The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
⿱𣪊X miswritten as ⿱殸X is quite common in historical documents, while 𣪊 and 殸 have different etymologies. I suggest adding a new Level 2 UCV ⿱𣪊X & ⿱殸X, where ⿱𣪊X also unifiable with ⿹
𣪊X.
If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
From the entry for 脨 in the Kangxi Dictionary (copied from zi.tools):
【未集下】【肉字部】 【集韻】趨玉切，音促。本作𦠁。弗𦠁。炙筯。或从肉。 又秦昔切，音籍。瘦也。 集韻(1039)
It appears that the shape for 朿 affects the pronunication and the meaning, so ⿰月朿 and 脨 (⿰月束) should be considered non-cognate.
Further sources from Jiyun are required.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
They are two separate head characters, with the first head character in the same series as 促戚趨趣誎 (from phonetic 束) and the second head character in the same series as 籍耤藉莋葃膌 and also 刺洓 (from phonetic 朿).
Eddie's unification comment is moot as IRG Working Set 2017 02960 was postponed and therefore no longer in the encoding pipeline. This ideograph effectively replaces it with better evidence.
The title of this poem in the evidence is 《古意三首》. When we read this poem carefully, it's not hard to find out there are three parts based on the rhyme characters. The first part is 甕(옹)宋(송)洞(동)夢(몽), the second part is 隙(극)白(백)藥(약)獨(독) and the third part is 先(선)賢(현)全(전)年(년). The submitted character is in the second part. Notice that the real rhymes (vowels and the following consonants in the syllables) are different in Old Chinese, Middle Chinese (that means 平水韻 here) and Korean readings, maybe we should call it as 押鄰韻 (rhyme adjacently?). The previous verse “胡爲勞形役” is an interrogative question, so the verse with the submitted character should be the reply to the previous verse. This verse looks related to “哿矣富人，哀此惸獨。” in 《詩經·小雅·正月》. However, if we treated this character is the same as 哿 totally, the meaning is contrary to Confucian ideas and the spiritual style of this poem.
My suggestion to keep and encode this character as-is.
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
Note: U+6B25 and SAT-04277 (eq. VN-F208B planned for the next Vietnam WS submission) are different in Nôm Tày usage and should not be unified. In the evidence provided by Eiso above, VN-F208B is read "hăn", meaning "to see". But U+6B25 is read "hất", which means "to work", "put effort into", etc.. Here is the entry for 欥 (U+6B25) from the same source (Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p 202):
Despite there being a NUCV-343 [卻, 郤], historically ⿰木郤 and ⿰木卻 have been unified at U+3B9D, until Unicode 12.0 where the G glyph was corrected from ⿰木卻 to ⿰木郤.
It is suggested to change NUCV-343 to a UCV rule, as it appears such variation is not rare. The non-cognate rule can be invoked to separately code characters with 郤 and 卻 when actually required.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with the unification and new UCV rule suggested by Henry Chan.
𦆢 (U+261A2)
reading, sense and shape are similar. Kangxi entry for U+261A2 quotes Quangyun: 居例切，音罽。○按从网之字，或省作冈，或變作四。This appears to be a variant using a form of 四.
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Add UCV for 丮, 𢩦, 𠃨 as Level 2.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
No meaning is given, but the evidence shows that the reading of this character is identical to that of 誩, for which the "Guang Yun" gives the fanqie reading 渠敬 (*gjængH), Mandarin "jìng". This suggests that it is related to 𥪰 (U+25AB0), which is also read 渠敬 = Mandarin "jìng" and defined in Kangxi as a variant of U+7AF6, 競 read "jìng". Also, given the graphic relationship between 並 and 竝, this also appears to be the full form to U+2785F, another variant of U+7AF6. Seems like a strong argument for semantic identity U+7AF6 and possible unification with one of the encoded forms.
In WS2015 𰆰 (00511, USAT09010, semantic variant of 支) was added, while in WS2017 ⿰虫𰆰 (03847, USAT07003, semantic variant of 蚑) was added. Are there more examples of characters using 𰆰 instead of 支, and if it is systematic, is it better to unify them as a new UCV?
As we checked our database, characters with 阝~卩 distinction involved are only SAT-03126 (already encoded as U+2E884) and this. Both have few appearance in specific contexts. Hence we request to add it back as a peculiar variation.
SAT-07087 is used to illustrate the reading in the definition of another character. The character being defined, appears to be a variant of U+258BC. SAT-07087 appears to have the same relationship to 𧵩 (U+27D69) as U+27D69 has to U+258BC, strongly suggestion that they are variants. Both appear to be ancient forms of 責 (古文責字)
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
The evidence suggests that this is a variant of U+27A6F, which, according to Kangxi, is in turn a variant of 訴. The reading shown is 素, Mandarin "sù", which is the same as U+27A6F and 訴. The variants given, U+27A9C and 愬 are also similar to 訴 in meaning. The definitions overlap with those of 訴 (吿, 論, 譖, etc.), and the context shown would make sense written as 訴諸鬼神, "appeal to / have recourse to demons and spirits".
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I think the point here is whether we want to unify 广 and 厂.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
If we need a UCV for this case, I suggest using 𠩋 and 㡿, which both of them share the same meaning.
Support Lee's Comment #3915. The evidence shows the left part is the variant of 番 without any doubt. 𫿓 (U+2BFD3) itself is the variant of 播, but it shares the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It's better to add the followings as UCVs if they share the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
(1)
e.g.
U+227F7 𢟷 vs U+61A3 憣
U+240F3 𤃳 vs U+2412B 𤄫
U+2839A 𨎚 vs U+8F53 轓
U+2E0EA 𮃪 vs U+2588C 𥢌
It seems to be an error for 䏣 in the head character only, and the entry actually uses 䏣 (肉中蟲謂之䏣蝇). Therefore this evidence is insufficient for encoding. Suggest unifying to 䏣.
This character appears to be an error for 舓 (this error form is also found in 蒙古字韻). As it is a common mistake to miswrite 易 as 昜 and vice versa, perhaps we should have a UCV rule for 易 and 昜 when cognate.
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017. [ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
Unify to 𢋐 (U+222D0). U+222D0 has the pronunciation jí according to CNS 11643, therefore might be miswriting of U+222D0.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TCA thoughts there is no need to discuss whether the name is miswriting, because it has been used extensively in official documents and systems.
Based on the shape, there is no UCV rule to judge unification.
Although we believe that TC-447C should related to 𪋿, but no evidence can prove it.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Disunification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Disagree to be unified. From the previous evidences are coded seperately.
According to the pronunciation, it should be a wrong glyph of 嗌.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Disagree to unify.
TCA thoughts there is no need to discuss whether the name is miswriting, because it has been used extensively in official documents and systems.
The supplementary evidence provided by Eiso Chan shows the character to be a variant of 庵. It seems like 𤲅 is a common variant of 奄, and a possible candidate for a UCV.
There is no evidence for the meaning, but the reading "zā" is identical with that of U+9254, suggesting that they might be variants. There is one other pair similar to this already encoded, U+2341D and U+23459. U+2341D is used in Nôm with the meaning "soft" but it's not clear what the semantic relation, if any, is in Chinese. Should we consider UCV for ⿷匚帀 and 木匝?
Given that any character with a grass radical could be written with 艸 instead, I think it would be a good idea to define a UCV for 艸 = 艹 where cognate.
Possible variant of U+90FE. We should consider extension of UCV to cover 匽, ⿷匚晏, and ⿷匸晏 as components. There are already several possible pairs encoded, such as U+5043 and U+2037E. The proposed characters TB-5C5C and TD-7E57 are other examples
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Not sure about unification. Needs discussion.
UCV
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
After checking the component ⿷匚晏 or ⿷匸晏, there are U+2037E 𠍾 and U+236BC 𣚼. It’s easy to know U+2037E 𠍾 is the variant of U+5043 偃 and U+236BC 𣚼 is the variant of U+693B 椻. However, the quantities of the components are different. It’s not better to add this UCV between 匽 and ⿷匚晏 or ⿷匸晏.
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
Unification
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
RE: WS2021-SN01288
- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726
- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
This appears to be a variant of U+9EB5 麵. There are other pairs already encoded, such as U+ 4D2C 䴬 and U+2D6A2 that show ⿺夌 as a simplification of 麥. Might be worth consideration of this component shape as UCV of the simplified form, U+9EA6 麦
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Disagree to be unified. From the previous evidences are coded seperately.
The bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏 is obviously a turtle, so unification seems justified. Perhaps UCV #160 can be extended to include the bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
U+2C7CF 𬟏 is the modern transcription form of an oracle bone script character that means "autumn", and the original oracle bone script character it represents is thought to be a drawing of a grasshopper (which is active in autumn). The grass radical shown in the G-source glyph for U+2C7CF should correctly be 卝 as it actually represents the grasshopper's antennae.
On the other hand, UK-20437 is used in the evidence provided as an alternate way of writing the character 鱉 'softshell turtle' in the specific word 紫鱉, an ancient name for a type of plant. In this case it is obvious that the character is composed of a grass radical above a turtle.
Thus UK-20437 and U+2C7CF are non-cognate, and have significantly different glyph forms, and so cannot be unified.
Possibly unifiable with 𡆶 (U+211B6).
Is there explanation for the character why the inside should be exactly 旡 instead of 无?
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The G-Source reference shows 𡆶 U+211B6 is cited from the Kangxi Dictionary, which is the variant of 模. I checked other evidence, and I found it's the variant of 模 but only used in the variant form 𡆶𣔶 of the common Chinese word 模范.
As the new evidence in #5305, UK-20544 can't be identified as 模, and the new evidence in #5277 has shown it's the variant of 息 in Taoist text. Therefore, it's not better to unify it with 𡆶 U+211B6.
No reading is given, but shape and context suggests that this is identical to UK-20682 / SN03761 and could be unified
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree to unify UK-20682 / SN03761 to this character. The glyph shown for UK-20679 appears to be the correct form (cf. new evidence for UK-20704 and UK-20766).
In other texts, ⿰口𫆀 is written as 㖿 in the same sequences of syllables (example shown below). Therefore, unify to 㖿 (U+35BF) and create a new UCV for 𫆀 = 耶.
Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.
From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
Here is the SAT evidence (SAT No. 1822 倶舍論疏 T1822_.41.0477c03 Note ⓴)
Based on this, the two characters appear to be non-cognate, therefore should not be unified according to the Non-cognate Rule ("Ideographs with different glyph shapes that are unrelated in historical derivation (non-cognate characters) are not unified no matter how similar their glyph shapes may be").
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
《顺昌县地名志》P62：
The pronounciation of ⿰土富 is fù, which is absolutely not cognate with ⿰土冨（a variant of 盐）
Unify to 𪪘 (U+2AA98). U+2AA98 has the pronunciation yi4 according to CNS 11643, therefore might be cognate with this character.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
UK-20925 has reading hù according to 《中华千家姓氏录》, so is not cognate with 𪪘 (U+2AA98) (reading yì). Therefore we oppose unification of UK-20925 with U+2AA98.
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) share the same pronunciation.
According to the evidence, I doubt it means 不是(no), which is generally written as 唔是 or 唔系 in Cantonese, UTC-03197 and 唔 share the same pronunciation and meaning.
In addition, 呣 have a variant shape which is much more similar to UTC-03197.
On the whole, the characters are created for language, people could give a pronunciation multiple ways of writing. Considering the randomness of ordinary people's writing, it is not unreasonable to link UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) as synonym in this case.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
In Min, 母 does not have initial M and theoretically cannot be used as phonetic of this word.
Note that the Taiwanese Minnan Dictionary does list 呣 as a variant of 毋. https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Still disagree to unify with 呣 (U+5463) per Henry's and SAT's comments.
Given the large deviation between the six-有 and nine-有 form of this ideograph, in terms of the number of components, they cannot be unified. If others agree, the six-有 form must therefore be submitted as a separate ideograph.
As Henry mentioned, there are 5 existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
1. The quality of this character is questionable.
2. A similar glyph has already been encoded in 𫠦 (U+2B826).
3. There would be no end for this issue, for the discovery of variants would be a endless trip.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Most of the CJK characters in Unicode are variants of another character as a large number of the characters proposed in WS2021. So, this is not an argument for unification. Neither is there new information added since the previous IRG #57 decision to not unify.
Add the second radical as 181 頁, and the second SC=11, the second FS=3.
The third piece of evidence shows it’s the definition of 鮉. Compared with different ancient dictionaries, it’s easy to know it’s also the variant of 鯛, so it’s OK to keep the current RS as the first RS.
As Mr. Huang mentioned in #934, it’s the variant of 顦 based on the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th pieces of evidence. It’s better to add the second RS.
The fourth piece of evidence shows it’s the 反切上字 of 嶼. We can get 徐吕切 (唐韻), 象吕切 (集韻 etc.), 私吕切 (正字通) and 辭旅反 (篆隸萬象名義) as the fanqie of 嶼. The middle Chinese initials of 徐, 象 and 辭 are 邪, the one of 私 is 心. As we know, the current Putonghua pronunciation of 嶼/屿 (yǔ) does not match the middle Chinese. In the old Mandarin pronunciation, 嶼/屿 reads as xù, and the Cantonese pronunciation is zeoi6, which both match. 徐吕切, 象吕切, 辭旅反 all mean the same reading, 私吕切 means the other reading. As we know, 私吕切 (aka 胥上聲) is not a good fanqie for this character. The initial of 顦 is 從, the ones of 鯛 and 鮉 are 端, which do not match. It’s better to trust it is a character which the initial is 邪 and not the variant of 顦, 鯛, 鮉, 徐, 象, 辭, 私 in this evidence.
The second evidence is not complete, but it’s easy to get the sentence is cited from 爾雅, and it is the variant of 鮪. So, it is OK to keep the current RS in this case.
The fifth evidence does not match the glyph and not complete, please ignore it.
Two horizontal strokes for the outside component 齊 is missing in this character, so, is it OK to use 齊 as the radical? If yes, the RS values for this character and 齌 are the same, but the TS values are different, that looks not better; if not, I suggest using 火 86.0 as the radical, and SC=12, and keep FS without change.
According to the evidence submitted,”𧴫”, ”⿱罒寸”, “䙷” are variants of headword “𢔶”. Radical Information of ”𧴫”, “䙷” are as below recorded in Kangxizidian.
𧴫 【酉集中】【貝 154】TS : 10 · SC : 3
䙷 【酉集上】【見 147】 TS : 10 · SC : 3
From this, radical of “⿱罒寸” should be 109 目.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Keep ⿰子阝, like U+273C4, U+2EB2A.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
At least, this case is different from U+273C4 𧏄. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the left part is the real 子. So, it’s OK to use 子 as the left component in the IDS.
For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.
According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹閣. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹閣 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹閣 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝閣 the primary IDS and ⿱艹閣(or 〾⿱艹閣) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹綾. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹綾 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹綾 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝綾 the primary IDS and ⿱艹綾(or 〾⿱艹綾) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹毓. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹毓 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹毓 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝毓 the primary IDS and ⿱艹毓(or 〾⿱艹毓) as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹𥠺. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹𥠺 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV #152 & #320, ⿱艹𥠺 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝⿰禾昷 the primary IDS and 〾⿱艹𥠺 as the secondary IDS.
The IDS should at least be normalized to ⿱艹旗. If not, there is a danger that ⿱艹旗 may be separately encoded in the future.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
According to UCV#152, ⿱艹旗 should not be separately encoded in the future. Could IDS have two kinds? Make ⿱卝旗 the primary IDS and ⿱艹旗(or 〾⿱艹旗) as the secondary IDS.
it looks like the radical should be 40 宀 such as 觀(U+89C0).
Radical
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Add 40.0 宀 as the second radical?
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
For U+89C0 觀, the semantic element is 見, so the it’s the best to use 見 as the radical. However, the reading for 04292 provided by TCA is ān that means 安, the right part is the phonetic element. It’s better to keep the current RS without any change for the second radical.
SC=14 as there is 龷, which isn't 廿, in the first piece of evidence and the glyph.
Total Stroke Count
NG Hou Man
University of Macau
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
TS=25
Residual Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
All 廣 components (with 黃 or 黄) should be counted as 15 in IRG WS to KX. The real glyph shapes and the regional conventions are not important for the stroke counts. The SC and TS should be kept as the submitted ones.
I agree with Eddie that ⿰饣穸 is an error form, 穸 and 𡨝 is non-cognate.
