲ 《新撰字鏡》，天治本，卷第七
It is not easy to confirm if 林&⿱艹暘; mentioned in 《廣東通志》 and 林𦿄 mentioned in 《八閩通志》 are the same person. There is other source related to this character, so it is better to keep it.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷224 folio 4a
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=118262&page=109#%E9%BC%A0
《韶州府志》
▲ 廣東通志（清道光刊本）卷99葉21
The author of 廣東通志 argues that ⿸鹿侖 is a variant of 麟, which makes sense to me since 粦/侖 share the same pronunciation (leon4) in Cantonese.
▲ 天下郡國利病書（四部叢刊崑山圖書館藏稿本）冊47葉53
⿰𣄼𣄼 is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F22B0.
In Taiwan, when switching from calligraphic glyphs to the printed form, [⿰王兾] was changed to ⿰王冀. Until today.
For supporting documentation, please see IRGN2606 TCAFeedback.
臺灣史料集成編輯委員會編輯，《諸羅縣志》(臺灣史料集成．清代臺灣方志彙刊第3冊)，2005年。
▲ 陳慶元, 蕭慶偉, 朱仕玠, 林春虹: 《臺灣古籍叢編 第四輯 小琉球漫志 海東札記 楊廷理詩文選集 東槎紀略》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 2017.3, ISBN 978-7-5334-7671-7, p. 81
▲ 甯洋縣志（清光緒刊本）卷2 folio 10
「驢～。改名鳳村」
▲ FSY1971: Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 廣州音字彙. Hong Kong: 世界書局, 1971. p. 35
▲ YPC1971: Thomas Yu Ping-Chiu 余秉昭, 同音字彙. Hong Kong: 光華圖書出版公司, 1971. p. 104
▲ Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 部身字典. Hong Kong: 右文書局, 1967. p. 113
The submitted evidence and the new evidence share the same meaning.
▲ 廣東新語（清康熙刊本）卷24 folio 9a
https://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Yue_yin_zhi_nan_shang.pdf/203
▲ 福安縣志（清光緒刊本）卷6 folio 10 gives ⿰土粵, unifiable to ⿰土粤.
▲ 福建通志（清乾隆刊本）卷25葉30
Attached PDF file
▲ 八閩通志卷31葉31 gives 𨕤.
I think ⿺辶⿱艹隶 is a variant of 𨕤 and thus it is similar to 𰻍, which is a variant of 𨕤 according to MOE dictionary.
▲ 朱文肅公集（續修四庫全書影印清鈔本）《長子孟接墓誌銘》
朱⿰糹章 is 朱國楨's eldest son.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷230 folio 19a
▲ 《福建通志》（清乾隆二年刊本）卷40 folio 66b
⿹𢦏𡉀 might be a variant of 臷.
▲ 徐州市史志办公室, 江苏师范大学汉文化研究院; 赵明奇: 《点校本徐州古方志丛书 第六册》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, ISBN 978-7-5039-7615-5, 2024.7, p. 3014
興化府志（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 36：⿰片頁，疋被切
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷6 folio 13a, 疋被切, 片部, quotes 川篇.
▲ [弘治]八閩通志（明弘治四年刻本）卷47 folio 28b
▲ [正德]福州府志（明正德刻本）卷22 folio 39b (⿱鼔心)
▲ 上清外國放品青童內文（正統道藏·正一部·4497冊）卷下 folio 7
▲ 福建通志（清同治刊本）卷150 folio 34.
The author of 同治福建通志 noted that 坔 was ⿱六土 in 乾隆志 and 良坔 can be found in 宋史.
We can confirm that 良坔 is in 宋史:
▲ 宋史（明成化刊本）卷227 folio 27
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives 𠣊. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
說文: 「𠣊，助也，从力非，慮聲，良倨切」
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives ⿰⿱亠人𠂢. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
I guess ⿰方⿱𮕦一 is a variant of 㼋. 廣韻：「㼋，乾菜」
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives 𩆚. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
But 𩆚 is pronounced as 零, quite different from 諭. I guess in that case 諭 is a misprint of 論.
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 邹忠庭, 谭宁志, 支云峰, 黄志明, 黄南, 梁晓敏: 《遂溪县海洋渔业渔具渔法调查报告》//《广东省海洋渔业渔具渔法调查报告汇编 第4册》, 广州: 广东省水产局海洋渔具调查组, 1985.1, p. 73
In current 广东省湛江市遂溪县, there are Chinese Yue- and Chinese Min nan-dialects. 广东省广州市, 佛山市, 惠州市 often use 门𲍏. The Chinese Yue-dialects in 广东省湛江市赤坎区 and 广东省湛江市霞山区 often use 门𲍏, even 门鳝. I add two language tags for safety. 门～ means conger eels.
Cantonese ce2 "to leave", also written as 扯. (邪 is read as ce4.)
「Ta-po͘-gín-á ⿰口礁⿰口埔囝仔」
Chiang Ker Chiu 蔣克秋,《廈語易解》（Hokkien Vernacular Lessons for Beginners with a Vocabulary (Word-for-word Method). Singapore: The Chin Fen Book Store 新嘉坡勤奮書局, 1st ed. 1940, 2nd. ed. 1952） [https://x.com/egasmb/status/1825614861105246652]
https://x.com/egasmb/status/1825119374652412151
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_beginner's_first_book_in_the_Chinese_language.pdf&page=108
孖沙喝丁㕭 (口彎)治
massa, what thing you wantchee
㕭 (口彎)治米記老士都低
you wantchee makee roastee today
濕 㕭煲士 （口彎）治哥歐
supposo you wantchee go out
-
as well as ⿰口灣:
米(口灣)治思希
my wantchee see he
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 15
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 17
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 19
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 134
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p.142
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 134
https://books.google.com/books?id=7yJBAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA242
https://archive.org/details/en00glishcantonesechalrich/page/7/mode/1up
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877, p. 223
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910, p. 324
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 289
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 172
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313. p. 8
▲ A Chinese Chrestomathy in the Cantonese Dialect (1941) P.43
▲ The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary (1947) P.427
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 477
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 489
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 549
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 764
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 504
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 559
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 777
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 563
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 782
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 550
According to this evidence, the Cantonese reading is bui6.
