This shape is seen in many books, used as last name and used in place names as well.
徐铁生: 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》,中华书局出版发行,北京市白帆印务有限公司，2014年1月北京第1版，2014年1月北京第1次印刷,ISBN978-7-101-09024-6, page1360
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第八辅助集
Considering the unification relates to the change of radical, I think it is better to encode the character seperately.
Oppose Unification
BTW, the character is deleted from Extention I because that it is in IRG WS2021. It is not proper to unify the character after China deciding to remove it from Extention I.
What's more, I‘d like to say that we can not live in theory and the ISO 10646 standard should be made for practical usage. The fact that the character is usually treated as different character from 𥦗 (U+25997) reflects the wide demand of using all two characters in the same context. Unifying this kind of common variants will cause that people use PUA to represent it, which can be easily avoided if we encode them seperately.
Oppose Unification
Considering:
1) the radical of ⿱宀总 is 宀 while the radical of 𥦗 (U+25997) is 穴;
2) the variant ⿱宀总 is used in many books and 𥦗 (U+25997) as well;
3) ⿱宀总 is used as last name, which is important to people;
4) ⿱宀总 is used in Chinese place names;
5) ⿱宀总 is deleted from Extention I by China because it is in IRG WS2021;
6) people will normally treate ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) as different characters.
It is obviously better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately rather than unify it based on academic theory or other rigid “rules”.
Oppose Unification
Let me sort the discussion out for experts:
Experts diagree to encode ⿱宀总 seperately says:
1) Based on UCV#22, 八 and 丷 can be unified;
2)⿱宀总 should be take apart as ⿳宀丷𢗀 academically so ⿱宀丷 should be unified to 穴, and the radical of ⿱宀总 should be 穴(comment #14286).
Experts agree to encode ⿱宀总 seperately says:
1)Technically, ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) can be unified to each other;
2)Practically, most people would like to take part ⿱宀总 as ⿱宀总 because ⿱丷𢗀 is a very common character. Meanwhile, most people would like to take part 𥦗 (U+25997) as ⿳穴口心(i.e. ⿱穴𢗀). Then considering 宀 is not unifiable to 穴, 总 is not unifiable to 𢗀, so ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) should not be unified.
3)We think it is better to take part the character in a more practical way but take part the character academically thus they should not be unified.
4)Considering more:
a)The variant ⿱宀总 is used in many books and 𥦗 (U+25997) as well;
b) ⿱宀总 is used as last name, which is important to people;
c) ⿱宀总 is used in Chinese place names;
d) ⿱宀总 is deleted from Extention I by China because it is in IRG WS2021;
It is obviously better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately rather than unify it based on academic theory or other rigid “rules”.
Last but not least, I noticed that Eiso's comment in #14291 suggesting ORT manager should remove following source references:
宋元以来俗字谱
檮杌閑評
花嶼詞
樂府詩鈔
I'd like to say that we found totally more than 120 evidences for ⿱宀总, which are enough to prove point 4.a in this comment. I will post some of them in my next comment.
Oppose Unification
Extension I is formmaly approved by WG2 according to WG2 5234.
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5234-WG2-M70-Recommendations.pdf
The character ⿱宀总 is in the first and second draft of GB 18030-2022 Amendment 1 and then is still included in the draft of Extension I after China removes 55 characters out of the set. It is included in Extension I in the last miniute. However, experts from China found that ⿱宀总 was in IRG WS2021. Seeing the character not suggested to be unified or withdrawn, in order to reduce the possibility of encoding duplicates, China decided to move this character out from Extension I. It will be very disappointing and reluctant if the character is unified. In fact, this character was formally approved by WG2.
What's more, it is reasonable to think that it is better to encode the character seperately as I commented in comment #14307.
The character is already in the PUA fonts of The Natural Resources Surveying and Monitoring Institute of Jiangxi Province(江西省自然资源测绘与监测院), The Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China(中华人民共和国公安部) and Zhonghua Book Store(中华书局). Unifying this character will simply cause the abuse of PUA because noramlly, they will be recognized as different characters with same meaning by people.
Last but not least, please try to think about this: If ⿱宀总 is unified to 𥦗 (U+25997) , then the radical of ⿱宀总 should be 穴, which is also reluctant.
I sincerely suggest to encode this character seperately based on what I wrote in this comment.
