Please wait while loading

IRG Working Set 2021v3.0

Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2022-11-27

Show Deleted

Labels

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
02465
02465
犬 94.22
25 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00561
Label
null
Label
類化字
02214
02214
火 86.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20127
Label
類化字
03900
03900
足 157.11
18 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20221
𧾷
Label
類化字


Unification

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
03599
03599
虫 142.11
17 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00464
UCV
Level 1 𦕅/聊.

See above comments for rationale. I don't think this character should be postponed.
03463
03463
艸 140.16
20 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-04384
Unification
According to CNS11643, 𫇑 is pronounced as zhēn. Same with ⿱艹臻 (從草臻聲). Consider unify to 𫇑 by UCV #307c. SAT can HE if the shape is preferred.

U+2B1D1
03496
03496
虍 141.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06257
𠔃
UCV
Assuming the evidence of ⿰虗兮 is correct. If we accept the new evidence, please also consider expand the UCV #370 to include 虗.

Here are a list of disunified examples, with each pair sharing the readings and meanings. So the expanded UCV 虚虛虗 can still be of level 1:

U+271C0 𧇀 = U+8661 虡
U+271F2 𧇲 = U+271FA 𧇺
U+29D1B 𩴛 = U+29D25 𩴥
U+2D28C 𭊌 = U+5653 噓
U+2D3DF 𭏟 = U+589F 墟
U+2D7FC 𭟼 = U+6231 戱
U+2D889 𭢉 = U+22D2E 𢴮
U+2DB54 𭭔 = U+6B54 歔
U+2E17D 𮅽 = U+25CA4 𥲤
U+2EBD3 𮯓 = U+2A66B 𪙫
U+3102D 𱀭 = U+28F0B 𨼋
U+3103D 𱀽 = U+3103C 𱀼
01419
01419
戈 62.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08594
Unification
U+2299F
Unify to 𢦟.

Both evidences refer to the 尚書 text, alternatively written as 𢦟. See also the glyph evolution from zi.tools:



The following encoded pairs (⿰?戈 versus ⿹戈?)are semantic variants:
𢧄U+229C4 = 戜U+621C
𢦧U+229A7 = 𢦵U+229B5
𢦴U+229B4 = 㦱 U+39B1 (~ ⿰主戈)

The following encoded pairs (⿱戈? versus ⿹戈?)are semantic variants:
𬷁U+2CDC1 = 𫼃U+2BF03

We may consider a level 2 UCV ⿰?戈/⿹戈.
00172
00172
人 9.9
11 · ㇒ (3)
SAT-08847
𠂉𧘇
UCV
Unify to 偯.

The right component is also similar to 𭈆, which is a variant of 哀 according to MOE dictionary.

I suggest adding a new UCV 哀/⿳𠂉口𧘇, similar to UCV 151b and 230a.

U+2D206
01121
01121
山 46.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
TC-3A56
Unification
U+5CD5
Consider unify to 峕 if we accept the UCV proposed by Henry.
00764
00764
囗 31.3
6 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20835
Unification
U+211AE
Here are some evidences of 𡆮:


康熙字典(清內府刊本)丑集備考 folio 9b


五音篇海(明正德刊本)卷14 folio 4b

Per the GHZR evidence mentioned in my last comment, the kIRG_GSource of 𡆮 is incorrect because GHZR gives ⿴囗土. I suggest China update 𡆮's source reference to GKX.

From evidences above we know that ⿴囗土 and 𡆮 are homonyms. I guess ⿴囗土 is a variant of 𡆮 and might be unifiable to 𡆮 by UCV #312, although they are separated in 五音篇海. If we decide to unify, then I suggest UK to HE 𡆮 with ⿴囗土.
01719
01719
日 72.15
19 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20886
𡼙
UCV
Here are some evidences of ⿰日𦻏:


臨汾縣志(清乾隆刊本)卷7 folio 15


貴州通志(清乾隆刊本)卷8 folio 8 (⿰日𦻏/⿰目𦻏);

⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙.