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 562
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 780
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 62
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 641
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 763
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 36
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 313
▲ Imprensa Oficial de Macau (澳門政府印刷署): Dicionário Chinês-Português (《中葡字典》), Macau: Imprensa Oficial de Macau, 1962, p. 284
▲ Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Reprinted by Catholic Truth Society Hong Kong, 1978. p. 182
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. London : Trübner and Co. ; Hong Kong : Lane, Crawford & Co. 1877. p. 461
▲ A Chinese dictionary in the Cantonese dialect. Rev. and enl. Hongkong : Kelly & Walsh 1910. p. 650
▲ 籌辦夷務始末（故宮博物院影印清內府抄本）道光朝卷72 folio 5a
⿰口逼喱𭆺 is likely transliterated from "Blenheim", i.e. the British warship HMS Blenheim.
▲ CPV1855: Chinese phonetic vocabulary (初學粵音切要). Hong Kong: London Missionary Society’s Press 香港英華書院活板. 1855. folio 24
▲ FSY1967: Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 部身字典. Hong Kong: 右文書局, 1967. p. 95
▲ 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. 273
▲ 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. 270
▲ 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
▲ 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. 275
▲ 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. 276
▲ 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. 275
▲ 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. 279
https://www.ccli.gov.hk/doc/wgcliac2018-07.pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-13jh008528-61982_醫學辭彙.pdf?page=128
▲ 歷代志下9:25 （comparison between 台語漢字本聖經 and 現代台語漢字2021版經文）
There is also one 羊稠 occurrence in 《台語漢字本聖經》（1996）:
「以薩迦是勇的驢，倒佇羊稠的中間。」
▲ 創世記49:14（台語漢字本聖經）
稠 (stable) is also used in place name, such as 牛稠港 in Keelung.
▲ 台灣聖經公會聖經網站·約翰福音3 版本對照
Examples of 呣 used as m̄:
天韻合唱團: 呣免驚耶穌在此 M̄-bián Kiaⁿ Ia-so͘ Tī Chia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uE6NsGo_7Q)
華視新聞 CH52: 台灣諺語 - 項羽空有千斤力 呣值劉邦四兩命 Hāng Ú khong iú chhian kin la̍t, m̄-ta̍t Lâu Pang sì niú miā (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYT0fXDqr_I)
普通话闽南方言词典, p. 510 (福建人民出版社, 1982) (m̂ in 闽南话拼音方案 = m̄ in Pe̍h-ōe-jī):
▲ PCT 2009 聖詩合唱 578 人生親像山野草花
I don't have access to the published scoresheet. I will be very appreciated if you can check the published evidences. Thank you.
▲ 啟示錄4:7（現代台語漢字2021版）
I don't have access to the published version. I will be very appreciated if you can check the published evidences. Thank you.
TV series ウルトラマンティガ, OP
This song is “Take Me Higher” sang by V6, and the original English version is sang by Dave Rodgers with the same name. This drama is also very popular in China, the Chinese names are 《迪迦奥特曼》 in Chinese mainland, 《超人迪加》 in Hong Kong SAR, 《超人力霸王迪卡》 in Taiwan Province. The Hong Kong SAR version used other OP 《超人的主題曲》 sang by Eason Chan.
See also UTC-03221
▲ 黄惇：《中国历代印风系列：元代印风》，重庆：重庆出版社，2011年5月，ISBN 9787229035709
This “ligature” was used in the Yuan Dynasty.
▲ 籀廎述林（清光緒刊本）卷10 folio 32a
In this evidence ⿰茶鳥, quoted from 玉篇, is probably misprint of 鷋, since the former is not found in 玉篇 while the latter is quoted as "𩾞乎官切鳩鷋鳥喙蛇尾也".
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AHarvard_drs_54453019_約伯記畧.pdf&page=7
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:54453019$7i
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》, 明萬曆己丑本, 卷四
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之三
▲ 周易尚氏學（中華書局，1980） pp. 24
▲ 花影集（萬曆14年跋·刊本）卷1 folio 13b
▲ 滕固: 《一条狗》//滕固, 陈子善: 《世纪文存摩登文本 外遇》, 杭州: 浙江文艺出版社, 2004.1, ISBN 7-5339-1880-0/I·1620, p. 224
▲ 滕固: 《一条狗》//张伟, 钱谷融: 《中国新文学社团、流派丛书 花一般的罪恶——狮吼社作品、评论资料选》, 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2002.2, ISBN 7-5617-1837-3/I·174, p. 154
Is there reason the shape 召 is preferred?
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 《大乘論音義第三之二》, 𥪰, 第二帙五論十卷同帙
▲ 陳元龍: 《格致鏡原》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十六
▲ 陳耀文: 《天中記》, 四庫全書本, 卷五
▲ 饶安鼎, 黄履思: 《中国地方志集成 福建府县志辑20 乾隆福清县志 民国平潭县志》, 上海: 上海书店出版社, 2000.10, ISBN 7-80622-424-6, p. 698
▲ 胡朴安: 《中国风俗（上）》, 长春: 吉林出版集团股份有限公司, 2017.2, ISBN 7-5581-1902-6, p. 171
▲ 郑丽生: 《福州岁时风俗类征》//郑丽生, 福建省文史研究馆: 《福建文史丛书 郑丽生文史丛稿（上）》, 福州: 海风出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 7-80597-871-9, p. 410
▲ 赵麟斌: 《福建岁时节俗谈》, 上海: 同济大学出版社, 2014.5, ISBN 978-7-5608-5477-9, p. 277
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 卷之二
▲ 邢准: 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》, 金刻本, 卷第二十
▲ 扈仲榮: 《成都文類》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十四
▲ 馮任修, 張世雍: 《新修成都府志》, 天啓刻本, 卷之三十八
▲ 薛龙春; 王伟: 《王铎摭谈》 (张颖: 《文艺研究小丛书（第三辑）》), 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2024.1, ISBN 978-7-5039-7536-3, p. 49
▲ 陸丹林: 《⿰白衣依景尊之因緣（續）》//《青年維德會報》, 1920年第2期, p. 3
▲ 景文集（文淵閣本）卷27 folio 15a The text above is from 《乞禁便俗字》by 宋祁.