The source of the evidence is 甘孜藏族自治州康定县地名领导小组：四川省甘孜藏族自治州康定县地名录，1986年5月，P145.
Also seen in 凤凰县人民政府：湖南省凤凰县地名录，1983年4月，page241, which is the source of the second evidence.
The pronunciation of the character seems to be incorrect. The character should be a variant of ⿱古斗, which is a variant of 𢪿(U+22ABF), i.e. 辜. So the pronunciation should be gū.
May be an error form of 𢯭(U+22BED). 𢯭 means 扽(tug). When you are weaving without machine, holding longitude line(持经) means you have to let one person to tug the line.
Unclear evidence
People who tug the line are also needed when using simple or complex weaving machine.
The shape of the ideograph seems to be questionable. The glyph of the character is different in 《因音求字》, 《重编因音求字》 and modern books. More evidences needed.
谢思泽：因音求字，温州务本局石印本，卷一，光韵上声：
谢思泽：重编因音求字，卷二，民国十六年（1927），page22
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
The glyph of this character varies a lot among different books. I suggest to postpone this character for further investigation unless some experts can explain which is the right glyph and why. The bottom of the character can be 主、王、玉， the right middle part can have a bar in it, which makes 冋 become 同. What's more, there may be another 言 after the structure ⿵冂⿱𠃍一.
符咒妙术秘法，台北：武陵出版有限公司，2004年
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Every character of Bagua(八卦) can be used in this way and the radical 雨+鬼 can be replace by 雨 or 鬼. This will leads to a set of 64*3=192 this kind of characters. So I sugget to postpone or pending the character and wait until we know how to handle the Taoist characters.
道教諱秘字專用造字集 Big5 Version
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
Weired shape even in Daoist characters. Can't be found in books other than 梵音斗科. Also not found in 道教讳秘字专用造字集 Big5 Version, which includes many many Daoist characters.
Should be postponed according to experts' opinion in IRGN2579.
Unclear evidence
There is 上岸、结身、自在、出轮回、开摄化、启智慧、鉴邪魅…… terms in the Taoist. All of 雨、雨+鬼、鬼、雨+食 etc. can be added to them. In fact, all words used in daily life can be added these components. For example, I want eat good food, I can write ⿱雨好 ⿱雨食 ⿱雨来 or ⿱雨⿺鬼好 ⿱雨⿺鬼食 ⿱雨⿺鬼来. This is even casually done in carving copies. This will be endless.
The character is included in GB/T 7590-1987 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第四辅助集. This means that the character ⿰王賽 should be include in the unpublished 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第五辅助集. Nearly all indeographs in 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第五辅助集 are encoded but this one was not.
It is seen in 《信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集》（八辅）.
I'd like to provide two ways to check if the idograph is in 八辅 or not:
http://yedict.com/zslistBaFu.asp?qu=16
https://zi.tools/zi/%E2%BF%B0%E5%86%AB%E9%BA%A6?secondary=character_set&set=G%E5%85%AB%E8%BE%85
I must stress that 八辅 is made by a department of Chinese Government. Every single ideograph in the set is seen in Chinese 1:50000 GIS map or other materials made by departments of Chinese Government. Even the glyphs are wrong glyphs, they have been used or are being used by departments of Chinese Government.
This character is supposed to related to U+304EB 𰓫. FYI, the character used to replace ⿰扌厘, i.e. 峡, is highly possible to have no relation to ⿰扌厘. Meanwhile, dialects can change over time, which leads to much difficulty to explain the meaning or pronunciation academically.
I strongly oppose to the comments in comment #14288 on behalf of The Center for Toponym Research of Sichuan In-ternational Studies University, especially the words "such fantasies are only a fragile defense of some poor self-esteems". This kind of sarcasm to national bodies should not be allowed in IRG.
To clarify, I am suggesting encoding the character seperately not just because some information processing systems don't support IVD. I am saying that, for this particular case, considering the facts I brought out in comment #14280, it is much better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately. For me, I will definately take part the character as ⿱宀总 at the first sight. What's more, the case of ⿳宀丷工 doesn't stand because ⿱丷工 is not a common character but ⿱丷𢗀 is.
Comment
Reply to #14318. I searched 𥦗 in 瀚堂典藏数据库(HYTUNG BOOKS), there are 13 pages of the result.