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
Not opposed to changing IDS, but it's not clear what the benefit is. The current IDS, 漂見, follows the analysis of the dictionary compiler, as he notes "(phiêu kiến)". Historically, 漂 was used first alone, then the component 見 was added to distinguish it.
While I agree that 194 鬼 is more intuitive, current IRG rules require using a radical found in the semantic element. This character means "to divine" and represents a word that is probably an ancient borrowing of 卦 from Chinese, so the radical for 卦 is more appropriate. 194 鬼 can be a secondary radical.
It's better to keep the current IDS because of the rationale, which the semantic element is 絲 and the phonetic element is 貝.
If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
it looks like the radical should be 154 貝, which “近” is the phonetic component.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character means "near", so 近 is actually semantic and phonetic. The text in the evidence describes this as an E1 structure. This is what Prof. Hồng calls "đẳng lập hội ý" (等立會意). In this case, the character is compounded of 近 for its primary meaning and, by assimilation, the radical of 賒 "xa", which means "far". The assimilation reflects the fact that the 2 characters often appear together in the word "gần xa" (near and far, here and there, etc.). 154 貝 would be appropriate as a second radical, but based on the semantic, the primary radical should remain 162 辵
126.0 (而) would be a natural way to look this up and should be an alternate radical. However, the meaning of this character is "two" and 而 is phonetic, so based on IRG rules, the best radical might be 7.0 (二), SC=9, FS=1
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
I'm not sure what IRG rules you are referring to. However, IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
Evidence is unclear. I cannot make out whether the right side is 𭖔 or not, and as 𭖔 is not a component used in any other character it is not obvious that it should be 𭖔 here. Please provide additional evidence showing clearer images of the character.
Unclear evidence response
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The zoomed picture:
and page 450 of the same book:
Isn't there some question about the suitability of 汉字海 as a reliable source? I think it can be used as secondary evidence, but I would prefer to see additional evidence for ⿰木弯 as a place name.
The place mentioned in the evidence should be 山底村.
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Where does the only one evidence cite from? 闽侯县地名录 or 福建省地名全册?
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
江西省广昌县地名志，P226-227
According to the evidence, ⿱山畬 and ⿱山𤲞 has the meaning of 斜坡. They are congnate but have the different meaning of 畬.
In place names, 畬、畲 and 𤲞 can be used as each other. But there are not too many pairs.
As I know,
For radical 土, there are 𰊮（U+302AE）, ⿰土畲 and ⿰土𤲞;
For radical 山, there are ⿰山畬、⿰山𤲞、⿱山畬（WS2017）、⿱山𤲞.
However, 𤲞 is also a variant of 番 which means ⿰土𤲞 can be a variant of 墦, ⿰山𤲞 can be a variant of 嶓.
Considering people will more likely to think 余 and ⿱人米 as different characters, I suggest we encode them seperately.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=70922
I think here is a case that ⿰土𤲞 is a variant of a 墦 (坟)：
I really don't think this is sufficient evidence for encoding. I would like to see evidence of actual use in printed text, demonstrating that there really is a need to encode this character. If IRG considers that local-use vulgar simplifications can be encoded on the basis of unverified second-hand evidence such as this, then there are hundreds and hundreds of Part 2 second stage simplified characters for which there is a stronger case for encoding.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence posted is from
江西省公安厅一处 编纂：《江西方言土语汇集》第五册，1991年3月，P224
⿱十八 is a common character used widely in the Sourth of China.
Another evidence:
江苏省公安厅江苏方言总汇编写委员会：江苏方言总汇 上卷，北京：中国文联出版公司，1998年9月，P1860
The poem mentioned in the evidence means the 梁太子蕭統’s work 《大言》: “觀脩鯤其若轍鮒，視滄海之如濫觴。經二儀而跼蹐，跨六合以翱翔。” All the version of this poem in the ancient books show that position is 轍. Here is a modern typo, so we should remove this character.
五音集字 is authored by 汪朝恩, the earliest known published version is 道光十三年(1833年)刊本. The text probably comes from 字彙補 but 字彙補 gives 𧑳, as is quoted in 康熙字典:
The full page is shown as below for Evidence 1 & 2. It is easy to know the right phonetic component is 天 not 夭, because the pronunciation is 填. So the glyph should be changed to ⿰魚天 not ⿰魚夭.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
Chongwu is a town under Hui’an County, Quanzhou City (泉州市惠安县). I don’t have the materials on the Chongwu dialect, but we can see the Nan’an dialect which is one Min nan dialect of Nan’an City, Quanzhou City (泉州市南安市).
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
My friend whose mother comes from Hui’an County and has always lived in Minnan dialect area tole me that 笨 reads as pun¹¹ there. This character shares the same pronunciation.
The evidence is insufficient. Firstly, please show the full page of the evidence. Secondly please show the original source that is being quoted so we can be sure that character shown in the modern source is not a mistake.
The character is not included in the first evidence. The scholar mentioned the second evidence was a famous historian in Japan. The followings are his books.
The name was written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 岩波書店 in 1935.
https://book.kongfz.com/535541/4390005805/
The name was written as 桑原隲藏 by 商務印書館.
https://book.kongfz.com/565592/4500160884/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 岩波書店 in 1968.
https://book.kongfz.com/271942/4788602597/
The name was also written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 臺灣商務印書館 in 1971.
https://book.kongfz.com/446938/4381053120/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 中華書局 in 2007.
https://book.kongfz.com/517/4421072712/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 中華書局 in 2009.
https://book.kongfz.com/351791/4657623042/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 科学出版社 in 2019.
https://book.kongfz.com/268892/3685037725/
All the books are not related to the submitted character, so it is not better to encode it.
It is difficult to trust the modern edition of the text as experience shows that modern editions often introduce glyph errors or create imaginary characters. Therefore, please show an image of the original text, apparently from 《明憲宗純皇帝實錄卷之六十八》.
The character looks like the variant of 鰂 in the first evidence, which the word means 烏賊/烏鰂 (squid). It is not related to the Cantonese word zak1 (e.g. 鰂魚涌 in HKSAR). If my understand is reasonable, the current radical is questionable.
In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.
The new evidence shows an error form. The quoted poem actually has "白鳥翯翯". My personal rule is not to accept for encoding error forms only attested in a single edition (cf. my comment to UK-20004). I would only accept this character for encoding if additional evidence could be supplied that demonstrates that it is not an error form or that it is an error form that has been transmitted widely enough to be considered a "stable error".
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
Seems to be an error form for 蜩 (cf. https://baike.baidu.hk/item/%E8%9C%A9%E8%9F%A7/4697910). DO not encode without additional evidence that the character is correct or is a stable error.
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.
This character is also used for Taiwanese Hokkien as shown in {{https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/download/files/WSL_TPS_Huibian.pdf 新編台灣閩南語用字彙編}} p. 196:
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.
I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
The current evidence is insufficient. Please provide an image from an edition of 禮記 which shows this character. Otherwise it should be postponed pending additional evidence.
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.
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.
Per IRG PnP 2.1.1: "The supporting evidence for submitted characters in printed form
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
The 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.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR4e0061/002#1a 竹齋集（文淵閣本）卷中 folio 42a}} gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
This is from another unknown version of 正字通, where the character at this position is 註 and looks reasonable.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
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.
A quick search on the internet confirms that "黄芪" is also known as "芰草", therefore it is extremely likely that the proposed character is an error form for 芰. In this light, the evidence shown is not sufficient for encoding, and the character should be withdrawn.
It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
Did the character exist? Current Taiwanese terminology seem to use 唉.
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
As far as I can tell, the original quote given in all other sources is 至於桑野，是謂晏食。至於衡陽，是謂隅中。What is the reason that 至 is here written as ⿰至竟? Is this a weird mistake, or is there some reason for writing it this way.
As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The submitted evidence is a character list, but it's not used by the movable types. This has been confirmed by the typography history scholar Prof. Sun Mingyuan who is from Macao Polytechnic Institute.
Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
Based on the additonal evidence produced by Huang Junliang, it would seem that the submitted character is an error for 斸. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
From context this appears to be an error form of 葉. 《三農紀》 seems to have many error forms, and so is not a reliable source. I would not like to see this character encoded on the basis of this evidence alone.
It seems that both 𤭌 and ⿰第瓦 are used in different sources, and as 弟 and 第 are not unifiable, it is acceptable to encode ⿰第瓦 based on the original evidence and the additional evidence provided by Huang Junliang.