古今韻會舉要 元刊本
說文解字注 清經韵樓刊本
名義考 明萬曆十二年東袞黃中色刊本
續一切經音義 日本排印大正大藏經本
▲ 黄道周: 《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》, 明崇禎刻本, 九卷
▲ 陰時夫: 《韻府群玉》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十
▲ 李时珍: 《本草纲目 金陵本 16》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2016.12, ISBN 7-5067-8393-4, p. 4216
▲ 李时珍, 柳长华, 柳璇, 吴少祯: 《中医非物质文化遗产临床经典名著 本草纲目》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2011.8, ISBN 978-7-5067-4915-2, p. 1136
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》, 早稻田大學藏本, 卷第一
This character is also needed as the personal name character in ROK, which is included in one modern internal system in ROK as U+F0623.
▲ 《字彙補》, 彙賢齋本, 酉集
Data for Unihan
{{WS2024-03966}}
kCantonese san1
kCantonese haak3
kCantonese lai4
kCantonese taa1
kCantonese taa1
Glyph Design & Normalization
火 is often written like this.
I can understand Conifer's comment, but this current glyph matches the PRC conventions based on the rationale more. It's acceptable for this normalization and it's better to accept it.
The leftfalling stroke should come out.
SAT-07072 𰈐 (U+30210)
SAT-01917 𮝟 (U+2E75F)
SAT-04369 ⿰阝𡿺
SAT-03275 𮪱 (U+2EAB1)
Of which SAT-03275 is only taken from a re-created glyph in reprint (the original paper molds were lost during war), so basically 㐫 is the stable choice for any newly cut glyph of this kind in Taisho, which we'd like to follow.
As long as both shapes are unifiable, we prefer keeping current glyph.
The character 玍 is encountered at least from the Song dynasty. It's original meaning is 株 [tsɿ⁵²] "tree stump" and it has an extended meaning "bald" (source: 黄沚青、 張涌泉《“玍”字考》, 2017). Maybe the meaning "penis" is yet another semantic extension, cf. Russian "гонять лысого" (gonyat lysogo, "to masturbate"; lit. "to drive the bold one"). But as the dialectal word "penis", which is written as 玍, could also be written as 卵, 㞠, 膦, 䐯, 浪, [⿺毛乱] (so its reading is not anywhere close to [tsɿ⁵²]), it seems that 玍 with extended "bald">"penis" semantics was used to write an another synonymous (but not etymologically related) word.
So, the 毛 may be an auxiliary semantic element here (cf. other vulgar characters like 𣬠𣬶(=雞巴) "penis", etc.) to indicate that 玍 is used in its extended vulgar meaning. Thus, I propose to change IDS from [⿺毛主] to [⿺毛玍] or add an another glyph with 僧尼孽海 as a source.
However, when the Northeast people write 哈, that means “what”, such as 干哈, which is similar to 啥.
The submitted evidence is related to Chinese Sichuanese dialect (Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialects). There are at least three meanings mentioned in the evidence, the first red square includes two meanings I mentioned above in Xi’an. It is easy to know the right part must be 嗄, because the initial is 生母 in 廣韻. Please also compare 哈 with 啥.
So, the current glyph is right and acceptable.
(glyph in Source1)
↓
(designed glyph)
The right side component is written as 𫩧 (U+2BA67) which we normalize to 含. Cf. U+246A5 𤚥 in UK-20681-1.jpg, UK-20681-2.jpg, UK-20713.jpg which is written as ⿰牟𫩧. We suggest making a UCV for 含~𫩧.
Per UCV 441, 鬼 and ⿱甶儿 are unifiable.
Current glyph seems to be the taboo character who lacks one stroke. We suggets the glyph should be changed to:
#4315
The current design is correct.
It would be reasonable to normalize VN-F170F and V2-7259 to 攵
Editorial
It is better to keep this one and remove GCW-00030 in WS2024.
Other
I support to encode this character in this WS, but maybe we need to do more research on the local dialect to get more detailed information in future.
⿱雨乳𩃱 and ⿱雨泘𩃱 sound similar and both are used in place names of 陝西 / 甘肅 province.
▲ ꓪꓰꓲ-ꓫꓲ ꓡꓲ-ꓢꓴ ꓫꓵꓽ ꓚꓲꓸ ꓛꓬꓽ ꓙꓵꓽ ꓫꓯꓹ ꓤꓶꓽ ꓟꓲꓽ ꓚꓶꓹ ꓩꓴꓺ꓾ ꓬꓱꓽ-ꓧꓯꓺ-ꓚꓳ꓾ ꓩꓳꓺ-ꓬꓱꓹ-ꓛꓶꓽ꓾ 《ꓡꓲ-ꓢꓴ ꓫꓵꓽ ꓟꓻ ꓭꓼ ꓕꓳꓽ ꓶꓽ ꓝꓳꓹ ꓢꓳꓺ ꓓꓴ》꓾ 潞西: ᥟᥩᥒᥲ ᥟᥩᥐᥱ ᥘᥣᥭᥰ ᥟᥣ ᥛᥥᥝᥰ ᥖᥬᥲ ᥑᥨᥒᥰ, 2013.10, ISBN 978-7-80750-959-2/H·37, p. 84
The following shows the Lisu Zhushu form, Fraser form (ꓯꓹ) and IPA form (ɛ³⁵) of the word “duck”.