IRG Working Set 2021v5.0
Source: Xieyang WANG
Date: Generated on 2023-12-08
Labels
Unification
徐铁生: 《中华姓氏源流大辞典》,中华书局出版发行,北京市白帆印务有限公司，2014年1月北京第1版，2014年1月北京第1次印刷,ISBN978-7-101-09024-6, page1360
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第八辅助集
Considering the unification relates to the change of radical, I think it is better to encode the character seperately.
What's more, I‘d like to say that we can not live in theory and the ISO 10646 standard should be made for practical usage. The fact that the character is usually treated as different character from 𥦗 (U+25997) reflects the wide demand of using all two characters in the same context. Unifying this kind of common variants will cause that people use PUA to represent it, which can be easily avoided if we encode them seperately.
1) the radical of ⿱宀总 is 宀 while the radical of 𥦗 (U+25997) is 穴;
2) the variant ⿱宀总 is used in many books and 𥦗 (U+25997) as well;
3) ⿱宀总 is used as last name, which is important to people;
4) ⿱宀总 is used in Chinese place names;
5) ⿱宀总 is deleted from Extention I by China because it is in IRG WS2021;
6) people will normally treate ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) as different characters.
It is obviously better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately rather than unify it based on academic theory or other rigid “rules”.
Experts diagree to encode ⿱宀总 seperately says:
1) Based on UCV#22, 八 and 丷 can be unified;
2)⿱宀总 should be take apart as ⿳宀丷𢗀 academically so ⿱宀丷 should be unified to 穴, and the radical of ⿱宀总 should be 穴(comment #14286).
Experts agree to encode ⿱宀总 seperately says:
1)Technically, ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) can be unified to each other;
2)Practically, most people would like to take part ⿱宀总 as ⿱宀总 because ⿱丷𢗀 is a very common character. Meanwhile, most people would like to take part 𥦗 (U+25997) as ⿳穴口心(i.e. ⿱穴𢗀). Then considering 宀 is not unifiable to 穴, 总 is not unifiable to 𢗀, so ⿱宀总 and 𥦗 (U+25997) should not be unified.
3)We think it is better to take part the character in a more practical way but take part the character academically thus they should not be unified.
4)Considering more:
a)The variant ⿱宀总 is used in many books and 𥦗 (U+25997) as well;
b) ⿱宀总 is used as last name, which is important to people;
c) ⿱宀总 is used in Chinese place names;
d) ⿱宀总 is deleted from Extention I by China because it is in IRG WS2021;
It is obviously better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately rather than unify it based on academic theory or other rigid “rules”.
Last but not least, I noticed that Eiso's comment in #14291 suggesting ORT manager should remove following source references:
宋元以来俗字谱
檮杌閑評
花嶼詞
樂府詩鈔
I'd like to say that we found totally more than 120 evidences for ⿱宀总, which are enough to prove point 4.a in this comment. I will post some of them in my next comment.
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5234-WG2-M70-Recommendations.pdf
The character ⿱宀总 is in the first and second draft of GB 18030-2022 Amendment 1 and then is still included in the draft of Extension I after China removes 55 characters out of the set. It is included in Extension I in the last miniute. However, experts from China found that ⿱宀总 was in IRG WS2021. Seeing the character not suggested to be unified or withdrawn, in order to reduce the possibility of encoding duplicates, China decided to move this character out from Extension I. It will be very disappointing and reluctant if the character is unified. In fact, this character was formally approved by WG2.
What's more, it is reasonable to think that it is better to encode the character seperately as I commented in comment #14307.
The character is already in the PUA fonts of The Natural Resources Surveying and Monitoring Institute of Jiangxi Province(江西省自然资源测绘与监测院), The Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China(中华人民共和国公安部) and Zhonghua Book Store(中华书局). Unifying this character will simply cause the abuse of PUA because noramlly, they will be recognized as different characters with same meaning by people.
Last but not least, please try to think about this: If ⿱宀总 is unified to 𥦗 (U+25997) , then the radical of ⿱宀总 should be 穴, which is also reluctant.
I sincerely suggest to encode this character seperately based on what I wrote in this comment.
Evidence
Also seen in 凤凰县人民政府：湖南省凤凰县地名录，1983年4月，page241, which is the source of the second evidence.
