黑文婷 argues that ⿰土窊 is a variant of 坬/窊[1]. The earliest known evidence of ⿰土窊 dates back to late Ming while the form 窊 can be found in Five Dynasties text. The form 坬 is commonly used in Qing text.
According to the evidences of 𱷆, 𱷆 is used in Jiangxi province, bordered by Guangdong province where ⿰土窊 is used according to Evidence 1. Based on this and the semantic relationship between ⿰土窊 and 坬, I think ⿰土窊 could be a variant of 𱷆. If 𱷆 is also pronounced as wa, then ⿰土窊 is potentially unifiable to 𱷆.
This character is used in hundreds of placenames in Shanxi(山西),Shannxi（陕西）,Guangdong（广东） Province. Please see the second evidence of this character ,it's just one page of the book 《山西省行政区划与自然村标准地名手册·雁北地区》but it contains 6 ⿰土窊. Considering all of them are written as ⿰土窊 and ⿰土窊 and U+3EDC6 are usually considered different characters by normal people, it is really bad to unify ⿰土窊 to (U+3EDC6).
IRGN2581WS2021v4.0Unified&Withdrawn Unified to 𱜍 U+3170D, IRG 59.
Postponed for unification to WS2017-01129 ⿱山畬, evidence accepted, IRG 58.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Evidence 1 and 2 both show that the replacement character for ⿰土𤲞 is U+756C 畬 which implies that ⿰土𤲞 = ⿰土畬 = U+302AE 𰊮 (UK-02707). Therefore unify to 𰊮 (U+302AE).
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Support #9403 and #9839 to unify with 𰊮 (U+302AE), but it is not better to do the horizontal extension in future.
For Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi and Guangdong, 畬 means She People (畲族) or some Hakka people (客家人), 𤲞 is always the variant with the same meanings, but 畬 is the proper one for the modern Chinese written system.
It is a variant of 萼, non-congnate with 㠋 (U+380B). The evidence is clear enough and the book is compiled by government, so it should be encoeded. By the way, many unencoded characters are replaced by common characters in National Database for Geographical Names of China（中国·国家地名信息库） and county annals.
In light of #9797, I suggest to disunify UK-20622 and GKJ-00810, and suggest that China corrects the glyph and IDS for GKJ-00810 to ⿰臼鸟 (simplified form of U+4CCE 䳎).
Commonly, 𡆠 U+211A0 is used as the Wuzetian variant of 日, and IRG has decided to unify all the Wuzetian variants if the glyphs are similar. However, the submitted character can’t be unified with 𡆠 U+211A0.
All the evidence showed here and other ancient and modern publishing sources show the submitted character is only the Wuzetian variant of 日, and it is common, but 𡆠 U+211A0 could also be used as a local character used for one geographical name in 广东省永安县 (current 广东省河源市紫金县). 《廣東新語》 and 《康熙永安县次志》 listed this place, and 《广东新语注》 shows it is just a local character for the dialects. It is very hard to confirm the modern name of this place, but we can confirm 围子X or X围子 is a common form for the geographical name in Chinese Hakka-dialects speaking areas, like current 梅州, 河源, 惠州, 清远, 韶关 and so on under 广东省. 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》 shows the possible Putonghua reading is kè, that means it must be not related to 日 (日 reads as ŋit5 in 河源).
Therefore, they are non-cognates for this use.
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 北京: 中華書局, 1985.4, 統一書號: 11018·385, p. 62
▲ 屈大均, 李育中, 邓光礼, 林维纯, 熊福林, 陈伟俊: 《广东新语注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1991.5, ISBN 7-218-00351-6/Z·26, pp. 52-53, 60
▲ 张进箓: 《康熙永安县次志译注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-218-12551-0, pp. 494-495
▲ 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》, 1984, p. 39
I guess the current name for this place is 广东省河源市紫金县凤安镇凤民村围子剧. 剧 reads kʰiak1 in 河源.
Unification
John Knightley
Individual
Disagree that non-cognate, to prove non-cognate one needs to contrast the two glyphs however the new material from Eiso just shows the "square" glyph. If new UCV agreed then should unify.
How often do these transliterations of Shuowen Guwen into Sungti typeface happen in SAT's repertoire? SAT-04264 was added in WS2021.
If there is still a certain amount of characters pending, we should potentially make a rule to make them all unifiable so SAT can directly register them as variants via an IVD collection.
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
Consider unifying to 𨤦 (U+28926).
Kangxi Dictionary let 𨤦 correspond to the Guwen 古文 shape. Different Liding 隶定 to the same character.
Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
Needs discussion on the unification of the bottom part because this is not a trivial case.
According to new 増上寺 version of Tripitaka Koreana (current private), the current glyph of U+301EA is likely a misinterpretation of a damaged glyph of 㖾. We will consider making this one representative glyph.
This character is the variant of 楔 without any doubt. If IRG accept the unification, 契, ⿱⿰丰刃廾, ⿱⿰丰力廾, ⿱⿰龶刃犬, ⿱⿰龶力大, ⿱⿰龶力廾, 𢍆, 𢍠, 𭑕, 𭚘 and so on should be treated as UCV lv. 1.
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
.
Are there any intermediate forms of 翅 and SAT-06399 found, where the middle two strokes protrude on the left? We should consider IVD to 翅 directly if there are such examples.
Needs discussion. It mostly depends on whether the bottom component is unifiable.
Unification
John Knightley
Individual
The bottom part ⿱甘廾 has a similar shape to 其, they have same number of strokes, in fact the only difference in strokes is where the last two strokes connect. In short there have the same abstract shape. 康熙字典 only includes 𠴩 U+20D29 because it is an ancient variant of 箕. The 汉语大字典 also says the same.
Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
I agree with John. On the bottom component, note that 𢍌 is a variant of 其 and 𢍌 is similar to ⿱甘廾. ⿱甘廾 is potentially unifiable to 其. Does SAT have more characters with the exact ⿱甘廾 component? If not I suggest we unify to 𠴩 and SAT can use register this shape as IVD.
Needs discussion since it is not a trivial difference.
For this character, "strict transliteration" (嚴格隷定) is not an accurate description of its origin as it is not artificially transcribed. This is one of branches of diversified variants during the transition from Clerical to Regular script.
We should consider if UCV #307 is suitable for this case to unify with 𢿵 (U+22FF5).
IDS should also be ⿺棠攵.
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
Agree with Eiso #11437 in principle. We may actually need to set a separate category to indicate that different arrangements of the same components are still unifiable in some cases. Some of these cases may be caused by the length of the strokes in the components, others not.
The importance of setting this classification is that structural differences sometimes lead to non-cognateness and disunifiability. If it is necessary to qualify some of the unifiable cases, a special section will be needed to discuss them.
Since UCV #307 belongs to “j-2. Differences in relative length of strokes”, it may indicate that the length of the strokes [should be in a single component?] leads to differences in the analysis of component structure. But even so, some examples classified as UCV #307 or UCV #305 should be treated as different arrangement of components, like 𢣁 in UCV #305 and examples in UCV #305b/305c/305d.
The meaning can be related with both 木 "tree" and 攴 "strike", and 一切經音義 consistently consider the semantic component should be 木, while later dictionaries think 攴. The 尚 component is composable with both, and no matter which interpretation you make, the structural integrity of the other possibility is broken.
Virtually identical contextual quote seems have been used for both SAT-08988 and SAT-06676, which strongly suggests only one one code point required. According to the zi.tools link give the quote the meaning U+30B80 aka SAT-08988 was "(大藏經)
字見於大正新脩大藏經外字系統《一切經音義》：説文從八從肉作血脉在肉中～&MT0", which seems essentially to be that of SAT-06676.
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
Consider unifying to 𰮀 (U+30B80).
Cross reference comment #4540.
Agree to have such UCV but we are not sure if this specific case can be handled using ⿱/⿵ when the supposed surrounding component is 𥬑(筑) which is not naturally enveloping in shape.
In the evidence, this character is used as the 反切上字 for 髁, that means the 聲母 of this character must be 溪母, and could be 合口 and 一等 or 二等. 𧧳 is the variant of 誇, that matches them.
We can also find the encoded character related to ⿱大干 as below.
U+29A43 𩩃 ≠ U+3116F 𱅯 = U+9ABB 骻
U+31499 𱒙 = U+314AA 𱒪 = U+54B5 咵 ?
There is also U+2D826 𭠦, and we don’t have ⿰扌𡗢, but it is the variant of 挎.
UCV
Conifer TSENG
TCA
MOE Variant Dictionary
Based on 干祿字書, [⿰言⿱大干] is a variant of 誇.
However, if adding a new UCV=[⿱大干]/𡗢/夸, I think it is a bit dangerous, such as U+29A43 𩩃 is a variant of U+5E79 幹 or U+9AAD 骭, but it has no meaningful relationship with 骻 (U+9ABB).
Consider if best considered as 卸 (U+5378). No encoded characters have 𬼉 U+2CF09 as their right hand component but 𦈢 is used, it is not unheard of for handwritten characters to have one small stroke missing by mistake.
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
In this case, we think the construction of the top part is related with that of 垂, therefore responsible for the difference of meaning with 𦈢.
The evidence shows 説文 捼～ 手相摩也. 許慎 also said the variant of 捼 is 挼, and Prof. 费秉勋 modified some definition based on the 《説文解字》, which he was studying “挼曲子” mentioned in 《东京梦华录》. At this time, the submitted character and the relative one are not used in the sentence in 《説文解字》.
Whilst of course 呆/𣎼 being unifiable would entail unification to 𧛙 U+276D9, it is sufficient in this case to discuss whether or not 𤔍 U+2450D and 𰠀 U+30800 are unifiable when used as a component.
Unify to 嗌 (U+55CC) because of unification of SAT-06800 to 益 with new UCV. If unification to U+55CC is considered inappropriate, then consider disunifying SAT-06800 from 益.
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
For ⿰三三 ~ 〾氺 / 𣹹 - 烕:
⿱⿰三三皿 ~ 益
⿱烕⿰三三 A02285-014 ~ 𣹹 A02285-004
Oppose Unification
WANG Yifan
SAT
The application of UCV #430a to WS2021-02673 is based on observation that the top component is actually ☵-shaped instead of ☷. It does not covers this case and we do not believe this character is cognate with 嗌.
This character, if encoded, would likely be unifiable with ⿰氵盁, which is currently coded in CNS11643 as TC-7234. Would TCA prefer to code (TC-7234 instead, then unify TC-4B4B to TC-7234?
Alternatively, both characters could be unified to 溋 U+6E8B, with addition of new UCV rule 盈 / 盁 / ⿱𠘧皿.
Data page for TC-7234 (Character Source: 財政部財稅用字):
Data page for TC-4B4B (Character Source: 內政部戶政用字):
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
Because of the common component(盁), TCA has agreed to change the proposed form to TC-7234. But EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.
It is hard for me to find strong variation connection between 丂 ~ 亍, I can only find 㱙 ~ 𣦿.
Disunification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
丂~亍 is not a common variant relationship. TCA agree with Kushim Jiang veiws, not unify.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
The reading provided by TCA is xiǔ, because 《廣碑別字》 lists it as a variant of 朽 (U+673D).
However, this character is sourced from 內政部戶政用字 based on the info from the CNS11643 website. As a person's name character, it is more likely to be a variant of 「行」 with the 「彳」 component swapped out to 「木」 for the custom of 五行.
According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agrees to be a VS of U+20E83.
Oppose Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
Oppose unification to 𠺃 (U+20E83).