▲ ꓪꓰꓲ-ꓫꓲ ꓡꓲ-ꓢꓴ ꓫꓵꓽ ꓚꓲꓸ ꓛꓬꓽ ꓙꓵꓽ ꓫꓯꓹ ꓤꓶꓽ ꓟꓲꓽ ꓚꓶꓹ ꓩꓴꓺ꓾ ꓬꓱꓽ-ꓧꓯꓺ-ꓚꓳ꓾ ꓩꓳꓺ-ꓬꓱꓹ-ꓛꓶꓽ꓾ 《ꓡꓲ-ꓢꓴ ꓫꓵꓽ ꓟꓻ ꓭꓼ ꓕꓳꓽ ꓶꓽ ꓝꓳꓹ ꓢꓳꓺ ꓓꓴ》꓾ 潞西: ᥟᥩᥒᥲ ᥟᥩᥐᥱ ᥘᥣᥭᥰ ᥟᥣ ᥛᥥᥝᥰ ᥖᥬᥲ ᥑᥨᥒᥰ, 2013.10, ISBN 978-7-80750-959-2/H·37, p. 82
We have known this character is different from 鸭 for the Lisu uses, that means it is OK to encode, but it is too early to confirm the rationale now, because we still don’t know how the Lisu people read the Han character and the phonology and readings of the corresponding Chinese Southwestern Mandarin-dialect of the nearest place. If we can’t confirm these when we encode this character in UCS and Unicode, I suggest not include the kMandarin property value in Unihan database.
▲ China NB. Proposal to Encode the Lisu Monosyllabic Script. WG2 N5047 = L2/19-208: pdf page 56.
▲ 木玉璋. 傈僳族音节文字字典. 知识版权出版社, 2006: page 193.
The three Lisu Zhushu characters recording “bird” /niɛ˧˥/ are different.
This character has been added to Service platform for National Professional and technician qualification test (全国专业技术人员资格考试报名服务平台) in China, which the PUA code is U+E022.
The evidence shows the fanqie of this character is 戸𧸖切.
The 音韻地位 of 戸 is 匣母遇攝姥韻上聲開口一等;
the 音韻地位 of 𧸖 is 澄母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等,
that means the 音韻地位 of the submitted character is 匣母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等.
In 廣韻, there are two fanqie for 䱤 (U+4C64).
古念切 means 見母咸攝添韻去聲開口四等
戸韽切 means 澄母咸攝咸韻去聲開口二等 which matches 戸𧸖切 as well.
Therefore, this character is the typo of 䱤 (U+4C64) without any doubt. 函聲 is also a typo.
If any expert can prove it is the stable error, IRG could consider to keep it as-is. However, I can’t find any useful evidence.
▲ 成陽靈臺碑宋翻明拓本 gives 𩷙.
https://www.dpm.org.cn/collection/impres/231827.html
康熙字典 also mentions 《靈臺碑》on 𩷙:
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$3524i
▲ 《佩文韻府》，清康熙五十年武英殿本，卷三十六
All the evidence shows this character is cited from 《山海經》.
▲ 《山海經》，四部叢刊本，第五
▲ 《山海經》，四庫全書本，第五
▲ 《山海經》，正統道藏本，第五
This character is the variant of U+352E 㔮.
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 85b
Here ⿱浞魚 is in the last section of the 魚部336, 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」.
Here are all 22 characters in this section:
鮕鮔𩵯𩶖𩼂𩸐𩸃𩸹䲏𱇁⿺免𩺰𩶸⿰魚升𩷂𩷵𩹅⿱浞魚𩸅䱯⿰魚⿶𫼃⿱亠丷鯚𩽡
Among them, 18 share the exact shape with 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇:
鮕鮔𩵯𩶖 5畫 / 𩷂𩸐 6畫 / 𩷵𩸃 7畫 / 𩸹𩹅𩸅䱯鯚 8畫 / 䲏𩼂 12畫 / 𩽡 17畫 / ⿰魚⿶𫼃⿱亠丷⿺免𩺰 after 併了部頭.
3 are normalized: ⿰魚升 ~ ⿰魚⿸⿶廾丶丶 5畫 / 𩶸 from 𩸟 8畫 / 𱇁 from ⿰魚⿱旧里 14畫
The only exception is ⿱浞魚.
This implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character 𩸧, very similar to ⿱浞魚:
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 15a, 𩸧，音泥. quotes 類篇.
In this case, even characters around 𩸧 (and their annotations) in 四聲篇 are preserved in 直音篇 in their original ordering：「𩹅，音英(字)；𩸧，音泥；𩸅，音甫.」
And 𩸧 is not included in 直音篇 elsewhere if I read correctly. Therefore, ⿱浞魚 here is likely a misprint of 𩸧. But given that ⿱浞魚 has been included in 漢字海, which quotes 直音篇, better just encode it as-is.
The character is quoted from 陰祐《餘文》.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 35b, 魚部/14畫
▲ 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, the bottom 关 component emerged.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 17a, the horizontal stroke of 大 was shorten and merged with the upper grass 艹.
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）
卷3 folio 17a. ⿰⿱关关⿹勹魚 became stable. Then the shape is copied by other later dictionaries.
These two kinds of fish are similar, and both common in Taizhou.
https://www.sohu.com/a/402497931_99943212
Based on the evidence, "[⿰虫服]𧔥 " , "猰窳, "檮杌", "饕餮" are all creatures recorded in 山海經. The first one was written in different ways according to different documents, such as 肥𧔥, 𧌳𧔥, 蜰𧔥, 𧌘𧔥.