兴仁县人民政府：贵州省兴仁县地名录，page197
鄂城县地名领导小组办公室：湖北省鄂城县地名志，1981年4月，P203
and ⿰冫⿱丷了
(From codechart of the PUA font of Surveying and Mapping of Jiangxi(江西) Province)
Evidence1: 朱錦琮 撰：治經堂詩集，清道光四年（1824）刻本，卷四，page20
Evidence2: 田汝耔 撰：漢隸分韻，清乾隆三十八年（1773）九沙萬氏刻本，序言，page1
Evidence3: 錢大昭 撰：廣雅疏義，日本昭和十五年（1940）靜嘉堂影印清抄本，卷十三，page11
Evidence4: 李調元 輯：蜀雅，清乾隆中綿州李氏萬卷樓刻、嘉靖十四年（1809）李鼎元重校印本，卷二十，page16
Evidence5: 阮文藻 撰：聽松濤館詩鈔，清道光十一年(1831）刻本，卷六，page20
Evidence6: 御定佩文韻府，清乾隆間寫摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本，卷八十一，page42
Evidence7: 王桂 撰：葵書，清光緒六年(1880)刻本，卷上，page52
Evidence8: 新刻今古傳奇，清嘉慶二十三年(1818)刻本，卷十二，page6
Evidence9: 彭元端 撰：五代史記注，清道光八年(1828)刻本，卷五十四，page4
Evidence10: 劉一明 撰：西遊原旨，清嘉慶二十四年(1819)湖南常德同善分社刻本，卷五，page5
Evidence11: 沈濤 撰：常山貞石記，清光緒二十年(1894)靈溪精舍刻本，卷十三，page26
Evidence12: 張居正 撰：明張文忠公詩文集，清宣統三年(1911）醉古堂石印本，卷十一，page15
Evidence13: 王三接 撰 ，(明)王用言 輯：王槐溪先生文集五卷，明萬曆三十六年(1608)王學曾刻本，卷一，page14
Evidence14: 吴嵩梁 撰：香蘇山館全集，清道光二十三年(1843)刻本，卷四，page12
Evidence15: 祁东县志，中国文史出版社，1992年10月，page81
Also seen in the PUA font of Zhong Hua Book Company(中华书局):
正德颍州志·卷二·第七页
Seen in 中国测绘科学研究院《库外字代码对照表》：
Also used in Chinese mainland.
王国平 总主编，杭州文献集成 第27册 武林坊巷志 5，杭州：浙江人民出版社，2014年10月，page216
The character should be an error form of 潓(U+6F53).
地方志人物传记资料丛刊 华北卷 第21册，page748
谢思泽：因音求字，温州务本局石印本，卷一，光韵上声：
谢思泽：重编因音求字，卷二，民国十六年（1927），page22
符咒妙术秘法，台北：武陵出版有限公司，2004年
道教諱秘字專用造字集 Big5 Version
The shape of the character should be further investigated.
possibly a variant of 渊（𣴺, U+23D3A） or 氹.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Editorial
Other
I'd like to provide two ways to check if the idograph is in 八辅 or not:
http://yedict.com/zslistBaFu.asp?qu=16
https://zi.tools/zi/%E2%BF%B0%E5%86%AB%E9%BA%A6?secondary=character_set&set=G%E5%85%AB%E8%BE%85
I must stress that 八辅 is made by a department of Chinese Government. Every single ideograph in the set is seen in Chinese 1:50000 GIS map or other materials made by departments of Chinese Government. Even the glyphs are wrong glyphs, they have been used or are being used by departments of Chinese Government.
di, 山~, 陕西
di, 山~, 河南
di, 石~, 广西
Also seen in 中华人民共和国交通部：一九七九年全国公路普查资料汇编.
To clarify, I am suggesting encoding the character seperately not just because some information processing systems don't support IVD. I am saying that, for this particular case, considering the facts I brought out in comment #14280, it is much better to encode ⿱宀总 seperately. For me, I will definately take part the character as ⿱宀总 at the first sight. What's more, the case of ⿳宀丷工 doesn't stand because ⿱丷工 is not a common character but ⿱丷𢗀 is.
qun?, ~石村，广西壮族自治区
shan?，大~，广西壮族自治区。
hua?，~白，广西壮族自治区。
hua?，~底，广西壮族自治区。
fu，屎~岭，广西。
Data for Unihan
宁夏回族自治区同心县地名志, page32