Based on the provided readings, U+20E83 appears to be taking phonetic 振 while TD-3B4D appears to be using phonetic 唇. If this is the case, they are non-cognate and shouldn't be unified.
𣣙 (U+238D9)
Both have the same reading, kuǎn; Perhaps extend, UCV i., Differences of extra or reduced stroke or dot, to 木 and 禾 where they are part of larger component, like ⿳士冖木 and ⿳士冖禾
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
Consider unify to 𬅭 (U+2C16D).
⿰𡉉欠 may not be regarded as an isolated abstract component. Considering all the characters with similar structure:
They are all derived from 款. First a 冖 is added from the original glyph to form 𬅭, then the lower-left part 示 is changed to be 禾 to form [11-6151], then the 一 is deleted to form this [TD-4A24], then the 丿 is deleted to form 𣣙 (only one character with this ⿰⿳十冖A欠 structure).
Reading is a reference in the literature, but it is not suitable as a source of recognition in the use of names, as reading is a matter for the person concerned to decide.
▲ 范端昂, 汤志岳: 《粤中见闻》, 广州: 广东高等教育出版社, 1988.7, ISBN 7-5361-0086-8/Z·1, p. 119
This modern publishing edition gives 淞.
▲ 曾楚楠, 《潮州文化丛书》编纂委员会: 《潮州文化丛书·第一辑 韩愈在潮州（增订本）》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.7, ISBN 978-7-218-14801-, pp. 65-67
Based on the analysis, this character should be the omission of 吴淞 (near Yangtze River Delta); 陂塘 means narrow pond, which is a common stable word.
The character shown in #12873 is U+24D6E 𤵮 kuí. As U+24D6E has a subtle but important difference in glyph construction compared with UK-20302 (⿸疒⿱㇒火 compared with ⿸疒灭) and a different pronunciation and meaning, the two characters are not cognate, and according to IRG PnP Section 2.1.3 should not be unified: "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".
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
IRGN2581WS2021v4.0Unified&Withdrawn Unified to 珽 U+73FD, IRG 58.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5), and suggest UTC change glyph and source reference for U+2BAD5 to UTC-03216.
Unification
John Jenkins
Unicode
I'm okay with the unification, but I would personally prefer keeping the source reference to UTC-00561, which better matches the exact shape in our original source (kCheungBauerIndex 379.04). If Eiso says that the the glyph UTC-003216 is actually the better glyph, I believe him, but I would still prefer matching our original source.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
UTC
Agree to unify with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5), but as a unifiable variant whose glyph is distinct from its current source reference, UTC-00561.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
Unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5).
I prefer switching the source and glyph of U+2BAD5 to UTC-03216 (⿰口梃) instead of the current one, because 廷 is the predominant form in Hong Kong, and 𢌜 is practically no longer used.
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
The T-source character for U+2209E seems to be a variant of 希 xī, so not cognate with the Vietnam character ⿱父布. Therefore unification is not appropriate. Suggest to keep this character in WS2021, and remove the V-source reference (VN-2209E) from U+2209E.
Disunification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
As a supplement to #9436, the head-character for the link that #9436 shows is ⿱爻巾 instead of ⿱爻布, but evidence in 補充資料 > 異體字表 shows ⿱爻布 ~ 希 (03511). Using 異體字表 as its reference, CNS 11643 website for T6-305A also considers 𢂞 ~ 希.
To consider 𢂞 simply as a variant of 希, and to consider ⿱父布 as a non-cognate character is better. As the evidence given in #9435 shows ⿱父布 instead of ⿱爻布, VU-2209E may need to be unified to WS2021-02285.
Given that the glyph has been updated, the IDS should be changed to ⿰耳𡿨 as suggested.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The kTotalStrokes value for 𡿨 U+21FE8 is 1, but the glyph on the evidence shows the SC should be 2 as the current value. Maybe the IDS should be ⿰耳⿱丿丶.
The glyph on the evidence looks like the following.
Change Radical to 24.0 (十), SC=5, FS=3 because GKJ-01026 (⿰千分) is under Radical 24. Alternatively, change GKJ-01026 to use Radical 18, but both characters should be under the same radical as they are the same abstract character with different layout of components.
Change Radical to 117.0 (立), SC=4, FS=3 Even if 立 is the phonetic here, 立 is a much better radical for indexing purposes than 又. Note that U+2E128 𮄨 is Radical 117.
As #10358 shows, I also confirm if this character is a Korean Idu character. If yes, the upper component is the omitted form of one other character; if not, the best radical should be 140.0.
Radical
ROK
This character is a Korean Idu character, therefore Radical can not change.
Add the second radical as 57.0 (弓) or 102.0 (田), then SC=18 or 16, FS=1.
The evidence shows the rationale for this character is 從⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446)耳聲, that means 耳 is the phonetic. The semantic is the unencoded ⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446) which is the variant of 䰜, 弜 for 䰜 is used for 象形 (象孰飪五味气上出也), and 畐 is the variant of 鬲. Both the radicals for 弜 and 畐 are OK for the second radical.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Keep ⿰子阝, like U+273C4, U+2EB2A.
IDS
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
At least, this case is different from U+273C4 𧏄. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the left part is the real 子. So, it’s OK to use 子 as the left component in the IDS.
For U+2EB2A 𮬪, the current source reference is cited from 大正藏, I can’t understand the contextual meaning. Maybe SAT knows if the left component is 子. I also find out U+2EB2A is used as a place name character in 广东德庆, which is near to Xijiang River (西江), but it’s a pity that I don’t know the meaning as well.
According to the pronunciation provided by TCA, jié means the phonetic element should be 孑 not 子, so I still think ⿰孑阝 will be better. If TCA hopes to keep ⿰子阝, maybe we should use two IDSes for this case.
IDS
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
FYI: We suspect that U+2EB2A 𮬪 is a malformed glyph of 鳩 in the SAT context.
IDS
Conifer TSENG
TCA
To the comment #5442:
Prefer to use two IDSes (⿰子阝, ⿰孑阝) 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.
The excerpt above is from the Unicode Version 15.1 Alpha code charts, and reflects that synttax change to the kRSUnicode property that allows non-Chinese simplified radicals to be specified. I agree that 211.2 should be used here. Of course, the IRG P&P will need to be changed to reflect this.
Because the pronunciation is hú, same as the right part, so the left part 𦰩 would be related to the radical. Consider to change Radical to 140.0 (艸), SC=17, FS=2
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.
Second radical not required because 羅 is such a common phonetic component, and ⿱維土 is not a thing, so there is no scope for confusion over the radical in this case.
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.
Change Radical to 212.2 (竜), SC=9, FS=3 (the kRSUnicode property will be able to represent non-Chinese simplified radicals, such as this one, from Unicode Version 15.1 using two apostrophes, '', so I suggest using 2 as the digit to represent the same in IRG work; this would need to be added to the P&P)
Agree with UK, but I would go one step further by making 9.0 as the *only* radical. I cannot see how 1.0 could possibly be the radical for this ideograph.
Change Radical to 212.2 (竜), SC=8, FS=1 (the kRSUnicode property will be able to represent non-Chinese simplified radicals, such as this one, from Unicode Version 15.1 using two apostrophes, '', so I suggest using 2 as the digit to represent the same in IRG work; this would need to be added to the P&P)
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
212.2 (竜) is the phonetic and this means "strange", so the original radical is technically correct and should be assigned as secondary.
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.
Change Radical to 117.0 (立), SC=10, FS=4
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
If we are going to not use the semantic element (中) to determine the radical, we should use consider a new radical variant of 212, since the left side, U+31DE5, is a simplification of 龍.
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
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
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.
There is no clear semantic element in this character. The meaning is "back of the neck, nape". The phonetic is probably the final of 孛. 乙 may be a device to mark this for "nôm" usage. Whichever radical increases "discoverability" is fine as primary radical, so 乙 might be better.
▲ 许正华: 《金华地区传统名产》, 金华: 浙江省金华地区科学技术委员会, 1983.5, p. 138
▲ 《中华人民共和国地质部 区域地质矿产调查报告 H-50-XXIX 衢县幅 比例尺1:200000》, 浙江省地质局, 1969, p. 59
This form is used widely, it is OK to encode it.
If you check the ancient books, you will find the geographical name listed there is 猷輅, which the original name is 牛路 (牛: cattle, 路: road/path). And they used 猷辂 on the local guideboards.
There is one famous pugilistic art, and they registered as 䣭辂拳 in 第三批浙江省非物质文化遗产名录.
▲ https://www.ihningbo.cn/regulation/show/11
▲ 杨建新: 《浙江文化地图 第四册 钱塘风物 浙江民间文化》, 杭州: 浙江摄影出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5514-0018-3, pp. 268-269
𬨎辂 is also used in the books related to toponymic survey, but not common for the local people.
I also need to know the name of Evidence 1 to confirm the language tag. There are Chinese Gan-dialects and Chinese Mandarin-dialects in 瑞昌市. The words look like Gan more.
However, I checked 1:50000 topographic map （1972） of Liquan County, Shannxi Province, the name of the village is 山底村. So it should be used in another place name which I don't know.
For encoding, I think the evidence is enough.
▲ 陕西省临潼县志编纂委员会: 《临潼县志》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-208-01191-5/K·276, p. 58
《临潼县志》 gives 坞刘村.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
If the information provided by National Database for Geographical Names of China is right, 坞 looks more correct.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The pronounciation of ⿰土鸟 is niao3, which is resonable. Placenames can change over time.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
It is better to check more evidence to make sure it is not an accidental typo. When we need to say the geographic name could be or has been changed, please show the evidence. Guessing doesn’t make sense for our encoding works.
On the other hand, the traditional one 䲧 is included in Kangxi Dictionary, but the pronunciation is 動五切 which is similar to 杜, that means 塢鵑 is the variant form of 杜鵑. 从鳥土聲, and niǎo is not reasonable for this rationale.
National Database for Geographical Names of China shows the glyph should be 𰥎 very clear. We need more evidence to confirm if this is a typo.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
For the rationale, this character means 大 (big). 大 reads as ɾʱəu¹³ in 泾县话, ha⁵¹ (文) hu²⁴ (白) in 泾县茂林话, tʰa⁵⁵ (文) tʰo⁵⁵ (白) in 泾县查济话. (Thanks for 神死’s help on the Chinese Wu-dialects.) It is not difficult to know, this character is to record the syllable derived from the 白读 of 大, so the upper component should be 大.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
For #10205, U+3094E 𰥎
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表，2000年11月
This is definately a variant of U+3094E 𰥎. Should we unify them or encode them seperately?
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
The new evidence under Comment #12739 looks good. If IRG confirms this is not suitable for unification, this character could be encoded separately as variant.
I think Yifan’s Comment #4848 is still reasonable. John showed the 木棉花 (kapok) reads as reux in Zhuang. And the dictionary shows U+26AFC 𦫼 reads as reuz. The initials and finals are the same, but the tones are different. It is possible to use U+26AFC 𦫼 to record reux in 隆安, and the semantics are also reasonable.
New evidence
John Knightley
China
The character GDM-00307 ⿱丷了 was used in the name of Nazreux village before 1982 (广西壮族自治区隆安县小林乡那料屯).
Whilst looking at the dictionary first published in 1989 suggests this might come from 𦫼 (reuz) it is very unlikely that this was the case here. No place names in the 1934 "Longan County Chronicles" (隆安县志) use 了 as a phonetic component but many use 尞 as a phonetic component, and even includes 那寮 as a place name, therefore ⿱丷了 is most likely a variant of U+5bee 寮 or another 尞 phonetic character.