康熙字典（崇文書局）：【申集中】【虫字部】 【唐韻】符遇切，音附。蚹蛇，腹下橫鱗可行者。【莊子·齊物論】吾待蛇蚹、蜩翼耶。【註】蚹謂蛇腹下齟齬，可以行者也。
The seal script gives 蚹 anyway. ⿰虫仅 is an alternative transcription.
⿱𥫗仅 is the variant of 符.
This form is acceptable.
▲ 新校經史海篇直音（明刊本）卷3 folio 21a gives 𨯳.
▲ 四川省通江县志编纂委员会: 《通江县志》, 成都: 四川人民出版社, 1998.8, ISBN 7-220-04106-3/K·574, p. 188
Variant of 𦍕?
康熙字典（同文書局）：「【諸苗考】𦍕獚，苗類。」See also ctext for more references of 𦍕獚.
⿰犭⿱𠂉奇 is not encoded or proposed for encoding, but it is recorded as a family name in 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》 and 《中华千家姓氏录》 so it could be a candidate for inclusion in a future submission.
https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162033
The text gives「太學徐應～與其二男一女死之」. Based on the time (1276 CE), his name and title, I suspect he is 徐應鑣 in 宋史.
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋史（朱英明成化7年至16年刊本）卷451 folio 13
「徐應鑣，字巨翁，衢之江山人，世為衢望族。咸淳末，試補太學生。德祐二年，宋亡，瀛國公入燕，三學生百餘人皆從行。應鑣不欲從，乃與其子琦、崧、女元娘誓共焚，子女皆喜從之。」
Note that the original evidence is published earlier than 宋史（明成化刊本）, so we can not invalidate this evidence. In fact, it is interesting to note that the toc of 宋史（明成化刊本）卷451 gives 徐應德.
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋史（朱英明成化7年至16年刊本）卷451 folio 1
In all, this evidence is from an authoritative source. I hope China can submit more of such evidences.
The evidence gives
「暴古文作～，故有僄音。」
If ～ were ⿸鹿日, 「故有僄音」does not make sense because 鹿/僄 sounds completely different. However, in「暴古文作𣋴，故有僄音。」, 麃/僄 have same pronunciation.
▲ 《清實録·高宗純皇帝實録》，卷之一千二百七十二
太平御覽（四部叢刊照東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷792 gives 麋:「……出細氈、饒銅、䥫鈆、麋皮、氍毹、沙塩……」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=1500&page=29#%F0%AA%87%86
《重修廣韻》，《四庫全書》
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=88948&page=16#%E8%88%82
《泰定本廣韻》，《古逸叢書》
The new evidence for ⿰饣善 as a derived simplification for 饍 is sufficient, although additional evidence from China would be welcome.
歌, semantic=欠, phonetic=哥
The phonetic elements are interchanged, we can get ⿰糹哥 and ⿰玄欠.
This one is also included as E08D in bioinfo PUA.
Maybe the usages in modern books are also useful for encoding.
Variant of 䔜. 廣雅（文淵閣四庫全書本）：「藜蘆，蒽䔜也」。
𤇿 U+241FF (T)
𰟏 U+307CF (G)
𤈝 U+2421D (V)
𤊬 U+242AC (V)
𤇿 U+241FF, 𤈝 U+2421D, 𤊬 U+242AC have not the G-Source references now.
⿹气Ｆ, ⿲金Ｔｅ, ⿰石Ｉ, ⿲金Ｓｉ, ⿰石Ｂ, ⿲金Ａｓ, ⿲金Ｓｅ, ⿲金Ｐｄ, ⿲金Ｂａ, ⿲金Ｂｉ
There are a few characters from 三農紀 withdrawn or pending, e.g.
I don't have much faith in this source, do we have more evidences?
https://digitalatlas.ascdc.sinica.edu.tw/map.jsp?id=A104000063
https://books.google.com/books?id=1RZBAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA513
⿱仞心?
For 析/柝:
⿱雨柝 (C15603-002) ~ 䨛 (C15603)
《承政院日記》：“恭惟我殿下，膺聖人首出之運，軫耕農始敎之道，渙發溫綸，誕敷於去丑月前一日，而仰觀俯察，博古參今，耕播種耘之法，刈穫舂確之規，毫分縷柝[析]，條暢枝達。”
《승정원일기·인조 16년 (1638년 崇禎(明/毅宗) 11년》：“目今民生蕩柝[析]離居之狀，有倍於周時，而況値大無之年……”
c.f. ROK Norm. Rule #92:
p.s. For U+30281 (𰊁), “龜𰊁” should be “龜坼”, |木| is an additional component.
{{UCV #1}}
The inner component of 291-1 variant is 王, and the evidence shows 𡈼. Maybe ROK could add a example picture based on UCV #1. However, the current glyph has followed the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
The current K-Source reference for U+2E086 𮂆 is KC-05501, but KC-05501 on {{www.koreanhistory.or.kr}} is the unencoded ⿰禾厚.
KC-05501
KC-10116
KC-08090
Used as a personal name.
▲ http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2023/23112-missing-kana-ligatures.pdf, p. 3
▲ http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2023/23112-missing-kana-ligatures.pdf, p. 3
However, the current SAT-05235 glyph for U+2D5B2 𭖲 doesn’t match the source and #2388, so maybe SAT should update the glyph later.
On the other hand, all the evidence shows U+2D5B2 𭖲 has the fanqie as the common Hanzi/Kanji. And the situation of the submitted character is the same as U+2D5B2 𭖲.
If the modern publishing books are not related to 韩愈, this character should be ⿰齿困 not ⿰齿羽.