Attributes

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
00771
00771
囗 31.6
9 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00365
IDS
Update IDS to ⿴囗𰁜, since it is a simplification of 圝.


Evidence

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
04633
04633
魚 195.11
22 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00213
New evidence
Since 中華大典 is not a reliable source, hence I provide a new evidence:



雄乘(明嘉靖刊本)卷上 folio 27b
04587
04587
魚 195.7
18 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00222
New evidence
Here is another printed version of 韻經:



韻經(明萬曆刊本)卷3 folio 7a

Suggest to move this character in M-set.
02503
02503
玉 96.11
15 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00232
Evidence
文清公薛先生文集 is a compilation of 薛瑄(1389—1464)'s work.

The original evidence is from 文清公薛先生文集(清雍正刊本)卷1 folio 14a.

However, ⿰王魚 is not attested in older evidences: I have checked two 薛文清公全集 printed in 明, both of which give 魚, same as 文淵閣四庫全書.


薛文清公全集(明刊本)卷18 folio 14b


薛文清先生全集(明刊本)卷23 folio 15a (pp38).

I suggest China provide additional evidence to prove that ⿰王魚 is a stable error / used in other texts.
04642
04642
魚 195.12
23 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00242
𰕎
New evidence
⿰魚𰕎 is observed in another two 藝文類聚 versions, so it is not a modern (but rather ancient) misprint.


▲ 藝文類聚(宋紹興刊本)卷19 folio 2a //中華再造善本(250)


藝文類聚(明嘉靖胡纘宗刊本)卷19 folio 2a


藝文類聚(明萬曆王元貞刊本)卷19 folio 3a gives 轍

I suggest keep it as-is.
04706
04706
鳥 196.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00374
Evidence
Please provide the whole evidence, as the author may have stated the relationship between ⿰宇鳥 and 𪁔.
03548
03548
虫 142.8
14 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00415
New evidence

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.
03587
03587
虫 142.10
16 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00442
Evidence
Where is the other evidences?
04111
04111
金 167.10
18 · ㇑ (2)
GKJ-00495
New evidence
The text 鉤行之陳…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)·論政論兵之類·十陣》and the text 左右旁伐以相趨…… is from 《銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)·論政論兵之類·略甲》. I don't know why 文史 combine them as if they were from the same source. Note that the text is incorrectly included in 孫臏兵法 on the Internet.



▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)文物出版社2010 pp. 197

Here is the bamboo slip for reference:


▲ 銀雀山漢墓竹簡(貳)文物出版社2010 pp. 68
04187
04187
金 167.15
23 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00526
New evidence
Here is the full evidence and the complete source:


衛生家寶產科備要(十萬卷樓叢書本,第60冊)卷6 folio 20

and another new evidence:


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第60冊)卷6 folio 26
Evidence
Here is the evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 from the same book, a variant of ⿰鏁斤 (See below for rationale).


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷2 folio 19


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷3 folio 2


衛生家寶產科備要(清十萬卷樓叢書本,第59冊)卷4 folio 5

From the preface 重雕宋本衛生家寶產科備要叙 of this book and the paiji (牌記) at the end, we know that the 清十萬卷樓叢書本 version is a reprint of the 淳熙十一年(1184) version.

The 淳熙 version consistently gives ⿲金⿱甾廾斤:


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要(宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本)卷2 folio 19 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要(宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本)卷3 folio 2 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要(宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本)卷4 folio 5 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要(宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本)卷6 folio 16 // 中華再造善本


▲ 衛生家寶產科備要(宋淳熙十一年南康郡齋刻本)卷6 folio 22 // 中華再造善本

I suspect ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is a variant of 𨰉. Because of that, ⿰鏁斤 should have first radical 金. The second radical is fine for me. The evidences above also reveal that ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 is the intermediate form between 𨰉 and ⿰鏁斤.