The submitted evidence just show the character, but the real use cases have not been provided. When we check the places in 福建省龙岩市长汀县, we can find more than 160 places which use 岽. 岽 is a common character used the geographical names in Chinese Hakka-dialects areas.
▲ 肖九根, 卢小芳: 《略论赣南客家话“上”义类方位词》//庄初升, 温昌衍: 《客家方言调查研究——第十二届客家方言学术研讨会论文集》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-306-06448-6, p. 386
▲ 林雄, 顾作义: 《经典广东》, 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5406-7624-7, p. 87
There are more than 550 places in 江西省赣州市, more than 1020 places in 广东省梅州市 with 岽.
On the other hand, we know U+2BCD2 𫳒 is cited from ZJW, and we can’t find the real use of it in 长汀县, 龙岩市, even other Chinese Hakka-dialects areas in 福建省, 江西省, 广东省, 广西壮族自治区, 香港特别行政区, 澳门特别行政区, 台湾省 and so on.
The most reasonable understanding is that this is a typo, and the correct form should be 岽. It is better to withdraw this character.
When we say if one character is used or useful for one place, the proponent must provide at least one piece of sufficient evidence. If not, I agree with Henry for suggesting China to withdraw the character based on the discussion result.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
I think IRG encode not only characters used or useful for one place, but also characters used in books which can be schoolars' references. The shape in the evidence is clear enough, what's more, 山 and 宀 can be written as each other when used on the head of a character, so the shape is reasonalbe. So I don't think it should be withdrawed. Rejecting this character will only lead to a later resubmition.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
Individual
李如龙：地名与语言学论集，福州：福建省地图出版社，1993年8月，P145
It is a print error. I will find another good evidence for the character and come back again.
▲ 广东师院, 湖南师院, 华中师院, 武汉师院: 《动物及动物饲养学（下册）》, 内部发行, 1976.4, p. 222
▲ 黄琪琰, 宋承方: 《鱼病防治实用技术》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-109-02213-7/S·1452, pp. 171-172
▲ 叶重光: 《名优淡水产品养殖技术图说》, 郑州: 河南科学技术出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5349-2542-8/S·595, p. 166
▲ 陈锦富, 陈辉: 《鱼病防治技术》, 北京: 金盾出版社, 1997.7, ISBN 7-5082-0377-1, p. 109
Water bloom is common in 高要 (肇庆), 南海 and 顺德 (佛山), so this character must be used to record Chinese Yue-dialect. I have no knowledge on this, so I can’t show the Cantonese reading now.
The evidence shows this is a general geographical name (地理通名). This general geographical name is used widely in Beijing, the following book provided eight forms from different materials, and the authors checked 《京师坊巷志稿》 written by 朱一新 and found that several forms were not used in the real geographical names.
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
This character could be treated as the vendor requirement of Hanyi Fonts. Note that there are quite a lot of wrong factual statements about the encoding and font in the following video, and “生僻字” is still not a well term for our encoding works, but easy to understand for the public accompanied by many unnecessary misunderstandings at the same time.
Please provide the full page and the book information. If not, this character should be withdrawn based on the editing and proofreading quality of 中华大典.
The small seal on the next page.
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
The submitted evidence is cited from the work written by 夏言 (aka 桂洲夏文愍公, 夏言, 號桂洲, 1482-1548), who lived in Ming Dynasty. In the history of China, there are so many places named as 安州, but 安州 means current 保定 or 安新 (both in Hebei) at that time. There is one river named 瀑河 (Bàohé) now, which there were the old names as 雹河 and 鮑河. Note the river flows through 徐水, 易县, 安新, and 瀑河乡 is in 徐水. The submitted character comes from 瀑 and the phonetic element was changed to 鮑.
Therefore, it could be moved back to M-set based on the full-page evidence and my analysis.
Twitter user @Kesuuko_0826 found this ideograph at the top of page 8 in the following document prepared by Professor Yasuoka that shows it as entry 13120 of the revised new edition of Kadokawa's 新字源 kanji dictionary: http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~yasuoka/publications/2018-03-09.pdf
New evidence
Ken LUNDE
UTC
This is the same evidence from the iOS version of Kadokawa's 新字源 dictionary.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
The submitted evidence mentioned Chongqing City. There is no 戚鱼 or ⿰鱼戚鱼 as the local name in Chongqing. Maybe it is the error of 鳡. 鳡鱼 (local name: 水老虎/tiger in the river, Elopichthys bambusa). This character should be withdrawn.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
No more evidence could be found, it's really hard to know what kind of fish it is. Withdraw should be better.
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿱郷鱼 not ⿱鄉鱼.
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
The 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.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
▲ 《略陽縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之三
略阳县 is under 陕西省汉中市 now.
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Some one posted the picture of 青⿰拐鳥 on https://tieba.baidu.com/p/2077973832. It looks this kind of bird is also common in 汉中.
The followings are eight editions of 《集韻》 at the same entry. At the same position, some are the submitted one (red), some are ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 (blue) and 𣝼 U+2377C (orange), which mean the same character. ⿰木⿱鳥𠔿 could be unified to this character.
獐头鼠目/獐頭鼠目 is a stable idiom (成语/成語) in China, so maybe the character is a typesetting extra character. It is better to withdraw it without other sufficient evidence.
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
On the other hand, WS2017-04940 provided the totally different meaning and use, but IRG should accept the character based on the evidence first, not the rationale and explanation.
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.
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
Suggest to withdraw this character along with 04814, as the evidence for 04739 suggests that it is a misprint.
Otherwise, if the evidence for the simplified character is accepted, keep both.
We checked books by 桑原隲藏 dated before the publishing of 桑原隲蔵全集 (1968) in the University of Tokyo library. As far as we have found, his personal preference is apparently 隲, as well as the most of its typed representation. In the scope of his Japanese works, 𨽥 appears in limited instances as calligraphic stylized title on the cover or the title page, but we are unable to find it in the text body.
Among those books, 支那の孝道 and 東西交通史論叢 contain photocopy of his manuscript, clearly showing the 隲 variant in his handwriting.
On the contrary, Chinese translations appears to more eagerly employ 𨽥.
《張騫西征考》 consistently uses it:
and 《唐宋貿易港研究》 uses it partially in the colophon and a couple of chapter headings, while 隲 in elsewhere:
Aside from that, the government gazette records his name around 30 times, but except for his obituary, which also uses variant of 桑, no evidence that other variants than 隲 were used during his lifetime.
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/2957791/1/5
We did not find any evidence 桑原隲藏 has been written with the 鳥 component.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
The fifth image of #9693 is wrong. Please see the following instead:
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
The former evidences show the wrong glyph of 騭 and 隲, withdraw would be better.
The character looks like the variant of 鰂 in the first evidence, which the word means 烏賊/烏鰂 (squid). It is not related to the Cantonese word zak1 (e.g. 鰂魚涌 in HKSAR). If my understand is reasonable, the current radical is questionable.
In the second evidence, the head character should be the variant of 鷺. When I check the relative sentences of 鷺 in the ancient books, I found the following in 爾雅. So many books cited this sentence to explain 鷺. Maybe they are two characters there.
As we can see, ⿰世鳥 is categorized as 鳥部/六畫, which does not make sense because 世 has only 5 strokes and in the very same book, 泄 is categorized as 水部/五畫, so if ⿰世鳥 were indeed ⿰世鳥, it should have been placed after 鳥部/五畫.
Here is a summary by comparing the characters in 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇 (abbr. SSP) with all 鳥部/六畫 characters in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗 (abbr. HPCZ):
Characters in HPCZ but not in SSP: ⿰关鳥、⿰世鳥、⿰鳥麦、⿰召鳥.
Characters in SSP but not in HPCZ: 𪁾、䳄、𩿮、𪀺、⿰𡰪鳥.
Here ⿰世鳥、⿰召鳥 have 5 strokes, ⿰鳥麦 has 7 strokes. ⿰召鳥 is misprint of ⿰𡰪鳥, ⿰鳥麦 is misprint of 𪀺. ⿰关鳥 is likely variant of 𪁾. And by exclusion, ⿰世鳥 is likely a misprint of 䳄, otherwise HPCZ would not have removed 䳄, a common character imo.
I am worried about the overall quality of 海篇朝宗. Should it happen to have correct strokes I may not find out that it is likely a misprint of another character. I suggest we treat 海篇朝宗 like 中華字海, it should not be the only supporting evidences without evidences from other dictionaries or running text.
Appendix:
Characters in HPCZ/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,鴿,鵃,鴶,𪀖,鵧,鴻,鴰,鴷,䳑,鴛,䳋,鵀,𪀓,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪁋,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,鴯,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,鴺,𪀚,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,⿰关鳥(WS2021-04707),𪁑,鵄,鴽,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪀤,𪁖,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,⿰世鳥,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,䳍,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𪀫,⿰鳥麦,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,䙚,𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀭,𪁀,䳂,𪀨
Characters in SSP/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,𪀖,鴿,鵃,鴶,鴻,鴛,鴰,鵧,鴷,䳋,䳑,鵀,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪀓,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴯,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,𪁋,𪀚,鴺,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,𪁾,𪁑,鴽,鵄,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪁖,𪀤,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,䳍,䳄,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𩿮,𪀩,𪀺,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,裊(䙚),𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀫,𪀭,𪁀,⿰𡰪鳥,𪀨
In order to confirm the details, please show the whole page of Evidence1.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
鳬鷖 is a stable word cited from 《詩·大雅·鳬鷖》. This character must be the typo of 鷖 because of the importance for the men of literature and writing in ancient China.
It is better to withdraw this character without additional evidence.
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?
New evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The following evidence shows other meanings, pronunciations or uses. Lee's comment is reasonable, but it could also be used for other meaning based on the first following. So, it is better to keep it in M-set.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
Could this be a variant of 鱷 (U+9C77)? It's paired with another dangerous aquatic creature, 蛟. It would be good to see more of the context in the evidence.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This is what Baidu says about 蛟鱷:
蛟鱷是漢語詞彙，讀音為jiāo è，出自《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》，解釋蛟龍與鱷魚。亦泛指兇猛的水中動物。
They quote a passage from 宋·陸游《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》: “濤瀾洶湧，蛟鱷出沒。”
I still hope to see the full page of China submitted evidence.
Evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
The evidence shown by China derives from 爾雅注 which has "蜪蚅(未詳)". ⿰虫陶 in the evidence could be a font error for 蜪, so China should supply an image of the original woodblock edition of 郝懿行集 to confirm that ⿰虫陶 is shown in the original text.
Seems to be an error form for 蜩 (cf. https://baike.baidu.hk/item/%E8%9C%A9%E8%9F%A7/4697910). DO not encode without additional evidence that the character is correct or is a stable error.
For the submitted evidence, the current common form is 蚱蜢 (grasshopper, also 蝗虫, 蚂蚱), so the submitted form is acceptable.
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
I think ti's clear to show this is a variant vocabulary of 蚱蜢.The glyph is good.
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Unification
黑文婷 argues that ⿰土窊 is a variant of 坬/窊[1]. The earliest known evidence of ⿰土窊 dates back to late Ming while the form 窊 can be found in Five Dynasties text. The form 坬 is commonly used in Qing text.