▲ 张宗祥: 《浙江省文史研究馆文史丛书十一 铁如意馆碎录》, 杭州: 西泠印社, 2000.6, ISBN 7-80517-198-X/J·199, p. 178
▲ 翟灏, 陈志明: 《通俗编（下册）》, 北京: 东方出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5060-4412-7, p. 692
▲ 杨恩寿, 王婧之: 《湖湘文库 杨恩寿集》, 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2010.9, ISBN 978-7-80761-450-0/G·864, p. 337
Evidence 1 shows it is the component of 𧆨, Evidence 3 shows it is the component of 𧆣. As #2983 shows 𧆣 从凷虍聲, and 虍 is the head of tiger, so it is acceptable that this book treated the phonetic element is 虎. This form is similar to U+2719E 𧆞 and U+2E4DC 𮓜.
It should be the following.
This is the transitional form from 犭 to 彳, and the next character has not been shown as U+3042D 𰐭.
犭 and 彳 are often interchanged to make more possible variants in the ancient books, but the possible variants could be used as other characters with other the completely irrelevant pronunciations and meanings. Therefore, it is very dangerous to unify 犭 and 彳 in general.
山 and 宀, 木 and 扌 are similar to this pair.
Note 張子盛 mentioned the Jianzi fingering letter 揉 (mapped to 犭 commonly) could also be written as 彳 form in 《松風閣琴瑟譜》 and 《松風閣琴譜》 (not the Siku version). But I excluded 彳 form as 猱 in my list, because 彳 has other meaning of Jianzi fingering letter and 𢔟 U+2251F is a different character commonly, which can’t be used as the name of Jianzi fingering letters.
《說文解字注》：「頓者，下首也。以首叩地謂之頓首。引伸爲前覆之辭。《左氏・音義》引孫炎曰：前覆曰仆。玄應三引《說文》。仆，頓也。謂前覆也。偃謂却偃。仆謂前覆。」
According to the evidence, this character is only used for the 反切上字 of 𨺙 U+28E99.
Yi Bai provided two variants of 𨺙 U+28E99, one is 陧, the other one is 倪. 陧 is a 入聲字, that is not related to 計 here; the 韻 of 倪 and 計 are both 齊 and the tones are both 去聲. The evidence shows the word 陴𨺙 that must be the variant form of 俾倪. The most common 反切 related to 計 for 倪 should be 五計反/切, but the submitted character must not be the variant of 五, so it is better to keep as-is in main set. At least, we can know the 聲母 of the submitted character is 疑母, that matches the rationale for the phonetic element, so the radical assignment is also right.
▲ 顧藹吉: 《隸辨》, 玉淵堂, 卷第三
IRG will not accept the Lisu style as the evidence, so I just list this one here.
▲ 蓝德康, 松冈荣志: 《汉字海》, 北京: 华语教学出版社, 2018.7, ISBN 978-7-5318-1500-0, p. 1998
▲ 王士祯, 阮亭: 《水月令》//黄承增: 《广虞初新志》//汤显祖, 袁宏道, 柯愈春: 《说海》, 北京: 人民日报出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-80002-888-7/G·272, p. 1390
▲ 周衣德, 杨安利: 《周衣德集》, 合肥: 黄山书社, 2009.9, ISBN 978-7-5461-0765-3, p. 593
來源：內政部地政用字
Potentially related to 滜 U+6EDC.
{{ U+6EDC }}
▲ 李元强: 《民俗中的合体字调查小记》//刘志基: 《汉字文化学简论》, 贵阳: 贵州教育出版社, 1994.5, ISBN 7-80583-535-7/G·529, p. 124
▲ 沈泓: 《福神文化》, 北京: 中国物资出版社, 2012.1, ISBN 978-7-5047-4008-3, p. 144
▲ 高善东: 《邹鲁民俗》, 济南: 齐鲁书社, 2016.12, ISBN 978-7-5333-3660-8, p. 184
▲ 沈泓: 《非遗·中国年画经典系列 中国娃娃年画经典》, 深圳: 海天出版社, 2015.9, ISBN 978-7-5507-1453-3, p. 300
▲ 胡玉远: 《北京旧闻丛书 京都胜迹》, 北京: 北京燕山出版社, 1996.6, ISBN 7-5402-0031-6, pp. 338-339
▲ 中国民间美术教学大全编委会: 《中国民间美术教学大全》, 沈阳: 春风文艺出版社, 1993.3, ISBN 7-5313-0977-7/J·80, p. 164
▲ 政协邹城市委员会: 《邹城文史资料 第10辑 风俗专辑》, 济宁: 邹城市印刷厂, 1994.12, 鲁济NCZZ94-074号, pp. 187-188
▲ 张殿英: 《杨家埠木版年画》, 北京: 人民美术出版社, 1990.5, ISBN 7-102-00765-5/J·710, pp. 157-158
▲ 金良年: 《中国神秘文化百科知识》, 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1994.12, ISBN 7-80511-682-0/G·167, pp. 232-233
▲ 陆锡兴: 《汉字民俗史》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-100-17227-1, p. 436
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Harvard_drs_20931849_英語集全_v.1.pdf/30
Both of two characters are used in Tainan City according to the evidence.
Both of two characters are used in Tainan City according to the evidence.
⿰亻𠤭 A01279-005 ~ 佂 A01279-004
⿰木𠤭 A01899-010 ~ 柾 A01899-007
⿰𠤭攵 A01720-002 ~ 政 A01720
For 𠤭 (SAT-04683),
T2128_.54.0515b20 漂: 𠤭瓢反 → 匹瓢反
T2128_.54.0746b06 𣎳: 𠤭刃反 → 匹刃反
T2128_.54.0748a23 紕: 𠤭毘反 → 匹毘反
T2128_.54.0767c13 爾疋讎𠤭也 → 爾雅讎匹也
So can also tell 𠤭~匹, then 正~𠤭 should be level 2.
China could do the horizontal extension as GXM-00170 in future.
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAyMjc4LTAwNA
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=807479
qun?, ~石村，广西壮族自治区
若 reads as nã⁵³, nã²²/³³ in Xiamen / Amoy. Maybe the user made the Min nan reading as the similar Mandarin syllable.