Now that we have more evidences of ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 than ⿰鏁斤. Should we encode them separately? Especially both ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 and ⿰鏁斤 appear in the 十萬卷樓叢書 version. Alternatively, we can unify ⿰鏁斤 to ⿲金⿱甾廾斤 or vice, or we can unify both to 𨰉.

U+28C09
02330
02330
犬 94.4
7 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00538
Evidence
I agree with Andrew that ⿰犭五 is an error for 狂. For reference here is an older evidence:



▲ 中華再造善本//陸士龍文集(慶元六年華亭縣學刻本)卷8 folio 9b(Also in 明正德覆宋本
02391
02391
犬 94.9
12 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00559
Evidence
五音集字 is authored by 汪朝恩, the earliest known published version is 道光十三年(1833年)刊本.

The text possibly comes from 康熙字典. 康熙字典(清康熙內府刊本) gives



𤠏……本作㺁或作𧳦𧳺, quoted from 集韻.

I suspect ⿰犭⿱册止 is a misprint of 𤠏, consider pending more evidences.
02412
02412
犬 94.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00583
New evidence


民國37年貴州通志 土民志1 folio 26b.

The new evidence provided by Tao Yang is from its table of contents. 猔⿰犭家、⿰犭仲家、仲家 are exonyms of the Bouyei people (Buxqyaix).
02443
02443
犬 94.14
17 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00621
New evidence


▲ 乾隆大理府志卷12 folio 7 // 故宮珍本叢刊 v. 230

玀⿰犭舞 is same with 玀⿰犭武(雍正廣西通志90:2). Alternative words are 羅武(康熙楚雄州志1:40) and 羅婺(乾隆雲南通志24:30).
02371
犬 94.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GKJ-00582
Evidence accepted, IRG 57.
04907
04907
鼠 208.4
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00642
Evidence
The character is not attested in other 南部新書 versions. Based on the earlier 南部新書 version, I believe it should have been ⿺鼠丰, which is a variant / error of 𪕅.


南部新書(明刻本)卷辛 folio 14a gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬


南部新書(商務印書館,1936) pp. 86 also gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬.


▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR3l0026/008#16b 南部新書(文淵閣抄本)卷8 16b}} gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.

Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:



唐書(宋紹興刊本)地理志30 folio 8b gives 𪕅鼥鼠, which according to 李時珍, is what he called 土撥鼠 in Ming:



So ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬 is corrupted form of ⿺鼠丰鼣, which is variant / error of 𪕅鼥. As for ⿰鼠斗, I suggest pending more evidences.
00827
00827
土 32.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
GZ-3531208
UK-20080
New evidence


[開慶]四明續志(宋開慶元年刊本)卷1 folio 16b

The new evidence gives ⿰土柰, potentially unifiable with ⿰土奈.

For reference, see also the UCV 奈/柰 proposed by Eiso in WS2021-02879.
02083
02083
水 85.12
15 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08498
New evidence


盛京通志(清乾隆嘉慶間刊本)卷126 folio 8b

Text is from 朱佩蓮《聖駕東巡盛京恭謁祖陵大禮慶成詩(癸亥)》:「風馬飛揚來掩⿰氵葢,雲旂搖曵下褊𮖽」
02053
02053
水 85.9
12 · ㇠ (5)
TD-2B2D
New evidence
Here is the evidence of ⿰氵𭗾(三汊⿰氵𭗾)


湖廣通志(清雍正刊本)卷14 folio 27a (pp29)

Note that 直隷澧州志林 gives 三汊腦, so ⿰氵𭗾 is very likely a variant of ⿰氵𡿺.


直隷澧州志林(清乾隆刊本)卷2 folio 7a.

If we accept the new evidence, please also consider the UCV 𭗾/𡿺.