According to the evidences of 𱷆, 𱷆 is used in Jiangxi province, bordered by Guangdong province where ⿰土窊 is used according to Evidence 1. Based on this and the semantic relationship between ⿰土窊 and 坬, I think ⿰土窊 could be a variant of 𱷆. If 𱷆 is also pronounced as wa, then ⿰土窊 is potentially unifiable to 𱷆.
[ {{WS2017-03214}} ]
[1] 黑文婷,党怀兴,黑维强.黄土高原地名中“坬”的音义及来源[J].语文研究,2022(02):58-65. (PDF is attached below)
Attached PDF file
Unify to 𰊮 (U+302AE).
In IRG 59, WS2021-01186 has been unified to 𱜍 (U+3170D).
Evidence 1 and 2 both show that the replacement character for ⿰土𤲞 is U+756C 畬 which implies that ⿰土𤲞 = ⿰土畬 = U+302AE 𰊮 (UK-02707). Therefore unify to 𰊮 (U+302AE).
Support #9403 and #9839 to unify with 𰊮 (U+302AE), but it is not better to do the horizontal extension in future.
For Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi and Guangdong, 畬 means She People (畲族) or some Hakka people (客家人), 𤲞 is always the variant with the same meanings, but 畬 is the proper one for the modern Chinese written system.
unify to 㟧 (U+37E7)?
Or add both of them to kSpoofingVariant?
Unify to 㠋 (U+380B).
𨔻 A04163-001 ~ 違 A04163
𭘮 B00933-005 ~ 幃 B00933
⿱艹𮧯 A03523-001 ~ 葦 A03523
⿴囗𮧯 A00735-001 ~ 圍 A00735
⿰火𮧯 B02406-003 ~ 煒 B02406
𫟘 A03704-003 ~ 衛 A03704
𮘪 A03861-001 ~ 諱 A03861
𨵾 A04393-001 ~ 闈 A04393
⿰𠦝𮧯 A04527-019 ~ 韓 A04527
𩏍 A04528-025-1 ~ 韜 A04528
unify to 愎?
Similar to the followings.
A variant form of 叢.
藂 U+85C2 is also a variant form of 叢, according to the source cited by Huang Junliang.
unify to 𱂥 (U+310A5)
The other method is to unify to U+310A5, but I don’t think it is a good solution.
Consider to add 𱂥 (U+310A5) and ⿰名页 as a new UCV.
It's a stable error which could be kept in this set. Considering it's the wrong glyph of 頟, adding a new UCV to ⿰名頁 and 各頁 is also acceptable.
unify to 噸 (U+5678)
Support #5231 to add a new UCV.
For 击, most of the cases stand 击~缶/𦈢, and few cases stand 击~屯, so maybe no sufficiently many cases to set a UCV.
Commonly, 𡆠 U+211A0 is used as the Wuzetian variant of 日, and IRG has decided to unify all the Wuzetian variants if the glyphs are similar. However, the submitted character can’t be unified with 𡆠 U+211A0.
All the evidence showed here and other ancient and modern publishing sources show the submitted character is only the Wuzetian variant of 日, and it is common, but 𡆠 U+211A0 could also be used as a local character used for one geographical name in 广东省永安县 (current 广东省河源市紫金县). 《廣東新語》 and 《康熙永安县次志》 listed this place, and 《广东新语注》 shows it is just a local character for the dialects. It is very hard to confirm the modern name of this place, but we can confirm 围子X or X围子 is a common form for the geographical name in Chinese Hakka-dialects speaking areas, like current 梅州, 河源, 惠州, 清远, 韶关 and so on under 广东省. 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》 shows the possible Putonghua reading is kè, that means it must be not related to 日 (日 reads as ŋit5 in 河源).
Therefore, they are non-cognates for this use.
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 清康熙刻本, 卷二
▲ 屈大均: 《廣東新語》, 北京: 中華書局, 1985.4, 統一書號: 11018·385, p. 62
▲ 屈大均, 李育中, 邓光礼, 林维纯, 熊福林, 陈伟俊: 《广东新语注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1991.5, ISBN 7-218-00351-6/Z·26, pp. 52-53, 60
▲ 张进箓: 《康熙永安县次志译注》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2018.4, ISBN 978-7-218-12551-0, pp. 494-495
▲ 《福建、广东、广西地名生僻字表》, 1984, p. 39
I guess the current name for this place is 广东省河源市紫金县凤安镇凤民村围子剧. 剧 reads kʰiak1 in 河源.
Potentially unifiable to 量 U+91CF.
How often do these transliterations of Shuowen Guwen into Sungti typeface happen in SAT's repertoire? SAT-04264 was added in WS2021.
If there is still a certain amount of characters pending, we should potentially make a rule to make them all unifiable so SAT can directly register them as variants via an IVD collection.
Consider unifying to 𨤦 (U+28926).
Kangxi Dictionary let 𨤦 correspond to the Guwen 古文 shape. Different Liding 隶定 to the same character.
But also see [ {{WS2017-00562}} ]
.
Potential unification to 𱔱 (U+31531). Suggest it to be coded via IVS.
Unification to 𱔱 (U+31531) looks better.
unify to 𰇪 (U+301EA)
Same meanings and similar glyphs.
▲ 希麟: 《續一切經音義》, 大正新修大藏經, 卷第一, p. 2129
Agree to unify with 𰇪 (U+301EA).
According to new 増上寺 version of Tripitaka Koreana (current private), the current glyph of U+301EA is likely a misinterpretation of a damaged glyph of 㖾. We will consider making this one representative glyph.
IVS to 虺 (U+867A) or 𧉇 (U+27247)?
Consider also 00249 (SAT-04406) ⿺兄貴 = 尵 (U+5C35) / 𫵒 (U+2BD52).
cf. the current 《爾雅注疏》 reads: 虺頹、玄黃，皆人病之通名。而說者便謂之馬疾，失其義也。
Submitter in comment #8973 says radical is ⺏ which suggests that IVS of 𫵒 (U+2BD52) possible.
IVS to 尵 (U+5C35) or 𫵒 (U+2BD52)?
Consider also 03517 (SAT-04405) ⿺兄虫 = 虺 (U+867A) or 𧉇 (U+27247).
Unify to 齌 (U+9F4C)?
Add new UCV:
For 齊 ~ ⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸⿰丿丨/⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸冂
𦠃 ~ 𪗇
𠆈 ~ 䶒
⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸𠕀 (漢字海 #9458) ~ 𪗅
unify to 𣈻 (U+2323B)
The evidence has shown the right part is related to 哉, and 㢤 and 哉 is always the variants.
[ {{WS2017-01588}} ]
Also add 㢤 (U+38A4), 㦲 (U+39B2) and 哉 as UCV lv. 1.
⿰〾木⿶𢍻十 A01923-009 ~ 𣔮 A01923-004 ~ 𣖋 A01923-005
⿰氵⿹𢦏力 (漢字海) ~ 渽
䳣 ~ 𪃘
other solution is to unify with 楔 (U+6954)
This character is the variant of 楔 without any doubt. If IRG accept the unification, 契, ⿱⿰丰刃廾, ⿱⿰丰力廾, ⿱⿰龶刃犬, ⿱⿰龶力大, ⿱⿰龶力廾, 𢍆, 𢍠, 𭑕, 𭚘 and so on should be treated as UCV lv. 1.
https://zi.tools/zi/%E6%A5%94
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAxOTc4
https://zi.tools/zi/%E5%A5%91
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAwODY0
Why was this not unified to 敝 (U+655D)?
They are variants without doubt. Suggest to add a new UCV of 𰏘 (Extension G) and 㡀.
𥡎 (GHZ p. 2806) ~ 𥞻
⿰禾〾𰏘 B03813-008 / ⿰禾〾𰏘 B03813-007 ~ 𥞻 B03813-001
𡙼 A01260-003 / ⿰〾矢〾𰏘 A01260-005 ~ 𥏟 A01260-011
⿰矢〾𰏘 (漢字海) ~ 𥏟
⿰弓〾𰏘 A01260-006 ~ 㢼 A01260-008
⿰〾革〾𰏘 B02604-006 / ⿰〾革〾𰏘 B02604-004 ~ 𩋇 B02604-003
⿰〾𰏘鳥 C17636-002 ~ 䳤 C17636
⿰〾𰏘攴 A01723-004 ~ 敝 A01723
⿰〾𰏘攵 A01723-005 / ⿰〾𰏘攵 A01723-007 ~ 敝 A01723
⿰〾𰏘頁 (漢字海) ~ 𩓝
⿰日〾𰏘 C04838-001 ~ 𣇢 C04838
⿱大〾𰏘 C01964-001 / ⿱大〾𰏘 C01964-002 ~ 𡘴 C01964
Unify to 𮓩 (U+2E4E9)?
The KC03747 glyph shown in ROK's CJK Ideographs Search System is as below. See https://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=73940
KR Norm. 130-1
It is better to expand UCV #311 as KR Norm. 130-1 shows.
𠁅 ~ 䖏 (𠻔 ~ 𠼥 𢴃 ~ 㩀 𭞥 ~ 𢟶)
𠙚 ~ 處
⿸〾𮓗丘 A03609-021 ~ 虗 A03609-002
⿸〾𮓗几 A03604-009 ~ 虎 A03604
⿸〾𮓗又 A03606-017 ~ 𧆛 A03606-005
⿸〾𮓗林 C12181-008 ~ 𧇃 C12181-001
⿸〾𮓗甲 C12154-003 ~ 𧆥 C12154
⿸〾𮓗𠯵 A03611-005 ~ ⿸虍𠯵 A03611-002
⿸〾𮓗男 A03610-002 ~ 虜 A03610
⿸〾𮓗思 A01426-004 ~ 慮 A01426
⿸〾𮓗胃 A03364-003 ~ 膚 A03364
⿸〾𮓗𰤷 (GHZR, p.2751) ~ 盧 (𮉗 ~ 纑 𮎗 ~ 艫 𮬗 ~ 鱸)
(too many to list)
Are there any intermediate forms of 翅 and SAT-06399 found, where the middle two strokes protrude on the left? We should consider IVD to 翅 directly if there are such examples.
Unify to 𠻢 (U+20EE2) as the character is a variant of 謣 so the rhs should be cognate.
Unifiable to 𠴩 (U+20D29)
The bottom part ⿱甘廾 has a similar shape to 其, they have same number of strokes, in fact the only difference in strokes is where the last two strokes connect. In short there have the same abstract shape. 康熙字典 only includes 𠴩 U+20D29 because it is an ancient variant of 箕. The 汉语大字典 also says the same.
I agree with John. On the bottom component, note that 𢍌 is a variant of 其 and 𢍌 is similar to ⿱甘廾. ⿱甘廾 is potentially unifiable to 其. Does SAT have more characters with the exact ⿱甘廾 component? If not I suggest we unify to 𠴩 and SAT can use register this shape as IVD.
Unify to 磧 (U+78E7)?
This is a strictly transliterated form of 磧. Suggest to add new UCV rule of 責 and ⿱束貝.
𩼱 B06006-003 ~ 鰿 B06006
⿰女⿱束貝 C02303-002 ~ 嫧 C02303
⿰氵⿱束貝 (SAT): 濅▲ ~ 濅漬, 澆▲ ~ 澆漬
⿰石⿱束貝 (SAT): ▲中 ~ 磧中
⿰禾⿱束貝 A02944-006 ~ 積 A02944
⿰糸⿱束貝 A03166-006 ~ 績 A03166
⿰𦣞⿱束貝 (SAT): 探▲ ~ 探賾
For this character, "strict transliteration" (嚴格隷定) is not an accurate description of its origin as it is not artificially transcribed. This is one of branches of diversified variants during the transition from Clerical to Regular script.