The glyph in the original evidence is unclear, and the evidence produced by Conifer Tseng indicates that the character should be 敘. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error for 敘.
This character should be U+310A5 𱂥 according to the original context in 《方言》.
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
See {{https://web.archive.org/web/20151212165149/http://fj.sina.com.cn/news/s/2015-12-05/detail-ifxmhqaa9963366.shtml Web Archive}} and {{http://dzb.hxnews.com/2015-12/05/content_334883.htm 海峽都市報}} for the second evidence.
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.
Citation may come from two sources, 說文 or 聲類. 䰫 is not exist in the current versions of 說文, it is speculated that it is from the version of the Tang Dynasty, analysed by 說文逸字. According to
the versions of 一切經音義 the author saw at the time, 廣雅疏證 records quotations from 聲類.
No matter what source is the original one, SAT-06900 is a wrong glyph of 䰫 (U+4C2B) indeed.
廣潛研堂說文答問疏證
小學盦遺書
說文逸字
廣雅疏證
Except for 𰆰 itself, they only appear in 1 or 2 entries but as headwords, and 𰆰 usually occurs in description of characters using it. They are all variants of common characters so that their standard forms are overwhelmingly prevalent.
Actually, the majority of occurrences in our DB is already shown in the comments of [ {{WS2017-01820}} ] , with remaining ones attached here.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
We originally believed that this character stands for 技, but the corresponding text in 一字佛頂輪王經 (T0951) reads 枝掛, so this should be 枝 in this context.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It may be true that this word strongly reminds 投挂 which might have triggered the alteration of radical. For example 一切經音義三種校本合刊:
The current evidence is OK, and I found this character used in other books. I still have a question. What book is 説文聲集 mentioned in the evidence? Does it mean 《説文聲系》 written by 姚文田?
FYI, this is a 钞本 I found a few days before, which may be not reliable enough. But maybe they can all be used as each other.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
疋 have 2 meanings, 匹 and 雅. The new evidence looks like a childish literacy textbooks written by a rural teacher. These kind of books are not authoritative.
The evidence mentions “說文(⿰彳待)待也儲(⿰彳待)具也”. Based on any version of 說文解字 gives 偫 (U+506B) .
《說文解字》藤花榭本．卷八上
(http://www.guoxuedashi.net/kangxi/pic.php?f=swjzzb&p=270)
I think it is a variant of 偫(U+506B), and suggest pending other evidence.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree with TCA's comment dated 2022-01-05.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》 includes all three characters at the same time. 《國語辭典》 also includes the submitted one.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Shape and reading, "sī", suggest this may be a variant of U+9DE5 鷥. But, what is the evidence that justifies this reading? In other cases, such as U+2A028 𪀨 , a variant of 鴉 according to Kangxi, the component 𢆶 represents another phonetic.
Unclear evidence response
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card. According to ancient book(重訂直音篇), this character is a variant of 鷥.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Evidence shown is not primary source. Need new evidence.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Unclear evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I suspect that this is mistranscription of U+8117 脗.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
日 and ⺼ is not a common combination mixed up because of similar shapes, so I don't think it's a mistranscription of 脗.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
also as KC-10920
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
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"
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This character is a name character. The source of the glyph is the name field on the ID card, and some of the characters are not found in the pronunciation section.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Unification
I still think it is dangerous to make the UCV for 宀 & 山 for our future encoding works.
unify to 歍 (U+6B4D)?
The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
The right part seems like ⿱丿㘝 more. Maybe it is unifiable to 𧉫 (U+2726B).
Unifiable to 𧊃 (U+27283)?
Appears to be an error for U+25855 𥡕 in a single edition. Suggest postponing for additional evidence.
𣪊X.
If the UCV is added, this character should be unified to 㺉 (U+3E89).
Unify with 擸 (U+64F8) per China's 2021-09-15 comment?
Agree to unify to 𧃔 (U+270D4).
(宋)王懷隱編，《太平聖惠方》(烏絲欄鈔本)卷14
Unify to 脨 by UCV #422.
【未集下】【肉字部】 【集韻】趨玉切，音促。本作𦠁。弗𦠁。炙筯。或从肉。 又秦昔切，音籍。瘦也。 集韻(1039)
It appears that the shape for 朿 affects the pronunication and the meaning, so ⿰月朿 and 脨 (⿰月束) should be considered non-cognate.
Further sources from Jiyun are required.
They are two separate head characters, with the first head character in the same series as 促戚趨趣誎 (from phonetic 束) and the second head character in the same series as 籍耤藉莋葃膌 and also 刺洓 (from phonetic 朿).
𪊨
《康熙字典‧亥集下‧鹿部‧麂》：「【本草註】……本作𪊨。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1509
According to the evidence, this character is related with 麂子. ⿸鹿𣅀 seems to be a misprint of 𪊨.
𱊢
accounding to the evidence. It should be 𱊢.
They are duplicates now.
The posted evidence is 王琳. 近现代化学元素名称研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2015,P21-22
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
Unify to 𣱖 (U+23C56)?
Based on the text, it's a variant of U+6C23 氣. And U+23C56 𣱖 is also a variant of 氣.
《漢語大字典》，頁2155.
Agree to unify to 𣱖 (U+23C56).
A misprint of WS2021-01956.
They are duplicates now.
𰲘（U+30C98）
Unify to 𰲘 (U+30C98) 'female tiger' which is the correct transcription form of the oracle bone script character.
⿰击頁 https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/u2ff0-u51fb-u9801
⿲口击頁 https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/u2ff2-u53e3-u51fb-u9801
According to the IRG suggestion on 2022-03-15 at IRG #58 , KR provides KR Normalization rule #77 (77-1 ~ 77-5).
Based on the examples in KR Norm. rule #77, Dr. CHO Sungduk suggests to unify WS2021-00655 (GKJ-01024) with 噸 (U+5678).
Unify to 撋 (U+648B)?
UCV #1 (IRGN2514)
哿
My suggestion to keep and encode this character as-is.
- U+8668 虨 and WS2021-SN01289 (KC-05060) are two distinct chars.
- the two chars (one in a blue box, the other in red box) are two distinct persons' names
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
unify to 遻 (U+907B)?
The word shown in the evidence looks like 相遻.
Unify to 腳; change NUCV-343 to UCV-343.
Despite there being a NUCV-343 [卻, 郤], historically ⿰木郤 and ⿰木卻 have been unified at U+3B9D, until Unicode 12.0 where the G glyph was corrected from ⿰木卻 to ⿰木郤.
It is suggested to change NUCV-343 to a UCV rule, as it appears such variation is not rare. The non-cognate rule can be invoked to separately code characters with 郤 and 卻 when actually required.
unify to 殫
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殫 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 歿
The evidence shows it is the variant of 歿 clearly.
UCV #149 for the right part.
unify to 敝 (U+655D)
See Comment #2984 and #4868 from Huang Junliang and Conifer.
unify to 駛 (U+99DB)
The evidence shows the fanqies are 師利反 and 師事反, that means the variant of 駛.
The character on the same page is surely 𢤳 (U+22933), so SAT-06060 must be a wrong handwriting glyph.
𦆢 (U+261A2)
reading, sense and shape are similar. Kangxi entry for U+261A2 quotes Quangyun: 居例切，音罽。○按从网之字，或省作冈，或變作四。This appears to be a variant using a form of 四.
unify to 𢙷 (U+22677)
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
unify to 仡 U+4EE1?
U+209D2 𠧒=U+4E5E 乞
U+21D4A 𡵊=U+5C79 屹
U+21D4B 𡵋=U+2AA23 𪨣
U+221D2 𢇒=U+221D3 𢇓
U+23C81 𣲁=U+6C54 汔
U+264EA 𦓪=U+43A2 䎢
U+26638 𦘸=U+8090 肐
U+2925F 𩉟=U+4A50 䩐
U+2968B 𩚋=U+4B23 䬣
U+29FA4 𩾤=U+29FA5 𩾥
U+2A5DA 𪗚=U+9F55 齕
U+2E782 𮞂=U+8FC4 迄
If these two components are not unifiable, we will meet more and more character with the component 𠧒 in future, because it is too common.
The following UCV are related but not reflected on current comments, I can provide more evidences if we agree on some of these rules:
Level 1 UCV: 卥/⿱⺊⿴囗夕(卥+VS17)
Level 2 UCV: 𠧪卥鹵. 𠧪 ~ 卣, 𠧪卥 ~ 西, so they are level 2.