In the real use, the users always use 捆 as the replaced character, because the proper one has not been encoded yet, such as the introduction of this kind of Hakka food in the official website of People’s Government of Guangdong Province, PRC (http://www.gd.gov.cn/zjgd/lnms/mzms/content/post_110842.html ), and they need to clarify “捆” here does not mean to tie, should be to roll. The TV presenter needs to explain the same thing in one CCTV 10 program (https://haokan.baidu.com/v?pd=wisenatural&vid=8337990229278444770).
This kind of Hakka food looks similar to the fresh spring roll in Vietnam, but the stuffing is not richer than the Vietnamese one, only taro, mushroom, sauerkraut, carrot and corn. Almost all the presenters read the character as kǔn in Putonghua for this use, but I have not confirm if the hakka reading and if it is suitable in Putonghua for this use.
ROK could do the horizontal extension in future as KC-07973.
[ {{WS2017-01130}} ]
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=620861
https://zi.tools/zi/%E2%BF%B1%E5%A7%AC%E7%81%AC
variant of 𪂁?
It reads as 不𣪏縱其湠漫兮，⿰木勿孰爲之涯滸, where ⿰木勿 should be a function word. If ⿰木勿 is indeed 於, the sentence can be roughly translated as "Do not let the Yellow River rove freely, otherwise where could be its boundary".
The evidence is from 仁化縣志（清光緒刊本）, I have extracted the evidence directly from the NLC provided PDF without transcoding, but it seems not better than the original evidence, which I think is already reasonably clear.
The text gives 「～，俗名莙薘」. I guess ⿱艹舔 is a variant of 菾. I didn't find ⿱艹舔 in 嘉靖仁化縣志、萬曆仁化縣志、康熙仁化縣志; I do find 莙薘 in 韶州府志（清康熙刊本）卷1 folio 16.
▲ 莙荙包 (https://chihe.sohu.com/a/573964363_120985024)
▲ 莙荙包 (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwOTc2MDkzOQ==&mid=2651955072&idx=6&sn=951f474d9d5496106aaf1dde3e52d881)
In fact, the local name is 猪乸菜 (vegetable for sow feeding), but the phonetic moral of 莙荙 is better than 猪乸菜.
▲ 莫熙穆, 陈定如, 陈章和, 广东省畜牧局, 华南师范大学固氮牧草研究中心: 《广东饲用植物》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1993.6, ISBN 7-5359-1064-5/S·132, pp. 147-148
This character should be treated as the local variant, not the local name. It is OK to keep it.
▲ 陳耆卿: 《嘉定赤城志》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十三
Variant of 馘? 當出輕騎～虜以報。馘：【說文】軍戰斷耳也。
The above picture is a part of the performance script of a play for Cantonese Yueju Opera named 《唐伯虎點秋香》, which the author is 唐滌生 and wrote in 1956. (According to 谢伟国《任剑辉唱腔艺术特色浅谈》, 《南方语言学（第六辑）》, p. 264) The first and important movie version was starring 任劍輝 (唐伯虎) and 白雪仙 (秋香) in 1957, but this part was removed in this movie version. We can find this part in the live recording. In the 1975 version (《三笑姻緣》), which was starring 龍劍笙 (唐伯虎) and 梅雪詩 (秋香), other play authors reorganize the script. They kept the 小曲 and the lyric for the previous one (【鸾凤和鸣】), but changed the lyric for the one I mentioned in the picture (【秋水龙吟】). 1975 version is still common now for Cantonese Yueju Opera and Cantonese Yuequ Show. In 1993, the new version was starring 周星馳 (唐伯虎) and 巩俐 (秋香). The play authors replaced 【秋水龙吟】 to 【粉墙花】 and also changed the lyric as the theme song. In the movie, 唐伯虎 and other roles also sang a song based on 【粉墙花】 as 《烧雞翼，我鍾意食》. Note that 小曲【粉墙花】 is adapted by 周璇’s 《花花姑娘》.
But I am not sure where this shape comes from.
https://www.zdic.net/hant/%E6%A8%B9%E5%AB%A1
▲ 初學記（宋紹興刊本）卷10 folio 9
藝文類聚 and 初學記 are different text system. Many, if not most, pre-Tang texts we can read today are sourced from them. Since ～ and 嫡 are very different and ～ prevails in multiple versions of 藝文類聚, we should encode it for digitalization purpose.
元．龔瑨, 〈王會圖賦〉（《古今圖書集成本》）
The text 《王會圖賦》 is authored when 龔瑨 attended the 元統3年江西鄉試. Here is an older evidence:
▲ 新刊類編歷舉三場文選（朝鮮密陽府李崇之刊本）古賦卷8 folio 15a
We can't tell whether it is 髼 or ⿱髟奉 now.
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷1，「奴到反」
Per Kangxi Dictionary：「【午集下】【禾字部】 【字彙補】於劫切，音謁。禾敗不生。」𥠍 and ⿰木𤯚 share the same pronunciation. However, 合併字學集篇 predates 字彙補 so we can't say ⿰木𤯚 is an error.
Some materials use 英那河.
▲ 徐琳瑜, 杨志峰, 章北平, 江进: 《城市水生态安全保障》（“十三五”国家重点图书出版规划项目 流域生态安全研究丛书）, 北京: 中国环境出版集团, 2021.6, ISBN 978-7-5111-4527-7, p. 200
Some materials use 英纳河.
▲ 赵志中, 陈安东, 任舫, 杨勇, 贾庆黎, 贾建团, 翟菊, 杨更, 杨艳华, 王敏: 《中国冰川地质公园》 (The Glacier Geoparks of China), 北京: 地质出版社, 2017.11, ISBN 978-7-116-10705-2, p. 88
Based on the materials, this river was named after the hero 刘英纳.