We should consider if UCV #307 is suitable for this case to unify with 𢿵 (U+22FF5).
IDS should also be ⿺棠攵.
The importance of setting this classification is that structural differences sometimes lead to non-cognateness and disunifiability. If it is necessary to qualify some of the unifiable cases, a special section will be needed to discuss them.
Since UCV #307 belongs to “j-2. Differences in relative length of strokes”, it may indicate that the length of the strokes [should be in a single component?] leads to differences in the analysis of component structure. But even so, some examples classified as UCV #307 or UCV #305 should be treated as different arrangement of components, like 𢣁 in UCV #305 and examples in UCV #305b/305c/305d.
In this case, we may find:
⿱ ~ ⿹:
螜 ~ 𧏚, 𡠆 ~ 㜌, 𣖫 ~ 榖 ...
頾 ~ 頿, 𩒹 ~ 䫇, 嬃 ~ 𡡓 ...
𣻯 ~ 潁, ⿱頃山 (睡虎地) ~ ⿹頃山, ⿱頃糸 (漢字海) ~ 顈
⿰ ~ ⿺:
𣤚 ~ 燞, ⿺焦刂 B00243-002 ~ 劁 B00243
===============
For ⿱⿰尚A木 ~ ⿰棠A, I can only find ⿱敞木 and 𢿧𢿵𭣜. Consider:
𢿵:
[一切經音義] 染衣倀, [倀] 摘更反, 或作▲, 考聲云 “▲, 展也, 從木敞聲, 律中 (根本説一切有部毘奈耶尼陀那目得迦攝頌) 從手從貞作揁 (“霑衣大小便, 染衣揁認衣”), 非也”.
𢿧:
[一切經音義] 衣▲, [▲] 讁庚反, 考聲云 “𭣜, 展也, 從木敞聲, 律本作揁, 非也”.
𭣜:
[一切經音義] 𢿦前, 上讁更反, 經作楨, 非也. 楨音客庚反, 琴瑟聲也, 若以爲楨像字, 於義乖失. 今偕𭣜字, 用之稍近於理, 順俗爲去聲呼也.
[一切經音義] 衣𢿧, [𢿧] 讁庚反, 考聲云 “▲, 展也, 從木敞聲, 律本作揁, 非也”.
So ⿱敞木 and 𢿧𢿵𭣜 can be analyzed as being unfiable.
The meaning can be related with both 木 "tree" and 攴 "strike", and 一切經音義 consistently consider the semantic component should be 木, while later dictionaries think 攴. The 尚 component is composable with both, and no matter which interpretation you make, the structural integrity of the other possibility is broken.
Consider unifying to 囧.
See evidence #3, 蒼頡篇云, 囧 (▲), 大 (火) 明也.
Also:
⿰⿴囗仌月 A01784-007 ~ 朙 A01784-001
Needs discussion on visual similarity with 囧.
Virtually identical contextual quote seems have been used for both SAT-08988 and SAT-06676, which strongly suggests only one one code point required. According to the zi.tools link give the quote the meaning U+30B80 aka SAT-08988 was "(大藏經)
字見於大正新脩大藏經外字系統《一切經音義》：説文從八從肉作血脉在肉中～&MT0", which seems essentially to be that of SAT-06676.
Consider unifying to 𰮀 (U+30B80).
Cross reference comment #4540.
Also:
⿱〾高⿴囗仌 A03356-006 ~ ⿱🈩高口〾肉 A03356-009 ~ 膏 A03356.
We could discuss if it is OK to add ⿱ and ⿵ as a new UCV. If yes, we can consider to unify this character to 𢲿 (U+22CBF).
For ⿱ ~ ⿵:
⿱咸心 ~ ⿵咸心 (感)
𡞣 C02254 ~ ⿵咸女 C02254-001
⿱戌火 (漢字海) ~ 烕
𤥔 ~ 㓘
unify to 㝣 (U+3763)
Also see WS2021-01815.
In 説文解字, 㝣 is different from 絜, but 㝣 could be loaned (假借) as 絜.
▲ 朱駿聲: 《説文通訓定聲》, 臨嘯閣藏本, 泰部弟十三
unify to 𱯋 (U+31BCB)
Possible unification to 䰫 (U+4C2B)
SAT has proved the current form is stable for different editions.
unify to 憻 (U+61BB)
It is a good chance to add 亶, 𮧊 (U+2E9CA) and ⿱面旦 as UCV lv.1.
U+23780 𣞀 vs U+6A80 檀
U+28BAE 𨮮 vs U+28B56 𨭖
U+2D2E2 𭋢 vs U+20FDE 𠿞
U+2D400 𭐀 vs U+58C7 壇
U+2E09F 𮂟 vs U+4120 䄠
U+2EB59 𮭙 vs U+9E07 鸇
U+311C3 𱇃 vs U+9C63 鱣
U+31327 𱌧 vs U+2A675 𪙵
unify to 𧧳 (U+279F3) or U+8A87?
In the evidence, this character is used as the 反切上字 for 髁, that means the 聲母 of this character must be 溪母, and could be 合口 and 一等 or 二等. 𧧳 is the variant of 誇, that matches them.
We can also find the encoded character related to ⿱大干 as below.
U+29A43 𩩃 ≠ U+3116F 𱅯 = U+9ABB 骻
U+31499 𱒙 = U+314AA 𱒪 = U+54B5 咵 ?
There is also U+2D826 𭠦, and we don’t have ⿰扌𡗢, but it is the variant of 挎.
Based on 干祿字書, [⿰言⿱大干] is a variant of 誇.
However, if adding a new UCV=[⿱大干]/𡗢/夸, I think it is a bit dangerous, such as U+29A43 𩩃 is a variant of U+5E79 幹 or U+9AAD 骭, but it has no meaningful relationship with 骻 (U+9ABB).
𣳹 ~ 𣴰
⿰言𭑃 (漢字海) ~ 𧧳
𰸉 ~ 𨀗
⿰魚⿱大干 (漢字海) ~ 𩶮
⿰月⿱大𰀁 (GHZR p.2215) ~ 𰮟
Since 𩩃 ≁ 𱅯, ⿱大干 / 𭑃 / ⿱大𰀁 ~ 𡗢 may be level 2.
unify to 㼝 (U+3F1D)
Also see
Agree to unify to 㼝 (U+3F1D), UCV #445
Consider if best considered as 卸 (U+5378). No encoded characters have 𬼉 U+2CF09 as their right hand component but 𦈢 is used, it is not unheard of for handwritten characters to have one small stroke missing by mistake.
unify to 𫑄 (U+2B444) or U+285D2
The evidence shows it is the variant of 霆. 《隨函録》 uses 𫑄.
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》, 高麗藏, 賢聖集音義第七之四
In principle we agree to unify with 𫑄 U+2B444; please check if the current UCV #109b covers this case.
unify to 逌 (U+900C)
海山仙館叢書 and the modern paper both give 逌. The submitted one and 逌 are very very similar.
▲ 玄應: 《一切經音義》, 海山仙館叢書, 卷第二十二
▲ 聂志军, 向红艳: 《敦煌遗书S.1815V再研究》, 《敦煌研究》, 2018年第1期, p. 118
unify to 莏 (U+838F)
The evidence shows 説文 捼～ 手相摩也. 許慎 also said the variant of 捼 is 挼, and Prof. 费秉勋 modified some definition based on the 《説文解字》, which he was studying “挼曲子” mentioned in 《东京梦华录》. At this time, the submitted character and the relative one are not used in the sentence in 《説文解字》.
▲ 許慎: 《説文解字》, 藤花榭本, 第十二上
▲ 费秉勋: 《宋舞杂考》//中国艺术研究院舞蹈研究所: 《舞蹈艺术丛刊 1986年第4辑（总第17辑）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 1986.11, 统一书号: 8228·151, p. 112
The following book provided the similar word related to the submitted character.
▲ 李玉汶: 《漢英新辭典 第五版》, 上海: 商務印書館, 中華民國十年九月 (1921.9), p. 533
《廣韻》 and 《集韻》 showed more useful information.
▲ 《廣韻》, 符山堂藏板, 下平聲卷第二 (蘇禾切)
▲ 《集韻》, 南宋初明州刻本, 卷之一
Based on current unification rule, they could be unifiable because of cognate.
Unify to 𧛙 U+276D9.
Whilst of course 呆/𣎼 being unifiable would entail unification to 𧛙 U+276D9, it is sufficient in this case to discuss whether or not 𤔍 U+2450D and 𰠀 U+30800 are unifiable when used as a component.
Japan has used this UCV in Hanyo-Denshi and Moji_Joho IVD collections.
U+5156 兖 = U+5157 兗
U+6071 恱 = U+6085 悅 U+60A6 悦
U+6BE4 毤 = U+23B86 𣮆
U+8412 萒 = U+26CC6 𦳆
U+20C55 𠱕 = U+54FE 哾
U+21DCB 𡷋 = U+37CB 㟋
U+22B01 𢬁 = U+6329 挩 U+635D 捝
U+22F20 𢼠 = U+6553 敓 U+655A 敚
U+26B80 𦮀 = U+838C 莌 U+26CAE 𦲮
U+26CAE 𦲮 = U+44F2 䓲
U+289A3 𨦣 = U+92B3 銳 U+92ED 鋭
U+294AC 𩒬 = U+4AC4 䫄
U+2D8ED 𭣭 = U+2D8F3 𭣳
U+2DF66 𭽦 = U+24FEB 𤿫
Note: the outside component of U+22F20 𢼠 is not totally the same as U+514A 兊, but they must be unifiable.
The followings have not the corresponding 兑/兌 variant forms.
U+38DE 㣞
U+20D77 𠵷
U+211F0 𡇰
U+2170E 𡜎
U+2406B 𤁫
U+278E5 𧣥
U+27344 𧍄
U+2E8FD 𮣽
U+31F79 𱽹
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2015/app/?id=01354
Consider unification to 觝 U+89DD.
Another variation of 氐.
Existing UCV #453:
Unify to 嗌 (U+55CC) because of unification of SAT-06800 to 益 with new UCV. If unification to U+55CC is considered inappropriate, then consider disunifying SAT-06800 from 益.
⿱⿰三三皿 ~ 益
⿱烕⿰三三 A02285-014 ~ 𣹹 A02285-004
Unify to 舤 (U+8224)?
Pronunication is given as fán which suggests the right hand side 凢 is a variant of 凡.
The following variants are currently coded:
U+51E2 凢 = 凡
U+51E3 凣 = 凡
U+3836 㠶 = 帆
U+225BE 𢖾 = 忛
U+233C6 𣏆 = 杋
U+25425 𥐥 = 矾
U+250F6 𥃶 = 𥃵
U+2AD6C 𪵬 = 汎
U+2D0AB 𭂫 = 凡
U+51E2 凢 and U+51E3 凣 are considered Source Code Separation with each other.
There is one example in Ext A, one in Ext C and one in Ext F. The rest are Ext B. We should consider expanding UCV for 凢 and 凣 to also cover 𭂫 and 凡.
unify to 𪝷 (U+2A777) possibly
Suggest unify to 硼 (U+787C), S.1.5.i
Suggest to Unify to 硼 (U+787C); and add a new UCV rule of 朋 ~ ⿰月习.
Based on the handwritten form, it seems very likely that ⿰月习 is an abbreviated form of 朋.