No meaning is given, but the evidence shows that the reading of this character is identical to that of 誩, for which the "Guang Yun" gives the fanqie reading 渠敬 (*gjængH), Mandarin "jìng". This suggests that it is related to 𥪰 (U+25AB0), which is also read 渠敬 = Mandarin "jìng" and defined in Kangxi as a variant of U+7AF6, 競 read "jìng". Also, given the graphic relationship between 並 and 竝, this also appears to be the full form to U+2785F, another variant of U+7AF6. Seems like a strong argument for semantic identity U+7AF6 and possible unification with one of the encoded forms.
To be unified to 珽 (U+73FD) after applying new UCV rule 廷 and 𢌜 in IRG 57.
According to 漢語大字典, the following 8 encoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇
𰂬 / 僧 p252
𰻹 / 鄫 p4044
𰯐 / 𦠇 p2261
𰦢 / 矰 p2769
𰧞 / 磳 p2626
𰷐 / 𧸑 p3898
𱄱 / 驓 p4872
𱋹 / 𪒟 p5070
The only exception is 𨶧, which is a Taiwan person name but ⿵門曾 is not encoded.
According to MOE dictionary, the following 25 unencoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇.
⿰口𭦌 / 噌 B00425-004
⿰山𭦌 / 嶒 B00881-006
⿰巾𭦌 / 𢅋 C03181-002
⿰忄𭦌 / 憎 A01437-003
⿰扌𭦌 / 𢴣 A00813-009
⿰土𭦌 / 增 A00813-004
⿰氵𭦌 / 潧 C06414-002
⿰𭦌彡/ 㣒 C03489-002
⿱山𭦌 / 𡼳 B00881-007
⿱艹𭦌 / 𦼏 C11864-002
⿰木𭦌 / 橧 B01837-004
⿰火𭦌 / 熷 C06843-004
⿰牛𭦌 / 𤛢 C07114-002
⿰王𭦌 / 璔 A02595-012
⿱𠔿𭦌 / 𦌘 B03527-007
⿱𠕀𭦌 / 罾 B03527-002 (龍龕)
⿱罒𭦌 / 罾 B03527-003 (玉篇)
⿰立𭦌 / 竲 C09457-002
⿰糹𭦌 / 繒 B03458-006
⿰𭦌羽 / 䎖 C10661-002
⿰貝𭦌 / 贈 A03976-006 (廣碑別字)
⿰金𭦌 / 鏳 A04315-006 or 璔 B02639-002 (玉篇)
⿱山⿰糸𭦌 / 𡾽 B00881-008
⿰黒𭦌 / 𪒟 C18127-002
⿳亠⿲刀丫⿸#(丿𠄌>)乀⿴囗𭦌 / 𪗐 C18268-001
The known exceptions are
⿱𭦌灬 (KC12396): a variant of 魯 according to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=161977
⿰𭦌盖: a variant of 嫌 A00956-005
Note that the component 𭦌 may also be a variant of the component 魯: ⿰口𭦌 / 噌 A00708-002 from 敦煌俗字譜.
Given that most of unencoded 𭦌 component is a variant of component 曾, consider
add a UCV 187b 曾/𭦌 with etymological link.
Unify to 𦵻 (U+26D7B) and extend UCV #388 to cover 𣈆 = 晉 = 𦵻.
Unifiable to 技 (U+6280)?
In WS2015 𰆰 (00511, USAT09010, semantic variant of 支) was added, while in WS2017 ⿰虫𰆰 (03847, USAT07003, semantic variant of 蚑) was added. Are there more examples of characters using 𰆰 instead of 支, and if it is systematic, is it better to unify them as a new UCV?
Unify to 膠 (U+81A0); add new UCV ⿱羽尒 and 翏.
Unifiable with 餮 (U+992E)?
This looks like a strict transcripted form; it may be better to add a UCV 歹/歺.
SAT-07087 is used to illustrate the reading in the definition of another character. The character being defined, appears to be a variant of U+258BC. SAT-07087 appears to have the same relationship to 𧵩 (U+27D69) as U+27D69 has to U+258BC, strongly suggestion that they are variants. Both appear to be ancient forms of 責 (古文責字)
unify to 鷇 (U+9DC7)
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
They are used as the same characters in general.
unify to 疋 U+758B
The evidence shows the book name is 《廣疋》 (aka 廣雅).
BTW, 鄧爾雅 wrote his name as 疋 not 雅 in his Chinese calligraphy works.
The evidence suggests that this is a variant of U+27A6F, which, according to Kangxi, is in turn a variant of 訴. The reading shown is 素, Mandarin "sù", which is the same as U+27A6F and 訴. The variants given, U+27A9C and 愬 are also similar to 訴 in meaning. The definitions overlap with those of 訴 (吿, 論, 譖, etc.), and the context shown would make sense written as 訴諸鬼神, "appeal to / have recourse to demons and spirits".
I think the point here is whether we want to unify 广 and 厂.
Appears to be a variant of U+2BFD3 and U+22FE5.
unify to 𫿓 (U+2BFD3)
Support Lee's Comment #3915. The evidence shows the left part is the variant of 番 without any doubt. 𫿓 (U+2BFD3) itself is the variant of 播, but it shares the same rationale (same semantic element and same phonetic element).
(1)
e.g.
U+227F7 𢟷 vs U+61A3 憣
U+240F3 𤃳 vs U+2412B 𤄫
U+2839A 𨎚 vs U+8F53 轓
U+2E0EA 𮃪 vs U+2588C 𥢌
(2)
e.g.
U+2E2D2 𮋒 vs U+7FFB 翻
(3)
e.g.
U+2242E 𢐮 vs U+22432 𢐲
It seems to be an error for 䏣 in the head character only, and the entry actually uses 䏣 (肉中蟲謂之䏣蝇). Therefore this evidence is insufficient for encoding. Suggest unifying to 䏣.
unify to 殉
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
Unify to 闙.
unify to 殄
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殄 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
This character appears to be an error for 舓 (this error form is also found in 蒙古字韻). As it is a common mistake to miswrite 易 as 昜 and vice versa, perhaps we should have a UCV rule for 易 and 昜 when cognate.
Unify to 幡, high similarity and cognate. Suggest encoding by IVD.
The right component is also similar to 𭈆, which is a variant of 哀 according to MOE dictionary.
I suggest adding a new UCV 哀/⿳𠂉口𧘇, similar to UCV 151b and 230a.
Unify to 逆 (U+9006), cf. UCV #447:
Agree to unify to 𦠍 (U+2680D) as per the new UCV.
SAT-08945 and the similar characters U+27D69 and U+27D8C are all variants of what's now written 責.
unify to 殞
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殞 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862.
unify to 訖 U+8A16?
It's used as a 反切下字 in the evidence, but it's very easy to know it's really the variant of 訖.
U+209D2 𠧒=U+4E5E 乞
U+21D4A 𡵊=U+5C79 屹
U+21D4B 𡵋=U+2AA23 𪨣
U+221D2 𢇒=U+221D3 𢇓
U+23C81 𣲁=U+6C54 汔
U+264EA 𦓪=U+43A2 䎢
U+26638 𦘸=U+8090 肐
U+2925F 𩉟=U+4A50 䩐
U+2968B 𩚋=U+4B23 䬣
U+29FA4 𩾤=U+29FA5 𩾥
U+2A5DA 𪗚=U+9F55 齕
U+2E782 𮞂=U+8FC4 迄
If these two components are not unifiable, we will meet more and more character with the component 𠧒 in future, because it is too common.
unify to 㓹 (U+34F9)?
The evidence shows it is the bottom of 罽, and the real bottom of 罽 should be 㓹.
▲ 《説文解字》，藤花榭本，第七下
unify to 泓
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017.
[ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
𦧙？
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Disagree. The right part(尔 and 朱) of these two characters is totally different. The character is used as a name.
Unify to 𢋐 (U+222D0). U+222D0 has the pronunciation jí according to CNS 11643, therefore might be miswriting of U+222D0.
Based on the shape, there is no UCV rule to judge unification.
