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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The fifth image of #9693 is wrong. Please see the following instead:
Discrepancy with orthography of the current version of 説文解字 does not mean error. While the shape is deformed, it could be derived from synonymous variants such as 褱, 𧙪, 𬽕 etc.
Note that the the passage goes "㞋音▲", so if it were 𠬩 the sentence would be a tautology. That is part of reason why we cannot establish probable relation to an existing character. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
Taisho's glyph is confused and that is why we did not put it in evidence. Although highly unclear, we believe the smaller glyph is intended to be this shape.
The source is just ordinary 高麗藏. The particular image is taken from Archives of Buddhist Culture, Dongguk University https://kabc.dongguk.edu/.
See IRGN2485.
忄/巾 convergence in Taisho Tripitaka according to SAT database:
- 忼 (16 occurrences) vs 𰏔 (1 occurrence)
- 怗/怙 (a lot) vs 𭘖 (1 occurrence)
- 㤞 (3 occurrences) vs ⿰巾⿱冖乇 (1 occurrence)
- 怓 (0 occurrences) vs ⿰巾奴 (1 occurrence)
- 𱟉 (1 occurrences) vs ⿰巾⿳艹夂田 (1 occurrence)
- 憒 (a lot) vs 𱟉/⿰忄⿱央貝 [WS2021-01372] (2 occurrences) vs ⿰巾䝿 (1 occurrence)
All seems to be the original component 忄 transformed into 巾. Most other 忄 characters seemingly not having 巾 variants.
However, in our database, 巾 does not always derive from 忄. For example:
- ⿰巾又 (1 occurrence) ← 𠬞 (0 occurrence?)
- 𱜯 (1 occurrence) ← 褊 (a lot)
- 𭘰 (1 occurrence) ← 博 (a lot)
Our "similar" includes those whose relationship is neither confidently affirmed nor denied, which does not necessarily mean they are variants. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, we are aware that it is derived from 佽. However, the structure is clear and doubtful if unifiable. By the way, zi.tools lists an anecdotal alternative Seal glyph, which might suggest such form was circulated.
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
A 1840s songbook that records the title of this play. The character also looks having 月 instead of 日, and some extra component. We probably need more investigation on the structure of this character.
It seems a much-quoted passage from 《廣成子傳》, where others usually say 啖. While it might be regarded an assimilated character, I think it'd be better treated as an error making meaning rather obscure, if no other occurrence attested.
㐄 and 𡕒 are synonyms. We believe that Taisho chose this form under the influence of JP regional norm. We might be better follow JP standard to change the rightmost component as follows.
We consider the evidence 1 to be a misguided interpretation of the glyph of 白蓮社本, which has prolonged last stroke of 目, thus evidence 2 is more accurate.
Note that 般 and 簸 do share the same onset and nucleus in Middle Chinese which is meaningful in this type of transliteration (cf. 般若 ~ paññā), which is also the reason we associate this character with 簸.
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: WANG Yifan
Date: Generated on 2023-05-30
Unification
But also see [ {{WS2017-00562}} ]
.
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.
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。
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.
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.
Needs discussion on visual similarity with 囧.
Agree to unify to 㼝 (U+3F1D), UCV #445
In principle we agree to unify with 𫑄 U+2B444; please check if the current UCV #109b covers this case.
Suggest unify to 硼 (U+787C), S.1.5.i
Is it 𪰦 (U+2AC26)? It also seems to be a Taiwanese personal name.
Perhaps unifiable with 𤸝 (U+24E1D)?
Possibly unifiable with 𮋉 (U+2E2C9) or U+2E2CB 𮋋?
Unifiable with 𧀊 (U+2700A), UCV #307c
Unifiable with 𧁭 (U+2706D), UCV #307c
Attributes
It is very obvious that 炭 is the semantic component.
Evidence
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.
https://dzkimgs.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/kakouzou/KB001_02/canvas/0016.json/miradorView
See IRGN2485.
In this case, it is semantically obvious that it should have 扌, and all witnesses agree.
Yes, Taisho Tripitaka misplaced this character and we do not have more complete evidence, but I hope Eiso Chan would provide additional ones if needed.
The source is just ordinary 高麗藏. The particular image is taken from Archives of Buddhist Culture, Dongguk University https://kabc.dongguk.edu/.
See IRGN2485.
- 忼 (16 occurrences) vs 𰏔 (1 occurrence)
- 怗/怙 (a lot) vs 𭘖 (1 occurrence)
- 㤞 (3 occurrences) vs ⿰巾⿱冖乇 (1 occurrence)
- 怓 (0 occurrences) vs ⿰巾奴 (1 occurrence)
- 𱟉 (1 occurrences) vs ⿰巾⿳艹夂田 (1 occurrence)
- 憒 (a lot) vs 𱟉/⿰忄⿱央貝 [WS2021-01372] (2 occurrences) vs ⿰巾䝿 (1 occurrence)
All seems to be the original component 忄 transformed into 巾. Most other 忄 characters seemingly not having 巾 variants.
However, in our database, 巾 does not always derive from 忄. For example:
- ⿰巾又 (1 occurrence) ← 𠬞 (0 occurrence?)
- 𱜯 (1 occurrence) ← 褊 (a lot)
- 𭘰 (1 occurrence) ← 博 (a lot)
𰏒 (3 occurrences) ← 艸 (a lot)
The previous page to Evidence 2:
1. 柴谷 (2014): 柴谷宗叔 Shibatani, Soshuku. 澄禅『四国辺路日記』の道再現: 伊予、讃岐
を中心に (“Recreating the Early Edo Period Shikoku Pilgrimage through Chozen's Shikoku
henro nikki: Iyo and Sanuki”). 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies)
63(1), 253-257, 2014. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009899965
2. 四国遍路日記: 澄 禅 (Chōzen). 宮 崎 忍 勝 (Miyazaki, Ninshō) (ed). 四国遍路日記
(Shikoku Henro Nikki). 大東出版社, 1977.
3. 新潮日本語漢字辞典: 新潮日本語漢字辞典 (Shinchō Nihongo Kanji Jiten). 新潮社, 2007.
See IRGN2485.
https://iiif.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/repo/s/kuroki/document/3709b1d5-33d6-459e-8972-4fc2f5220115
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng,_Volume_067_(1700-1725).djvu/61
Is there reason the shape 召 is preferred?
Glyph Design & Normalization
Editorial
Other
《說文解字注》：「頓者，下首也。以首叩地謂之頓首。引伸爲前覆之辭。《左氏・音義》引孫炎曰：前覆曰仆。玄應三引《說文》。仆，頓也。謂前覆也。偃謂却偃。仆謂前覆。」
Data for Unihan