Another example of 朋 written as ⿰月习:
Sometimes it is completely joined as 用:
Same reading yǎn and difference of one stroke from 弇 (U+5F07).
Alternatively, both characters could be unified to 溋 U+6E8B, with addition of new UCV rule 盈 / 盁 / ⿱𠘧皿.
Data page for TC-7234 (Character Source: 財政部財稅用字):
Data page for TC-4B4B (Character Source: 內政部戶政用字):
盁 /⿱𠂊皿/ ⿱𠘧皿 is enough.
Cognate examples:
𭀚 = 充
𭠐 = 抁
𢼠 = 敓 = (⿰兊攵, B01473-007)
𠡌 = 𠡜
𤴴 = 𤵔 = 㽸 = 𤴺
𣲇 (15-225C), 戶政用字, chù
𥐡 (15-2831), 戶政用字, chì
𥸰 (15-2C7E), 戶政用字, chì
𨊫 (15-325F), 戶政用字, chì
𩶷 (15-463C), 戶政用字, yú
𬍐 (12-2C7B), 戶政用字, chù
𬗃 (12-4130), 戶政用字, yū
For this character, the reading comes from 廣碑別字.
It is hard for me to find strong variation connection between 丂 ~ 亍, I can only find 㱙 ~ 𣦿.
However, this character is sourced from 內政部戶政用字 based on the info from the CNS11643 website. As a person's name character, it is more likely to be a variant of 「行」 with the 「彳」 component swapped out to 「木」 for the custom of 五行.
Is it 𪰦 (U+2AC26)? It also seems to be a Taiwanese personal name.
Based on the provided readings, U+20E83 appears to be taking phonetic 振 while TD-3B4D appears to be using phonetic 唇. If this is the case, they are non-cognate and shouldn't be unified.
𣣙 (U+238D9)
Both have the same reading, kuǎn; Perhaps extend, UCV i., Differences of extra or reduced stroke or dot, to 木 and 禾 where they are part of larger component, like ⿳士冖木 and ⿳士冖禾
Consider unify to 𬅭 (U+2C16D).
⿰𡉉欠 may not be regarded as an isolated abstract component. Considering all the characters with similar structure:
𬅭 ~ 款
⿰⿱〾𡉉方欠 (13-4E33) (kuǎn)
⿰⿱〾𡉉禾欠 (11-6151) (kuǎn)
They are all derived from 款. First a 冖 is added from the original glyph to form 𬅭, then the lower-left part 示 is changed to be 禾 to form [11-6151], then the 一 is deleted to form this [TD-4A24], then the 丿 is deleted to form 𣣙 (only one character with this ⿰⿳十冖A欠 structure).
Perhaps unifiable with 𤸝 (U+24E1D)?
Consider unifying to 𤸝 (U+24E1D).
⿱⺈男 A00388-028 ~ 勇 A00388
𤧓 (15-4363, 戶政用字, yǒng) ~ 𬍺 (13-402D, 戶政用字, yǒng)
Most of ⿱⺈田 ~ 角 or 舀, so ⿱⺈男 ~ 勇 lvl 1 or ⿱⺈田 ~ 甬 lvl 2.
Possibly unifiable with 𮋉 (U+2E2C9) or U+2E2CB 𮋋?
Consider unifying to 翱 (U+7FF1) or 𮋉 (U+2E2C9).
Not unify to 𮋋 (U+2E2CB), as the Korean reading 황 (~ 皇) is different from 고.
unify to 𫮝 (U+2BB9D) ?
Both are used for person name in Taiwan Province.
unify to 𩬖 (U+29B16) based on the reading?
Reading is a reference in the literature, but it is not suitable as a source of recognition in the use of names, as reading is a matter for the person concerned to decide.
These two characters are a good case in which reading is based.
Unifiable with 𧀊 (U+2700A), UCV #307c
It should be unified to 濸 (U+6FF8) according to UCV 307c.
unify to 𱾨 (U+31FA8) possibly
Unifiable with 𧁭 (U+2706D), UCV #307c
unify to 蟹
The new UCV for 解觧 has been added.
unify to 淞 (U+6DDE)
▲ 范端昂, 汤志岳: 《粤中见闻》, 广州: 广东高等教育出版社, 1988.7, ISBN 7-5361-0086-8/Z·1, p. 119
This modern publishing edition gives 淞.
▲ 曾楚楠, 《潮州文化丛书》编纂委员会: 《潮州文化丛书·第一辑 韩愈在潮州（增订本）》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.7, ISBN 978-7-218-14801-, pp. 65-67
Based on the analysis, this character should be the omission of 吴淞 (near Yangtze River Delta); 陂塘 means narrow pond, which is a common stable word.
口 and 厶 are commonly unifiable.
unify to 玜 (U+739C)
We do not oppose unification to 玜 (U+739C) with a new UCV (see also UK-20188)
Similar to
Agree to unify to 𡧾 (U+219FE) as both are variants of "寧".
I don’t oppose to unify with 𡧾 (U+219FE), but I don’t know why 《汉语大字典》 include ⿳宀乛皿 form not this one, that is so strange.
I strongly request UK for consideration to do the horizontal extension later, if this one been unified.
I agree with Eiso that UK should consider HE for 𡧾.
The 𡧾 in GHZ is quoted from 四聲篇海:
However, both 泰和四聲篇海 and 成化四聲篇海 give the shape ⿱宀𮕜.
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金元遞修本） 7:4b
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）7:6b
And the remaining stroke count of this character is 7 in 四聲篇, consistent with the shape 𮕜, but not ⿱乛皿 given in the GHZ as it has only 6 strokes.
Unify to 𪷂 (U+2ADC2).
The pronunciation of U+2ADC2 𪷂 is also mu4, so it is also a variant of 慕 without a doubt.
Suggest to update UCV #32a to Level 1 as well.
The quoted text is a mistake for “劃劙雲陰，卷月日也". Suggest to unify ⿰蟸刂 to 劙 (U+5299) with new UCV for 蟸~蠡.
Based on a quick lookup of IDS, there are 38 characters with 眉 component while there are 10 characters encoded with 睂.
Unify to 𥀹 (U+25039)
Potentially unifiable to 𱤶 if we change NUCV #403 火灬 to UCV.
[ {{WS2017-01808}} ]
unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5)
This character share the same pronunciation and meaning with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5). This one (UTC-03216) is more proper than UTC-00561 for U+2BAD5 𫫕 for Cantonese use. Maybe it is better to change the U-Source for U+2BAD5 𫫕 to UTC-03216 in future.
The original evidence of UTC-00561.
▲ kCheungBauerIndex 379.04
Also see WS2021-00150, 01465, 01466, 02476.
Unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5), and suggest UTC change glyph and source reference for U+2BAD5 to UTC-03216.
Agree to unify with 𫫕 (U+2BAD5), but as a unifiable variant whose glyph is distinct from its current source reference, UTC-00561.
Unify to 𫫕 (U+2BAD5).
I prefer switching the source and glyph of U+2BAD5 to UTC-03216 (⿰口梃) instead of the current one, because 廷 is the predominant form in Hong Kong, and 𢌜 is practically no longer used.
U+5715 圕 means 圖書館/圖書舘 (library), and this character means 圖書 (book, Latin word is libri)
maybe unify to 𥺺 (U+25EBA)?
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
To consider 𢂞 simply as a variant of 希, and to consider ⿱父布 as a non-cognate character is better. As the evidence given in #9435 shows ⿱父布 instead of ⿱爻布, VU-2209E may need to be unified to WS2021-02285.
The new UCV for 解觧 has been added.
Attributes
#1, IRGN954AR:
#3, IRGN954AR:
#25, IRGN954AR:
The current IDS suggested in #5926 doesn’t match the glyph. And Tao Yang has explained the reason.
I support Henry's comment.
#3, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#17, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#31, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR
The kTotalStrokes value for 𡿨 U+21FE8 is 1, but the glyph on the evidence shows the SC should be 2 as the current value. Maybe the IDS should be ⿰耳⿱丿丶.
The glyph on the evidence looks like the following.
#31, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#25, IRGN954AR
#31c, IRGN2221
#42, IRGN954AR
#31c, IRGN2221:
#35, IRGN2221:
#25, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#12, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
#12, IRGN2221:
▲ IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#25, IRGN954AR
U+2E308 𮌈
#10, IRGN954AR
#12, IRGN954AR:
#28, IRGN954AR
#23, IRGN1105:
TS=10
IDS=⿰亻卨
SC=11; TS=13
IDS can be ⿱ D10-01山, instead of ⿳亠⿲刀丫？山, which contain a question mark "?".
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
#76, IRGN954AR
#76, IRGN954AR
The suggested IDS could be added (not replace the original IDS).
#76, IRGN954AR
But the glyph has undergone normalization. May need discussion about this case.
In KR, left-to-bottom (NOT top-to-right) stroke is written first in the right top component.
#11, IRGN2221:
#56, IRGN954AR:
#58, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR:
The IDS is yet to be updated to ⿰犭⿱大刀.
#59, IRGN954AR:
FS=1
#55, IRGN954AR
#26b, IRGN2221
#33, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
The evidence shows the rationale for this character is 從⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446)耳聲, that means 耳 is the phonetic. The semantic is the unencoded ⿲弓畐弓(SAT-08446) which is the variant of 䰜, 弜 for 䰜 is used for 象形 (象孰飪五味气上出也), and 畐 is the variant of 鬲. Both the radicals for 弜 and 畐 are OK for the second radical.
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#18, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR
#11, IRGN2221
#58, IRGN954AR:
Evidence 1 shows ⿰音⿱日⿹勹⿺𠃊㐅, Evidence 2 shows ⿰音⿱日匂.
#44, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR:
#17, IRGN2221
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.
Prefer to use two IDSes (⿰子阝, ⿰孑阝) for this case.
The reading mǒu means 某, so two radicals should be better.
Also see WS2021-01948:TC-7C7C
#36, IRGN954AR
#18, IRGN2221
using 人 instead of 𠆢 would match the IDS for this element as it appears in other characters, such as 隂 (U+9682)
#17, IRGN2221:
#25, IRGN2221:
The pronunciation is sī provided by TCA, so the semantic element should be 育.
#17, IRGN2221:
The IDS should be changed from ⿰糹𧆠 to ⿰糹虖.
#36, IRGN954AR:
#32, IRGN2221:
#32, IRGN2221:
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.
#63, IRGN954AR
#11, IRGN2221
Radical follows 坐.
#72, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
#67, IRGN954AR
#3, IRGN2221
#21, IRGN954AR:
#67, IRGN954AR:
#13, IRGN954AR
#31, IRGN954AR:
#23, IRGN2221
#15, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
According to IRGN954AR #13, the left part of 礼 is counted as 5 strokes:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#11, IRGN2221:
This character is the variant of 慶, and the bottom of 慶 is 夊 not 夂.
#36, IRGN954AR
#13, IRGN954AR:
#31, IRGN954AR:
#36, IRGN954AR:
以 is counted as 5 strokes by Kangxi.
#26b, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
#45, IRGN954AR
#18, IRGN2221
#11, IRGN2221
#23, IRGN2221
#29, IRGN2221:
If the we use ⿰糹𦁀 as the IDS, it will make the people think the semantic element is 糹(糸), the phonetic element is 𦁀, and the shape of the middle element should be near to 糹 not current 糸.
#36, IRGN954AR:
According to IRGN954AR, the left hand side of 補 should be counted as 6 strokes, so SC=13, TS=18.