The glyph of 䰪 (U+4C2A) which shows in 《康熙字典》（同文書局） is similar to ⿰⿱夫月鬼.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1462
Per Ng Hou Man's comment, 䰪 (U+4C2A) is printed in the Kangxi Dictionary as follows:
Another version gives this, where the dots are slightly more clearly separated:
Note this is filed under 10 strokes, so the character definitely has 脊 on the left.
The pronunciation of T9-7B7C in the CNS11643 website is also mèi, which matches the pronunciation of 䰪 (U+4C2A).
Disagree to be unified. According to 康熙字典, SC is 10, so the strokes on the upper left should be divided. See another version(內府).
The meaning of 䰪(U+4C2A) from 康熙字典 is demon(鬼魅). No one's name will use a character with a ghostly meaning.
has been unified by "minor difference of strokes" with similar composition.
Actually, the radical is the cursive form of 氵.
similar to 䢥(U+48A5) or 𨕒(U+28552).
Given the information is correct, can consider IVS to 㐸 (U+3438). cf. Annex S.1.5.i
All above are the wrong glyph of 浞.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
Possibly unifiable with 哚 (U+54DA).
Although we believe that TC-447C should related to 𪋿, but no evidence can prove it.
Please provide the evidence include the glyph how it is used or what it means.
TCA thoughts there is no need to discuss whether the name is miswriting, because it has been used extensively in official documents and systems.
Unify to 𩂨 (U+290A8)?
The pronunciation of 𩂨 is sè (色責切), too.
Unify to 𠦬 (U+209AC)
Possibly Unifiable to 殛 (U+6B9B)
Unify with 㻸 (U+3EF8), and add a new UCV for 朁~替. See also SAT-06893 and TE-2F54.
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726
- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
Unify to 𦂯 (U+260AF)
Unify to 鄹 (U+9139).
Excerpt from Hanyu Dazidian shows that 鄹 (U+9139) can also be read as jù when used as a place name:
There is also a similar case in the UCV, with a single stroke difference:
This is an issue that can be considered. Because Both 𬱃(⿰名頁) and 頟 are variants of 額, it is suggested that it can be added a new UCV rule.
Unify with 𦅦 (U+26166), and add a new UCV for 朁~替. See also SAT-06893 and TD-6D41.
similar to 邎(U+908E).
Is it a misprint of 誆?
Unify to 𢶳 by UCV #62 and UCV IRGN2481-Item 3. Since 𢶳 is likely an error form, I suggest UK horizontally extends 𢶳 with ⿰扌棄.
Unify to 𥊑 (U+25291); consider new UCV 𭦟 = 曼.
Agree to unification with 𥊑 (U+25291) if new UCV is defined for 曼 = 𭦟 = 𭦗.
The bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏 is obviously a turtle, so unification seems justified. Perhaps UCV #160 can be extended to include the bottom component of U+2C7CF 𬟏.
On the other hand, UK-20437 is used in the evidence provided as an alternate way of writing the character 鱉 'softshell turtle' in the specific word 紫鱉, an ancient name for a type of plant. In this case it is obvious that the character is composed of a grass radical above a turtle.
Thus UK-20437 and U+2C7CF are non-cognate, and have significantly different glyph forms, and so cannot be unified.
Unify with 𭗙 (U+2D5D9).
𭗙 (U+2D5D9) is mapped to KC-05009, but the newest version of KC-05009 is ⿱山眉:
Suggest to update K glyph and also add new UCV 眉 ~ 睂.
Normalized form from cursive script.
Possibly unifiable with 𡆶 (U+211B6).
Is there explanation for the character why the inside should be exactly 旡 instead of 无?
As the new evidence in #5305, UK-20544 can't be identified as 模, and the new evidence in #5277 has shown it's the variant of 息 in Taoist text. Therefore, it's not better to unify it with 𡆶 U+211B6.
Per precedent of WS2017-00744, this could be unified to 𠦬 (U+209AC).
𠦬 (U+209AC) is the variant of 乖, reads as gwȧi based on the Romanization system in this dictionary.
Unify to 㘞 (U+361E) as this is the form of the character shown several times in the source shown below:
《文帝全書》36:14B
In other texts, ⿰口𫆀 is written as 㖿 in the same sequences of syllables (example shown below). Therefore, unify to 㖿 (U+35BF) and create a new UCV for 𫆀 = 耶.
▲ 墨娥小錄（吳繼聚好堂明隆慶5年刊本）卷9 folio 3a gives the same spell 魑⿺鬼㫖𩲕𩲓⿺鬼尊⿺鬼勝.
Unify with 𩲓?
▲ Pelliot Chinois 4525(1) 20 (See ⿰目𡧱 on the top-right)
Here are some evidences of 𡆮:
▲ 康熙字典（清內府刊本）丑集備考 folio 9b
▲ 五音篇海（明正德刊本）卷14 folio 4b
Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.
From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
(汉语方言大字典 page 5293). misprint of 𬝋.
Agree to unify to 𬝋 (U+2C74B).
▲ 臨汾縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷7 folio 15
▲ 貴州通志（清乾隆刊本）卷8 folio 8 (⿰日𦻏/⿰目𦻏);
⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙.
Disagree to a new UCV for 迴/廻. Although 辶 and 廴 hold similar meaning and shape, they are non-cognate.
Unify to 𭏨
Based on this, the two characters appear to be non-cognate, therefore should not be unified according to the Non-cognate Rule ("Ideographs with different glyph shapes that are unrelated in historical derivation (non-cognate characters) are not unified no matter how similar their glyph shapes may be").
The pronounciation of ⿰土富 is fù, which is absolutely not cognate with ⿰土冨（a variant of 盐）
Unify to 𪪘 (U+2AA98). U+2AA98 has the pronunciation yi4 according to CNS 11643, therefore might be cognate with this character.
unify to 𢴕 (U+22D15)
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
▲ 侯兴泉，吴南开：《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》，广州：广东人民出版社，2017.05，p. 277
This character was also used in the 庚辰本 of “A Dream of Red Mansions” (《紅樓夢》).
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏，脂硯齋：《脂硯齋重評石頭記》，庚辰本，第八回
Other form was used in the other version in the same position.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第八回
The above evidence is not clear enough, and we check the same character in other position of the same version as below.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第二十八回
It is U+22D15 𢴕 in the above evidence.
UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) share the same pronunciation.
According to the evidence, I doubt it means 不是(no), which is generally written as 唔是 or 唔系 in Cantonese, UTC-03197 and 唔 share the same pronunciation and meaning.
In addition, 呣 have a variant shape which is much more similar to UTC-03197.
On the whole, the characters are created for language, people could give a pronunciation multiple ways of writing. Considering the randomness of ordinary people's writing, it is not unreasonable to link UTC-03197 and 呣 (U+5463) as synonym in this case.
Note that the Taiwanese Minnan Dictionary does list 呣 as a variant of 毋. https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/
As Henry mentioned, there are 5 existing coded variant forms of 所 include 㪽 (U+3ABD), 𠩄 (U+20A44), 𫝂 (U+2B742), 𫠦 (U+2B826), 𬻐 (U+2CED0).
1. The quality of this character is questionable.
2. A similar glyph has already been encoded in 𫠦 (U+2B826).
3. There would be no end for this issue, for the discovery of variants would be a endless trip.
Attributes
The current IDS suggested in #5926 doesn’t match the glyph. And Tao Yang has explained the reason.
I support Henry's comment.
The third piece of evidence shows it’s the definition of 鮉. Compared with different ancient dictionaries, it’s easy to know it’s also the variant of 鯛, so it’s OK to keep the current RS as the first RS.
As Mr. Huang mentioned in #934, it’s the variant of 顦 based on the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th pieces of evidence. It’s better to add the second RS.
The fourth piece of evidence shows it’s the 反切上字 of 嶼. We can get 徐吕切 (唐韻), 象吕切 (集韻 etc.), 私吕切 (正字通) and 辭旅反 (篆隸萬象名義) as the fanqie of 嶼. The middle Chinese initials of 徐, 象 and 辭 are 邪, the one of 私 is 心. As we know, the current Putonghua pronunciation of 嶼/屿 (yǔ) does not match the middle Chinese. In the old Mandarin pronunciation, 嶼/屿 reads as xù, and the Cantonese pronunciation is zeoi6, which both match. 徐吕切, 象吕切, 辭旅反 all mean the same reading, 私吕切 means the other reading. As we know, 私吕切 (aka 胥上聲) is not a good fanqie for this character. The initial of 顦 is 從, the ones of 鯛 and 鮉 are 端, which do not match. It’s better to trust it is a character which the initial is 邪 and not the variant of 顦, 鯛, 鮉, 徐, 象, 辭, 私 in this evidence.