▲ 中国民间文学辽宁卷大连市卷编委会: 《中国民间文学集成辽宁卷 大连市卷（上卷）》, 沈阳: 沈阳出版社, 1989.9, ISBN 7-80556-049-8/I·23, pp. 617-618
shan?，大~，广西壮族自治区。
hua?，~白，广西壮族自治区。
hua?，~底，广西壮族自治区。
《呂祖全書．卷十四．參同經下卷．一行子斗姥心咒北斗心咒說》
https://hongyeshan.com/post/54339.html
I stick to my opinion although I must repect IRG's decision. And I will suggest Chinese government not to support these characters in future version of national standards.
If IRG is going to encode them one by one, then please prepare to be criticized for it and overwhlemed by this kind of characters.There are countless words used in Taoism and many of them can combine with 雨+鬼/雨/鬼/口/尚……
I have stated the problems very clearly in my proposal IRGN2518 and experts gave their opinions about Daoist characters in IRGN2579. But none of the proposals change IRG's decision, which was very frustrating. In the last IRGmeeting, I was stopped by other experts saying there is no problem in encoding most of Taoist characters submitted in IRG WS2021, which was also disappointing.
I was planning to write another proposal about the characters but finnaly decided not after more upsetting things happened. I realized that I don't have the time, knowledge and the patience to change the situation. So this will be my last comment on Daoist characters in IRG.
"得達悟真常" has the same meaning.
fu，屎~岭，广西。
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷56 folio 15 has 林𦿄, active in Ming. But there is no evidence that they refer to the same person.
▲ 晉書（宋刻元明遞修本）卷97葉7 gives 繩
▲ 太平御覽（宋慶元5年跋蜀刊本） 卷787葉4 gives ⿰糹電, which could be variant of 縄.
𡨢 presents in the following evidences:
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷34 folio 7
▲ 汀州府志（明嘉靖刊本）卷11 folio 17 // 天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第39册. 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990.
▲ 閩書（明崇禎刊本）卷59 folio 39
However, since we already have multiple evidences of ⿱穴居, better just encode it.
It is probable that ⿱鼓心 is a variant of 懿.
The original evidence shows a person name. He is from 福州.
▲ 淳熙三山志（明萬曆刊本）卷32 folio 28a (pp. 92) gives 懿.
From 四聲篇海 and 碑別字新編, we can infer that ⿱皷心 is a variant of 懿:
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金崇慶刊本）卷10 folio 9b. 心部/15畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.「⿱⿰⿱土豆皮心，于俻切」. Also ⿱皼心：「新藏作㦤」
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷10 folio 14a 「⿱皷心，音⿰壹⿱㳄心(懿)」
See MOE dictionary for the 碑別字新編 evidence.
From Kangxi dictionary we know that 皷 is a variant of 鼓: 「【午集中】【皮字部】 【正字通】俗鼓字。」
Therefore, based on references to both characters in various historical texts, ⿱鼓心 is very likely a variant of 懿.
Variant of ⿰梹咅? Both are sound of fire-arm and the pair 木/扌is often mixed.
The word "puh" means "to bud; to sprout". The character is probably 會意, with 吐 having the meaning of "to stick out; to become visible" (as in phrases like 吐穗 or 吐絮 in Standard Mandarin).
䑙 in zdic
The English version is “There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&version=NIV)
One of the modern Chinese version gives “他们把用苦胆他们把用苦胆搀杂的酒给耶稣喝；耶稣尝了尝，不愿意喝。” (https://zyesu.com/xinyangbaoku/Bible/LZZ/gb/mat/27.htm)
It is easy to know the meaning is “to taste”. There are three use cases for the Chinese Hakka word “to taste” in 江西省赣州市 and 广东省梅州市, and the they all use “尝下” or “尝一下” directly. It looks the character is the related character of 尝, but it is not related to U+4459 䑙 “to lick”.
▲ 温昌衍: 《石城（高田）客家话的否定词》//陈振宇, 盛益民: 《汉语方言否定范畴研究》, 上海: 中西书局, 2020.10, ISBN 978-7-5475-1746-8, p. 247
(This is a use case for 江西省赣州市石城县高田镇.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《客家方言词语考释》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2019.10, ISBN 978-7-218-13543-4
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市梅县区.)
▲ 朱炳玉: 《五华客家话研究》, 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2010.6, ISBN 978-7-5623-3299-2, p. 393
(This is a use case for 广东省梅州市五华县.)
The most common form for “to lick” is 舐 in Chinese Hakka-dialects, and some places use one word which has the corresponding word in Chinese Yue-dialects, which the final consonant is still -m, not -n for 丹 in Hakka.
▲ 张维耿: 《客方言标准音词典》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2012.11, ISBN 978-7-306-04342-9, p. 239
If IRG experts have comments on this character, I should ask other Chinese Hakka-dialects researchers to get their comments.
现代客语汉字马太福音27:34佢等拿掺苦胆个酒给耶稣啉；耶稣一下，就毋啉。
现代客语全罗马太福音27:34 Kì-têu nâ chhâm fú-tám ke chiú pûn Yâ-sû lîm; Yâ-sû tâm yit-ha, chhiu m̀ lîm.
They show the reading is tâm, but I can’t read this Romanization scheme. Yi Bai shows the reading as tʰiam44陰平 in 广东省韶关市新丰县, tʰiam31上聲 in 广东省梅州市梅江县.
舔 is not included in 廣韻, but Kangxi Dictionary gives the fanqie as 他點切 cited from 《篇海》. I check the reading for 点 in 《客赣方言调查报告》, all the dialectal places give the head of final vowel as -i-, and I check the reading of 点 in above page, they show the Romanization form is tiám which the -i- is still here, that means this character is still not related to 舔 or U+4459 䑙.
The verb "hishiru" is found in 『精選版 日本国語大辞典』 as "to shout" and in 『和歌山弁Explorer』 (Wakayama dialect) as "to be furious". Perhaps it is also in the local dialect of "Hishirimo". Neither meaning is far from "blame, curse, attack".
Submitter Request