NB U+25A9D 𥪝 is under Radical 117
"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.
It is very obvious that 炭 is the semantic component.
Evidence
▲ 许正华: 《金华地区传统名产》, 金华: 浙江省金华地区科学技术委员会, 1983.5, p. 138
▲ 《中华人民共和国地质部 区域地质矿产调查报告 H-50-XXIX 衢县幅 比例尺1:200000》, 浙江省地质局, 1969, p. 59
This form is used widely, it is OK to encode it.
If you check the ancient books, you will find the geographical name listed there is 猷輅, which the original name is 牛路 (牛: cattle, 路: road/path). And they used 猷辂 on the local guideboards.
There is one famous pugilistic art, and they registered as 䣭辂拳 in 第三批浙江省非物质文化遗产名录.
▲ https://www.ihningbo.cn/regulation/show/11
▲ 杨建新: 《浙江文化地图 第四册 钱塘风物 浙江民间文化》, 杭州: 浙江摄影出版社, 2011.12, ISBN 978-7-5514-0018-3, pp. 268-269
𬨎辂 is also used in the books related to toponymic survey, but not common for the local people.
▲ 《中国共产党山东省青岛市黄岛区组织史资料 1939—1987》, 青岛: 中共青岛市黄岛区委党史征委会, 1989.4, p. 292
▲ 桦甸县地方志编纂委员会: 《桦甸县志》, 长春: 吉林人民出版社, 1995.7, ISBN 7-206-02269-3/Z·92, pp. 35-36
▲ 常秉志: 《桦甸县地名录》, 吉林: 吉林省桦甸县地名委员会, 1984.10, 吉林省内部资料准印证第4082号, p. 16
▲ 德宏州史志办公室: 《德宏史志系列丛书 德宏历史资料 历史卷》, 潞西: 德宏民族出版社, 2012.10, ISBN 978-7-80750-755-0, p. 430
▲ 李根源, 刘楚湘, 许秋芳: 《民国腾冲县志稿【点校本】》, 昆明: 云南美术出版社, 2004.12, ISBN 7-80695-180-6/Z·44, p. 206
The shape is both clear and resonable.
▲ 毛荣楷: 《怀岭禅风——六祖惠能在怀集的故事》, 肇庆: 怀集县冷坑镇委、镇政府 & 《新怀集》编辑部 & 怀集县志办公室, 2005.8, p. 55
This is a common word in Yue-dialects, this form is used commonly in 肇庆.
▲ 秦皇岛市地名办公室: 《秦皇岛市地名词典》, 天津: 天津人民出版社, 1994.9, ISBN 7-201-01759-4/K·233, p. 231
▲ 慈溪市民间文学集成办公室: 《中国民间文学集成浙江省宁波市慈溪市卷》, 杭州: 浙江省民间文学集成办公室, 1989.4, 书号: Z CSL-1989-0022, pp. 351-352
▲ 大埔县地方志编纂委员会: 《大埔县志》, 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1992.11, ISBN 7-218-00994-8/K·230, p. 50 & p. 55
However, I checked 1:50000 topographic map （1972） of Liquan County, Shannxi Province, the name of the village is 山底村. So it should be used in another place name which I don't know.
For encoding, I think the evidence is enough.
▲ 苏秉琦: 《考古学文化论集（三）》, 北京: 文物出版社, 1993.12, ISBN 7-5010-0685-7/K·283, p. 12 & p. 23
▲ 贵州省黔西南布依族苗族自治州史志征集编纂委员会: 《黔西南布依族苗族自治州志·民政志》, 贵阳: 贵州人民出版社, 1989.12, ISBN 7-221-01548-1/K·51, p. 214
▲ 《贵州省中草药新医疗法展览资料选编》, 贵州省中草药新医疗法展览会, 1972, p. 74
▲ ～硐小学
▲ 《闽北农业科技手册》, 1978.5, p. 62
▲ 《重修揚州府志》, 嘉慶刻本, 卷之三十三
▲ 陕西省临潼县志编纂委员会: 《临潼县志》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1991.8, ISBN 7-208-01191-5/K·276, p. 58
《临潼县志》 gives 坞刘村.
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
If the information provided by National Database for Geographical Names of China is right, 坞 looks more correct.
On the other hand, the traditional one 䲧 is included in Kangxi Dictionary, but the pronunciation is 動五切 which is similar to 杜, that means 塢鵑 is the variant form of 杜鵑. 从鳥土聲, and niǎo is not reasonable for this rationale.
Also present in various editions of 《陝西通志》
▲ 《湖南省长沙市地名录》, 长沙: 长沙市人民政府, 1986.3, 内部发行, p. 447
(This evidence is provided by my friend Yang Lu.)
▲ 国务院东北经济区规划办公室农林组: 《生态农业建设——东北经济区生态农业建设模式选编》, 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学出版社, 1987.8, ISBN 7-81008-018-0/S·3, p. 192
国务院东北经济区规划办公室 is an authoritative group under the State Council of PRC, which the previous name was 东北能源交通规划办公室 before 1985.
▲ 杨新华, 赵恒珊, 韩明安: 《中苏贸易口岸》, 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 1991.3, ISBN 7-207-01954-8/F·395, p. 116
When this book was published, the Soviet Union had not yet disintegrated.
▲ 国家文物局: 《中国文物地图集 山西分册（中）》, 北京: 中国地图出版社, 2006.12, ISBN 7-5031-4205-7, p. 293
▲ 刘清泉: 《绿色文明录（第一册）》, 太原: 山西高校联合出版社, 1994.8, ISBN 7-81032-684-8/S·38, p. 21
▲ 方炳桂: 《闽都风情录》, 福州: 福建教育出版社, 1997.3, ISBN 7-5334-2284-8/K·56, pp. 67-68
▲ 中国食品杂志社, 杜福祥, 谢帼明: 《中国名食百科》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1988.6, ISBN 7-203-00009-5/Z·4, p. 870
▲ 福州市地方志编纂委员会: 《福州市志 第四册》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2000.7, ISBN 7-80122-568-6/K·238, p. 420
▲ 福州市地方志编纂委员会: 《福州市志 第五册》, 北京: 方志出版社, 1999.2, ISBN 7-80122-418-3/K·154, p. 325
▲ 李如龙: 《论方言和普通话之间的过渡语》//中国社会科学院语言文字应用研究所社会语言学研究室: 《语言·社会·文化——首届社会语言学学术讨论会文集》, 北京: 语文出版社, 1991.1, ISBN 7-80006-232-5/H·64, p. 159
▲ 福建省糖业烟酒公司, 中国民主建国会福州市委员会, 福州市工商业联合会: 《实用副食品手册》, 福州: 福建科学技术出版社, 1982.10, 书号: 17211·15, p. 179
▲ 洪锡山: 《吴修潭先生传略》//中国人民政治协商会议福建省晋江市委员会文史资料委员会: 《晋江文史资料选辑 第十九辑》, 泉州: 泉州晚报印刷厂, 1997.12, p. 98
▲ 广东省汕头市地方志编纂委员会: 《汕头市志 第2册》, 北京: 新华出版社, 1999.1, ISBN 7-5011-4387-0, p. 454
▲ 赖云青, 何玳丽: 《大亨黄金荣》, 北京: 作家出版社, 1987.8, ISBN 7-5063-0023-0/I·22, p. 101
▲ 《四川省仁寿县地名录》, 眉山: 仁寿县地名领导小组, 1982.10, p. 444
▲ 清远市地方志编纂办公室: 《清远县志》, 1995, 内部发行, p. 117
▲ 《蘇州府志》, 光緒九年刻本, 卷第二十九
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
For the rationale, this character means 大 (big). 大 reads as ɾʱəu¹³ in 泾县话, ha⁵¹ (文) hu²⁴ (白) in 泾县茂林话, tʰa⁵⁵ (文) tʰo⁵⁵ (白) in 泾县查济话. (Thanks for 神死’s help on the Chinese Wu-dialects.) It is not difficult to know, this character is to record the syllable derived from the 白读 of 大, so the upper component should be 大.
中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表，2000年11月
This is definately a variant of U+3094E 𰥎. Should we unify them or encode them seperately?
Whilst looking at the dictionary first published in 1989 suggests this might come from 𦫼 (reuz) it is very unlikely that this was the case here. No place names in the 1934 "Longan County Chronicles" (隆安县志) use 了 as a phonetic component but many use 尞 as a phonetic component, and even includes 那寮 as a place name, therefore ⿱丷了 is most likely a variant of U+5bee 寮 or another 尞 phonetic character.
▲ 肖九根, 卢小芳: 《略论赣南客家话“上”义类方位词》//庄初升, 温昌衍: 《客家方言调查研究——第十二届客家方言学术研讨会论文集》, 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2018.10, ISBN 978-7-306-06448-6, p. 386
▲ 林雄, 顾作义: 《经典广东》, 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2009.8, ISBN 978-7-5406-7624-7, p. 87
There are more than 550 places in 江西省赣州市, more than 1020 places in 广东省梅州市 with 岽.
On the other hand, we know U+2BCD2 𫳒 is cited from ZJW, and we can’t find the real use of it in 长汀县, 龙岩市, even other Chinese Hakka-dialects areas in 福建省, 江西省, 广东省, 广西壮族自治区, 香港特别行政区, 澳门特别行政区, 台湾省 and so on.
The most reasonable understanding is that this is a typo, and the correct form should be 岽. It is better to withdraw this character.
It is a print error. I will find another good evidence for the character and come back again.
▲ 广东师院, 湖南师院, 华中师院, 武汉师院: 《动物及动物饲养学（下册）》, 内部发行, 1976.4, p. 222
▲ 黄琪琰, 宋承方: 《鱼病防治实用技术》, 北京: 农业出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-109-02213-7/S·1452, pp. 171-172
▲ 叶重光: 《名优淡水产品养殖技术图说》, 郑州: 河南科学技术出版社, 2001.8, ISBN 7-5349-2542-8/S·595, p. 166
▲ 陈锦富, 陈辉: 《鱼病防治技术》, 北京: 金盾出版社, 1997.7, ISBN 7-5082-0377-1, p. 109
Water bloom is common in 高要 (肇庆), 南海 and 顺德 (佛山), so this character must be used to record Chinese Yue-dialect. I have no knowledge on this, so I can’t show the Cantonese reading now.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） 大部（⿱大？，音爻）, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷4 folio 30b 大部（⿱大𮌇+VS18，音父）
▲ 季裕庆: 《江苏名城录》, 北京: 北京旅游出版社, 1987.11, 书号: 12273·12, p. 148
▲ 中国人民政治协商会议江苏省宜兴县委员会文史资料研究委员会: 《宜兴文史资料 第四辑》, 无锡: 中国人民政治协商会议江苏省宜兴县委员会文史资料研究委员会, 1983.4, p. 156
▲ 程裕祯, 解波: 《中国名胜楹联大观》, 北京: 中国旅游出版社, 1987.3, ISBN 7-5032-0022-7/I·3, p. 119
▲ 平定段⿱斩石石道班
▲ 杜五安: 《太旧路英雄谱》, 太原: 山西人民出版社, 1995.09, ISBN 7-203-03383-X, p. 498
▲ 望城县人民政府: 《湖南省望城县地名录》, 长沙: 望城县湘江印刷厂, 1983.3, p. 178
The other page of the same book shows the pronunciation and the meaning.