The second evidence is not complete, but it’s easy to get the sentence is cited from 爾雅, and it is the variant of 鮪. So, it is OK to keep the current RS in this case.
The fifth evidence does not match the glyph and not complete, please ignore it.
The evidence shows this character is the variant of 暴, and the radical of 暴 is 72.0 日.
▲ IRGN954AR
品 is the phonetic element.
The radical should be the same as 肥.
The radical should be the same as 肫 and 胗.
The meaning is related to human and animal.
～⿰月口 (duzgaeuh) is a stable word meant "knee" on the evidence.
U+2E308 𮌈
胬～ (noh haeu) is a stable word according to the evidence.
The semantic element is 果, and the phonetic element is 文.
The radical of 光 is 10.0
The meaning is related to "face".
～⿰手蒙 (ngamz mungz) is a stable word meant the space between the fingers, which is related to the human body.
The semantic element is 面, which is also more intuitive, and the phonetic element is 來.
The RS for the semantic element 背 is 130.5.
The radical should be as the same as U+2D375 𭍵, U+56ED 园 and so on.
IDS can be ⿱ D10-01山, instead of ⿳亠⿲刀丫？山, which contain a question mark "?".
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
According to the evidence, the best radical should be 色 not 骨.
𧴫 【酉集中】【貝 154】TS : 10 · SC : 3
䙷 【酉集上】【見 147】 TS : 10 · SC : 3
From this, radical of “⿱罒寸” should be 109 目.
The evidence shows this character "從肉" clearly.
If the reading is mù provided by TCA, the better radical should be 父 not 木.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.
According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
The pronunciation is xiāng.
The pronunciation is sī provided by TCA, so the semantic element should be 育.
I support Mr. NG in this case.
IRGN954AR and IRGN2171 have not included 飠 and 𩙿 yet.
supposed from the pronunciation.
Change IDS to ⿰⿱旦來阝and update the glyph accordingly.
The original has ～銅爲之, ⿱氾土 is likely a variant of 笵. 「範銅爲之」appears in 清史稿:
Attached PDF file
▲ 清史稿（1942） pp. 211
change IDS to ⿱氾土 and update the glyph accordingly.
According to the Source 1, the character belongs to 隹部, and it is the name of a kind of bird.
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
According to IRGN954AR #13, the left part of 礼 is counted as 5 strokes:
This character is the variant of 慶, and the bottom of 慶 is 夊 not 夂.
以 is counted as 5 strokes by Kangxi.
The radical of 年 is 51.0, which is the semantic element, and the phonetic element is 歲.
If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
According to IRGN954AR, the left hand side of 補 should be counted as 6 strokes, so SC=13, TS=18.
鼎 was counted as 13 in KX.
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
Evidence
and page 450 of the same book:
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
According to the evidence, ⿱山畬 and ⿱山𤲞 has the meaning of 斜坡. They are congnate but have the different meaning of 畬.
In place names, 畬、畲 and 𤲞 can be used as each other. But there are not too many pairs.
As I know,
For radical 土, there are 𰊮（U+302AE）, ⿰土畲 and ⿰土𤲞;
For radical 山, there are ⿰山畬、⿰山𤲞、⿱山畬（WS2017）、⿱山𤲞.
However, 𤲞 is also a variant of 番 which means ⿰土𤲞 can be a variant of 墦, ⿰山𤲞 can be a variant of 嶓.
Considering people will more likely to think 余 and ⿱人米 as different characters, I suggest we encode them seperately.
I think here is a case that ⿰土𤲞 is a variant of a 墦 (坟)：
江西省公安厅一处 编纂：《江西方言土语汇集》第五册，1991年3月，P224
⿱十八 is a common character used widely in the Sourth of China.
Another evidence:
江苏省公安厅江苏方言总汇编写委员会：江苏方言总汇 上卷，北京：中国文联出版公司，1998年9月，P1860
The character here is also a simplification for U+571D 圝.
▲ 《通州志》，天一閣藏明萬曆刻本，第四卷
Note that 通州 here means current Nantong City (南通市) in Jiangsu Province, not Tongzhou District in Beijing City.
I suspect it is a misprint of 鰈. The evidence has 西鶼東～. 《文心雕龍·封禪》has 西鶼東鰈.
▲ 文心雕龍（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏明刊本）卷5 folio 1
Suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，豫章叢書
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，四庫全書本
▲ 《續文獻通考》，明萬曆刻本，卷二百三十六
▲ 《松江府志》，嘉慶二十二年明倫堂刻本，卷六
▲ 太平御覽（四部叢刊中華學藝社借照日本帝室圖書寮京都東福寺東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷937 folio 1
太平御覽 gives very similar text
「《毛詩義疏》曰：鱮，似魴而大頭，魚之不美者。故里語曰：『買魚得鱮，不如啖茹。』」
Suggest pending more evidences.
《忠肅集》，光緖乙卯[1879]，王氏謙德堂校刊本。
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=106745&page=577
He recorded the seafood he had eaten in the Lingnan (嶺南) in this book. Maybe Lingnan here means Guangdong.
▲ 張自烈：《正字通》，清畏堂原板，卷十二
Note that 水晶魚 means 銀魚 (salangid) currently, and which is called as 白飯魚 in HKSAR. It is different from 水晶魚 mentioned in 《正字通》.
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，明萬曆刻本，卷二
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，清光緒刻本，卷二
▲ 劉學箕：《方是閒居士詞》，民國彊村叢書，一卷
The whole poem is shown as below.
漁家傲 白湖觀捕魚
漢水悠悠還漾漾，漁翁出没穿風浪，千尺絲綸垂兩槳，收又放，月明長在煙波上。
釣得活鱗鯿縮項，篘成玉液香浮盎，醉倒自歌歌自唱，輕嫋纜，碧蘆紅蓼清灘傍。
鯿縮項 means 縮項鯿, which is 武昌魚 (Bluntnose black bream) in modern Chinese.
Maybe it is a modern typo for 蜇.
▲ 太平御覽（四部叢刊中華學藝社借照日本帝室圖書寮京都東福寺東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷998 folio 2
I agree with Andrew that this is an error form of 蘓.
Which one is correct?
{{https://ia600307.us.archive.org/15/items/02076809.cn/02076809.cn.pdf 字彙補}} 51/52
I suspect ～ is a misprint of 𧑳, consider pending more evidences.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Variant/misprint of 鶅? Note that 笛 is very similar to ⿱𡿧田 (甾 + VS19).
See 鶅 on ctext:
太平御覽（靜嘉堂藏宋刊本）卷917 folio 5：「西方曰鷷，東方曰緇（音緇衣之緇）」緇/鶅 share the same phonetic element.
春秋左傳正義（清同治刊本）卷48 folio 8:「西方曰鷷雉，東方曰鶅雉，南方曰翟雉」
An original evidence from 寶慶本草折衷 would help to ensure it is not a modern misprint.
The name was written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 岩波書店 in 1935.
https://book.kongfz.com/535541/4390005805/
The name was written as 桑原隲藏 by 商務印書館.
https://book.kongfz.com/565592/4500160884/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 岩波書店 in 1968.
https://book.kongfz.com/271942/4788602597/
The name was also written as 桑原𨽥藏 by 臺灣商務印書館 in 1971.
https://book.kongfz.com/446938/4381053120/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 中華書局 in 2007.
https://book.kongfz.com/517/4421072712/
The name was also written as 桑原隲藏 by 中華書局 in 2009.
https://book.kongfz.com/351791/4657623042/
The name was written as 桑原骘藏 by 科学出版社 in 2019.
https://book.kongfz.com/268892/3685037725/
All the books are not related to the submitted character, so it is not better to encode it.
4 pieces of evidence, but only one source.
“天鵝，鵠也。”
▲ 《字課圖説》，光緒三十年澄衷蒙學堂石印本，卷三
In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.
▲ 《爾雅疏》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
宋版史记一百三十卷本
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=9021&page=135
《埤雅》，《四庫全書》
成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076730.cn/page/n42/mode/2up
https://dcollections.lib.keio.ac.jp/sites/all/libraries/uv/uv.php?archive=FKZ&id=F7-A01-02#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=47&r=0&z=1048.314%2C1832.5365%2C691.408%2C531.18
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/898727/147
Misprint of 蜩?
