Please wait while loading

IRG Working Set 2021v4.0

Source: Xieyang WANG
Date: Generated on 2023-03-21

Show Deleted

Unification

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
00865
00865
土 32.10.4
GDM-00287
TS 13 · IDS
Oppose Unification
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).
01167
01167
山 46.11.2
GDM-00342
TS 14 · IDS 𠵛
Oppose Unification
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.


Evidence

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
04207
04207
金' 167'.5.1
GDM-00234
TS 10 · IDS
Evidence

The shape is both clear and resonable.
01013
01013
女 38.16.4
GDM-00243
TS 19 · IDS
Evidence
江西省公安厅一处 编纂:《江西方言土语汇集》第六册,1991年9月,P42
01146
01146
山 46.8.4
GDM-00251
TS 11 · IDS
New evidence
中国测绘科学研究院:地名库外字代码对照表,2004年



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.
02782
02782
石 112.10.1
GDM-00262
TS 15 · IDS
Evidence
《建宁县地名录》has pronounciation.
00848
00848
土 32.9.2
GDM-00279
TS 12 · IDS
Evidence
安化县人民政府:湖南省安化县地名录,1983年3月,P54
04687
04687
鳥' 196'.3.1
土 32.5.3
GDM-00286
TS 8 · IDS
Evidence
The pronounciation of ⿰土鸟 is niao3, which is resonable. Placenames can change over time.
00951
00951
大 37.5.1
GDM-00306
TS 8 · IDS
Evidence

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?

01035
01035
宀 40.5.1
GDM-00310
TS 8 · IDS
Evidence
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,P146
01038
01038
宀 40.7.1
GDM-00312
TS 10 · IDS
Evidence
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
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.
00953
00953
大 37.6.2
GDM-00327
TS 10 · IDS
Evidence
贵阳市花溪区地方志办公室:贵阳市花溪区志,贵阳:贵州人民出版社,2007年8月,P71
00099
00099
二 7.3.2
山 46.2.1
GDM-00330
TS 5 · IDS
Evidence
江西省公安厅一处:江西方言土语汇集 第八册,1992年5月,P17
00807
00807
土 32.6.3
GDM-00336
TS 9 · IDS
Evidence
宜兴县地名委员会:江苏省宜兴县地名录,1983年1月,P125
03678
03678
行 144.5.1
GDM-00362
TS 11 · IDS
Evidence
崔恒昇:中国古今地理通名汇释,合肥:黄山书社,2003年6月,P405
00778
00778
囗 31.10.4
GDM-00364
TS 13 · IDS
New evidence

中国测绘科学研究院:地名库外字代码对照表
00771
00771
囗 31.6.4
GDM-00365
TS 9 · IDS
Evidence
邵阳县人民政府:湖南省邵阳县地名录,1984年12月,P236
04246
04246
門' 169'.4.1
GDM-00366
TS 7 · IDS
Evidence

SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集
04247
04247
門' 169'.5.2
GDM-00367
TS 8 · IDS
Evidence
SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集
01253
01253
广 53.5.1
GDM-00373
TS 8 · IDS 广
Evidence
江西省公安厅一处:江西方言土语汇集 第五册,1991年3月,P213
02282
02282
爪 87.21.3
SAT-05859
TS 25 · IDS
Evidence
It is unclear that if the is a dot here.

01538
01538
手 64.12.4
SAT-06125
TS 15 · IDS 丿
Evidence
The glyph on the right bottom seems to be the corruption of 乑(U+4E51),not 求.
01047
01047
宀 40.9.4
SAT-06842
TS 12 · IDS
Unclear evidence
The glyph is not very clear. According to the context and the evidences, it is hard to decide whether the vertical stroke should be out of the bottom bar or be out of the upper bar. So I suggest we pending this character for further investigation.
02475
02475
玉 96.6.3
SAT-06937
TS 10 · IDS 𬼉
Unclear evidence
According to the second evidence, the character is identical to 𤥖 (U+24956). So the character in the first evidence may be a one case error.
02724
02724
矛 110.27.3
SAT-06996
TS 32 · IDS &P15-01;
Unclear evidence
The two evidences show different glyph. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.
03945
03945
車 159.9.5
SAT-08372
TS 16 · IDS
Unclear evidence
Since ⿺𠃊㐅 and ⿺𠃊人 can't be unified, more evidences are needed to confirm the glyph.
01715
01715
日 72.14.1
SAT-08386
TS 18 · IDS
Unclear evidence
According to the second evidence, there seems to be a bar under the 艹. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.
03841
03841
貝 154.18.3
SAT-10196
TS 25 · IDS
Unclear evidence
The evidence is unclear to decide the glyph is ⿰貝蹙 or ⿰貝⿱戚𤴓.


Editorial

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
00842
00842
土 32.9.1
GDM-00274
UK-20964
TS 12 · IDS
Editorial issue

Traditional form of this character seen in 《古今地名大辞典》.


Other

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
00029
00029
丿 4.4.5
UK-20538
TS 5 · IDS
Comment
After discussing with some of my "transgender" friends, they all don't like to be described as ⿰㐅也. Some of them even think 㐅 indicates they are not persons and it comes out from some self moving people who are not belong to their group.