▲ 沁源老区建设促进会: 《英雄的沁源人民》, 北京: 海潮出版社, 1997.12, ISBN 7-80054-921-6/K·64, p. 97
▲ 王越, 王华: 《胡同里的北京》, 北京: 中国工人出版社, 2019.7, ISBN 978-7-5008-7227-6, p. 44
Note that 《京师坊巷志稿》 is the authoritative material to study the local history of Beijing, and you will see this book is mentioned in so many guideboards inside Beijing Second Ring Road. 朱一新 came from 浙江义乌, but he collected the first-hand materials of the geographical names of hutongs in Beijing when he was an official in Beijing. He also became the head of 端溪书院 (current 肇庆中学) and 广雅书院 (current 中山大学) in Guangdong later.
小仓～衕 and 寺～衕 mentioned in the evidence are at 安徽省阜阳市, but I can’t find any more materials on them. It looks this character is the misprint form of 衚.
中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集
▲ 骆国和: 《湛江掌故》 , 北京: 中国文联出版社, 2006.12, ISBN 7-5059-4369-3, pp. 112-113
▲ 汉仪字库: 《中文上万个“生僻字”，都能打出来吗？ | 字体研究院》, https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1v84y1J7GY
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
On the other hand, this place is under 清新区, and 氹塘/凼塘 is a common stable word in 清远市.
▲ 广东省地理学会科普组: 《广东农谚》, 广州: 科学普及出版社广州分社, 1983.2, 统一书号: 16051·60185, p. 77
I understand according to the small seal and Fanqie, it should be transfered into 䱤, but as it has been defined as a head character, what we should do is to encode it instead of correcting the original book.
▲ 葉廷珪: 《海録碎事》, 萬歷刻本, 卷二十二上
▲ 葉廷珪: 《海録碎事》, 四庫全書本, 卷二十二上
According to the new evidence, this character is also the variant of 䱤, but it is better to move it back to M-set for not only one piece of evidence.
Therefore, it could be moved back to M-set based on the full-page evidence and my analysis.
▲ 《霸州志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之五
Also see WS2021-04607:GKJ-00233.
Also, the source names for the remaining evidences should be given.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷5 folio 9a 竹部/20+畫, quotes 會玉川篇.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷3 folio 11b，魚部/14畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 17b，魚部/17畫.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
▲ 方以智: 《通雅》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷四十七
The submitted evidence is the modern publishing book in the traditional Chinese with mainland China conventions, that means 鱼 should not be used as the component in the running text and it must be the editing and proofreading error based on the current editing and proofreading rules in mainland China. It is better to withdraw the character for China.
▲ 《略陽縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之三
略阳县 is under 陕西省汉中市 now.
Some one posted the picture of 青⿰拐鳥 on https://tieba.baidu.com/p/2077973832. It looks this kind of bird is also common in 汉中.
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.
▲ 《銅陵縣志》, 天一閣藏明嘉靖刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻校本》, 卷之一
▲ 方成珪: 《集韻考正》, 光緒刻本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 新興書局影四部備要本, 卷之一
▲ 《集韻》, 文淵閣四庫本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 日本天保九年重刊顧廣圻補刻本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 曹氏楝亭本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本, 卷一
▲ 《集韻》, 潭州宋刻本, 卷一
▲ 王朋, 钟鸣: 《通用成语词典》, 长沙: 湖南人民出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5438-0949-4, p. 834
▲ 《集韻》, 金州軍刻宋本, 卷之九
五音集字
经籍籑诂
辞通 卷二十二
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.
Otherwise, if the evidence for the simplified character is accepted, keep both.
Among those books, 支那の孝道 and 東西交通史論叢 contain photocopy of his manuscript, clearly showing the 隲 variant in his handwriting.
On the contrary, Chinese translations appears to more eagerly employ 𨽥.
《張騫西征考》 consistently uses it:
and 《唐宋貿易港研究》 uses it partially in the colophon and a couple of chapter headings, while 隲 in elsewhere:
Aside from that, the government gazette records his name around 30 times, but except for his obituary, which also uses variant of 桑, no evidence that other variants than 隲 were used during his lifetime.
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/2957791/1/5
We did not find any evidence 桑原隲藏 has been written with the 鳥 component.
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
I have checked three versions, all of them give 翯.
▲ 史記（集解、索隱）（宋乾道七年蔡夢弼東塾刻本）卷117 folio 9a // 中華再造善本
▲ 史記（集解、索隱）（宋淳熙三年張杅桐川郡齋刻八年耿秉重修本）卷117 folio 8b // 中華再造善本
▲ 史記（三家注）（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 14a
▲ 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗（明崇禎刊本）卷7 23b/24a
As we can see, ⿰世鳥 is categorized as 鳥部/六畫, which does not make sense because 世 has only 5 strokes and in the very same book, 泄 is categorized as 水部/五畫, so if ⿰世鳥 were indeed ⿰世鳥, it should have been placed after 鳥部/五畫.
Here is 鳥部/六畫 from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 9b/10a:
Here is a summary by comparing the characters in 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇 (abbr. SSP) with all 鳥部/六畫 characters in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗 (abbr. HPCZ):
Characters in HPCZ but not in SSP: ⿰关鳥、⿰世鳥、⿰鳥麦、⿰召鳥.
Characters in SSP but not in HPCZ: 𪁾、䳄、𩿮、𪀺、⿰𡰪鳥.
Here ⿰世鳥、⿰召鳥 have 5 strokes, ⿰鳥麦 has 7 strokes. ⿰召鳥 is misprint of ⿰𡰪鳥, ⿰鳥麦 is misprint of 𪀺. ⿰关鳥 is likely variant of 𪁾. And by exclusion, ⿰世鳥 is likely a misprint of 䳄, otherwise HPCZ would not have removed 䳄, a common character imo.
I am worried about the overall quality of 海篇朝宗. Should it happen to have correct strokes I may not find out that it is likely a misprint of another character. I suggest we treat 海篇朝宗 like 中華字海, it should not be the only supporting evidences without evidences from other dictionaries or running text.
Appendix:
Characters in HPCZ/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,鴿,鵃,鴶,𪀖,鵧,鴻,鴰,鴷,䳑,鴛,䳋,鵀,𪀓,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪁋,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,鴯,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,鴺,𪀚,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,⿰关鳥(WS2021-04707),𪁑,鵄,鴽,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪀤,𪁖,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,⿰世鳥,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,䳍,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𪀫,⿰鳥麦,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,䙚,𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀭,𪁀,䳂,𪀨
Characters in SSP/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,𪀖,鴿,鵃,鴶,鴻,鴛,鴰,鵧,鴷,䳋,䳑,鵀,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪀓,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴯,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,𪁋,𪀚,鴺,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,𪁾,𪁑,鴽,鵄,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪁖,𪀤,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,䳍,䳄,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𩿮,𪀩,𪀺,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,裊(䙚),𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀫,𪀭,𪁀,⿰𡰪鳥,𪀨
Evidence 2 shows this character is under 祲 with 子. It looks like fanqie. If yes, it should be the variant of 鴆 and the radical should be changed.
It is better to withdraw this character without additional evidence.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=9021&page=135
《埤雅》，《四庫全書》
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 7b, 鳥部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 張湧泉. 漢語俗字叢考（2000）pp. 1162
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏金刊元修補本. 故善004077-004086）卷4 folio 7b，鳥部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡, 音賢.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本. 故善012362-012371）卷4 folio 8a.
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 12b.
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 燕京藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 日藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第六
▲ 李昉、李穆、徐鉉：《太平御覽》，嘉慶仿宋刻本，卷第九百二十八
▲ 穆希文：《蟫史集》，萬曆刻本，卷之三
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，十二卷
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》，明嘉靖刻本，卷之三
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 23a, 鳥部/5畫, quotes 類篇.
鴞 is already included in this dictionary (folio 22b), so ⿰另鳥 is placed here intentionally. I suggest to encode it as-is.
成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇海
https://archive.org/details/02076730.cn/page/n42/mode/2up
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷7 folio 14b. 馬部/20+畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 愛新覺羅·玄燁: 《御定駢字類編》, 四庫全書本, 卷二百九
Compared with other books related to 《天目山賦》 written by 盧柟, this character must be the variant of 鵹.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
https://dcollections.lib.keio.ac.jp/sites/all/libraries/uv/uv.php?archive=FKZ&id=F7-A01-02#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=47&r=0&z=1048.314%2C1832.5365%2C691.408%2C531.18
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/898727/147
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 9b, 鳥部/12畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
陳永正編,《中國方術大辭典》(廣東：中山大學出版社, 1991年)
p.369
蛟鱷是漢語詞彙，讀音為jiāo è，出自《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》，解釋蛟龍與鱷魚。亦泛指兇猛的水中動物。
They quote a passage from 宋·陸游《寧德縣重修城隍廟記》: “濤瀾洶湧，蛟鱷出沒。”
▲ 張璐：《本經逢原》，清康熙長洲張氏刻本，卷三
It looks the variant of 虺.
▲ 張璐：《本經逢原》，醫學初階本，卷三
▲ 《職方典》，古今圖書集成本，第六百八十一卷（《蘇州府物産考》）
▲ 婺源縣志（民國刊本）卷11 folio 19b
I agree with Eiso that in evidence 1 ⿰虫亞 is a variant of 瘂. Can China provide the full page of evidence 2.
Yes it's a variant form of 啞, but stable enough to be encoded.
▲ 孙应时, 鲍廉, 卢镇, 陈其弟, 常熟市地方志编纂委员会办公室: 《至正重修琴川志》, 北京: 方志出版社, 2013.1, ISBN 978-7-5144-0793-8/K·642, p. 95
▲ 重修琴川志（明汲古閣刊本）卷9 folio 10b
In this evidence, ⿰虫貞 and 橫魚 are different species.
▲ 《本草匯箋》//朱大年: 《歷代本草精華叢書 七》, 上海: 上海中醫藥大學出版社, 1994.6, ISBN 7-81010-206-0, p. 431
▲ 郝懿行: 《爾雅義疏》, 郝氏家刻本, 下之四
Misprint of 蜩?
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋景文公筆記（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷下葉6：「鶬鶊鳴春，蟋蟀唫夏，蜩蟧喝秋，螘子戰隂。」
Please show the full page.
——李清照《武陵春》
For #6032, 舴艋 is different from 蚱蜢, that 舴艋 is a kind of boat, but both of them share the “small / tiny” meaning. 舴艋 is one important imagery in Chinese ancient poems. Sometimes, people also used 蚱蜢舟 (“蚱蜢舟中魚换酒”, 《暮春晚步蘇隄書事因憶杜黄鸝》 by 馮景), but 舴艋舟 is a better and common form.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 10a
Please confirm the evidence source name.
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 39
▲ 上海市虹桥宾馆: 《江南名菜名点丛书 宁波菜》, 上海: 上海科学技术文献出版社, 2000.9, ISBN 7-5439-1629-0, p. 42
This is a common character used in Ningpo cuisine.
▲ 徐秉潮: 《宁波家常菜》, 宁波: 宁波出版社, 2007.3, ISBN 978-7-80743-073-5, p. 106
▲ 傅国通, 郑张尚芳: 《浙江省语言志》, 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2015.11, ISBN 978-7-213-06955-0, p. 245
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b 虫部/6畫 （長隆切）, quotes 會玉川篇.
叔 has 8 strokes. Maybe the character was normalized from ⿰虫尗 or it is misprint of some known character.
▲ 蠕范（清同治刊本）卷8 folio 28a
The evidence also presents an unencoded character ⿰虫野 (surrounded by a blue rectangle), presumably a variant of 𧐓.