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋景文公筆記（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷下葉6：「鶬鶊鳴春，蟋蟀唫夏，蜩蟧喝秋，螘子戰隂。」
——李清照《武陵春》
▲ 三晋文字编. pp. 616
The character is a transcription of the seal script form from 《中國古印：程訓義古璽印集存》.
The text possibly comes from 康熙字典. 康熙字典（清康熙內府刊本） gives
𤠏……本作㺁或作𧳦𧳺, quoted from 集韻.
I suspect ⿰犭⿱册止 is a misprint of 𤠏, consider pending more evidences.
Attached PDF file
▲ 附釋音禮記註疏（元泰定, 致和間刊 明遞修）卷39葉1 gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 纂圖互註禮記（南宋刊 （建安））卷11葉16 gives 優, in the annotation it gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 禮記注䟽挍勘記（清嘉慶刊本）卷39葉1
Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.
I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
I suspect it is a misprint of 猼.
The evidence is quote from 《史記·司馬相如列傳》. 說文字母集解 is authored 井上夬菴 by published in 寬保01年（1741）.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 6 gives 猼.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（宋刊本）卷117 folio 4 gives 猼.
史記（清武英殿刊本） also gives 猼.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Consider pending more evidences.
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（畢效欽明刊本）卷3 folio 2
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷3 folio 3
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（寶曆07年刊本）卷3 folio 15
BTW, the character is used in 反切, which should be a common character.
(Extract from a textbook: https://twitter.com/tubatuubaa/status/1508748190094278661)
▲ 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.
成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076735.cn/page/n46/mode/2up
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
▲ 《邊裔典》，古今圖書集成，第八十四卷
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
《史記》「軒轅乃修德振兵，治五氣，藝五種，撫萬民，度四方，教熊羆貔貅貙虎」
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 鼷.
▲ 廣韻（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏宋刊巾箱本）卷3 folio 10
廣韻 has 「鸓。飛生鳥。名飛且乳。一曰鼯䑕。毛紫赤。色似𮕙蝠而長」
▲ 重修政和證類本草（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏金刊本）卷18 folio 14
本草 has 「陶𨼆居云。鼺是鼯䑕。一名飛生」
I suspect it is a misprint of 鼺, suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，四庫全書本，卷三十六
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，清嘉慶刻本，卷三十六
The glyph looks stable in 台州.
▲ 新刊大宋演義中興通俗演義（明嘉靖刊本）卷8 folio 6
▲ 陳仁錫：《八編類纂》，明刻本，卷之二百六十
▲ 《御製詩四集》，四庫全書本，卷九十二
▲ 董誥：《皇清文穎續編》，武英殿刻本，卷首二十六（高宗純皇帝聖製詩）
BTW, does the evidence cite from 《道光承德府志》 really?
▲ 劎南詩稾（明崇禎汲古閣刊本） 卷9 folio 7b gives 讒.
Consider pending more evidences.
The evidence has 「江汜野⿱艹麕諸篇……」, where 江汜 is 《召南·江有汜》 and 野⿱艹麕 is 《召南·野有死麕》. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR4e0061/002#1a 竹齋集（文淵閣本）卷中 folio 42a}} gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
⿰巾晝 should be ⿰巾畫 = 𢄶
⿰彳蒦 should be ⿰犭蒦 = 獲
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
* 𱶎 is [ {{WS2017-03148}} ]
.
符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.
龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.
覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.
宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.
古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
集韵
合併字學篇韻便覽
嚴氏詩緝補義
▲ {{https://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/islandora/object/cuhk%3A655073 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1}}
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
If experts think this to be unclear, I'd like to buy a hard copy and take a picture myself.
https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
The glyph should be changed accordingly.
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷22 gives 鬷.
As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
I don't think so. The text before this list clearly indicates that it is a list of samples of movable types （活字板式）:
「今載立號監韻活字板式于後。其餘五聲韻字俱要倣此」
▲ 農書（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷22
▲ 農書（明嘉靖刊本）卷1 folio 28 (p30) gives 斸.
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷2 folio 14 also gives 斸.
Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Attached PDF file
▲ 河防一覽（明萬曆刊本）卷6 folio 5 gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 至正河防記（中國水利工程協會, 1936） gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 新元史（中国书店, 1988）志 pp. 269 gives 船, variant of 舡.
See also {{https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%E7%9F%B3%E8%88%B9%E5%A0%A4 Google books search results: 石船堤}}.
I guess 并 is a corrupted form of 舟, and 𠮷 may be corrupted form of 㕣. Based on these evidences, I suggest pending more evidences of ⿰并𠮷.
管子（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本）卷19 folio 4 has 蘟.
▲ The evidence also gives 蘟 in subsequent text.
▲ 周嘉胄：《香乘》，四庫全書本，卷二十
This character is the variant of U+9175 酵.
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，清知不足齋叢書本，卷下
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，續古逸叢書本，卷下
This form is stable in 《居家必用事類全集》, it is OK to encode it.
▲ 《居家必用事類全集》，明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本，巳集
《新鋟抱朴子內篇四卷外篇四卷．釋滯卷八》(明萬曆間刻本)
抱朴子內篇(《平津館叢書》本)
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
段甜: 《韩国固有汉字分析》, 洛阳: 中国人民解放军外国语学院(Luoyang: PLA University of Foreign Language), 2007, P. 14
We consider that 㐔 is changed from 高/乙
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 戰國策（平江路儒学元至正二十五年刊、明重修本）卷7 folio 30 (also in 四部叢刊)
The evidence supports that 逜、～、捂、梧、牾、啎、𠵦 are 假借字 among each other. I agree with Eiso on unifying ～ with 遻.
▲ 白氏長慶集（四部叢刊景江南圖書館藏日本活字本）卷64 folio 5
The text gives 九～燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌. A more popular version to date is 九微燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌, yet I don't think ～ is a variant of 微.
～夷爭笑.
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p. 410
慧琳一切經音義
希麟一切經音義
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 𤞘.
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之十五
龍龕手鑑(《欽定四庫全書》本)
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=56026&page=182
Quite different in 說文.
The glyph looks so strange, evidence 1 is not a good source.
the versions of 一切經音義 the author saw at the time, 廣雅疏證 records quotations from 聲類.
No matter what source is the original one, SAT-06900 is a wrong glyph of 䰫 (U+4C2B) indeed.
廣潛研堂說文答問疏證
小學盦遺書
說文逸字
廣雅疏證
𰆰 (6 occurrences) < 支
⿰豈𰆰 (3 occurrences) < 鼓
⿰山𰆰 (1 occurrence) < 岐
⿰止𰆰 = [ {{WS2017-01820}} ]
(5 occurrences) < 歧
⿰虫𰆰 = [ {{WS2017-03847}} ]
(1 occurrences) < 蚑
⿰扌𰆰 (this) (1 occurrence)
Except for 𰆰 itself, they only appear in 1 or 2 entries but as headwords, and 𰆰 usually occurs in description of characters using it. They are all variants of common characters so that their standard forms are overwhelmingly prevalent.
Actually, the majority of occurrences in our DB is already shown in the comments of [ {{WS2017-01820}} ]
, with remaining ones attached here.
Attached PDF file
常華館經說
淮南子
皇清經解
新集藏經音義隨函錄
群書校補三十九種
Still needs to confirm the meaning of the character in this new evidence.
《說文解字》藤花榭本．卷八上
(http://www.guoxuedashi.net/kangxi/pic.php?f=swjzzb&p=270)
I think it is a variant of 偫(U+506B), and suggest pending other evidence.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，第一卷
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十六
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之四
▲ 《國語辭典》，民國37年重印本，p. 42
In this glyph right hand side is ⿱冖番, apparently 冖 represents "cover" mean in a word meaning "flag". Thus I oppose to unification.
玄應一切經音義
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第一
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第五十三
Please confirm which one is the proper one.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546
(or https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18582&page=133)
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 329
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
▲ 古壮字字典, p. 366
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
日 and ⺼ is not a common combination mixed up because of similar shapes, so I don't think it's a mistranscription of 脗.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 45
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
But it's a wrong shape of 岏.
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
It used in ID cards, schools, banks, insurance, health insurance, etc.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.
For further explanation on the issue, please see IRGN2546.