I suspect ⿰氵⿱巛㓙 should have been ⿰氵𡿺, if we can see the original handwritten form of ⿰氵⿱巛㓙, it will be much easier for us to determine the desired glyph shape.
01843
01843
木 75.12
16 · ㇑ (2)
TD-7630
New evidence


陝西通志(清雍正刊乾隆補修本)卷51 folio 44a (⿰木⿱品亐 = ⿰木⿱品亏 by UCV #93)
01180
01180
山 46.12
15 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20008
New evidence
02088
02088
水 85.12
15 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20013
New evidence


曲洧舊聞(明嘉靖楚山書屋刊本)卷3 folio 12b gives ⿰氵罧 (normalized by UCV #402a)


▲ 集韻(述古堂影宋抄本) 上聲.四十七寑.所錦切. 宋潭州刊本 gives 𠘏.

According to 集韻, ⿰氵罧 is a variant of 𠘆/𠘏. I think ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is a corrupted form of ⿰氵罧. We can consider encode ⿰氵罧 instead based on the new evidences.
00335
00335
力 19.7
9 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20040
New evidence


▲ 民國二十年交河縣志料卷5 folio 20b

The original source is 民國交河縣志, 《中國地方志集成: 河北府縣志輯》 (2006) vol. 45 includes a reprint of 民國交河縣志, so they are of same sources.
00867
00867
土 32.10
13 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20041
Evidence
The text is from 《厲壇祝文》. As a ritual text, we can find it in quite a few other sources:


壇廟祀典(清乾隆刊本)卷下 folio 11b gives 壇壝.


▲ {{https://books.google.ca/books?id=_20rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP247 武邑縣志(清同治刊本)卷5 folio 20a}} gives 壇壝.

and if we search the text "歸神之格", another 17 gazetteers also give 壇壝 or 壇𡒌.



▲ {{http://x.wenjinguan.com/BookList.aspx?u=1&pSet=14&SearchKeyword=%u6B78%u795E%u4E4B%u683C 中國數字方志庫/歸神之格}}

I suspect 𡊨⿰土迷 is a corrupted form of 坛壝. Suggest pending more evidences.
02879
02879
禾 115.9
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20042
New evidence


義楚六帖(寬永刊本)卷19 folio 24b

I suggest we encode ⿰禾奈 per the new evidence, and consider a new UCV 奈/柰.
Credits to 王一凡 who provided an evidence from another 義楚六帖 version. Link
02151
02151
水 85.20
23 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20052
New evidence
The evidence is not suitable for encoding, because it is produced from modern digital fonts. Hence I provide a new evidence:

Attached PDF file
上海縣續志(民國7年刊本)卷4 folio 11a

I suggest we accept the new evidence and encode it as-is.
02081
02081
水 85.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20085
𠅤
Evidence
I think ⿰氵𠅤 is an error of ⿰氵恵 (潓+VS19). From the evidences we know 姚⿰氵𠅤 is from 慈谿, 乙未進士. Here we show 姚潓(慈谿縣軍籍,嘉靖乙未) in 太學進士題名碑錄



太學進士題名碑錄(清乾隆刊本)嘉靖 folio 44a

Consider withdraw this character.
00830
00830
土 32.8
11 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20109
New evidence


▲ {{https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=6d7515ffab7d436482ed115c9d83b45bfDUyNzA20&image=1&page=&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID= 寶祐四年登科錄(明嘉靖元年汀州知府胥文相刊本)}} folio 55b
02121
02121
水 85.16
19 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20114
Evidence
I agree with Andrew that ⿰氵辦 is an error of 𤀫. The text mentioned 源叔(趙彥嶓)子⿰氵辦夫,here we show that in 宋史宗室表, 彥嶓 has three sons: 漉夫、𤀫夫、㵟夫.



宋史(朝鮮刊本)卷237 folio 31a (pp72).

TL;DR

Note that the common 宋史 versions available in China all give corrupted forms of 𤀫, since they are derived from 明成化朱英刊本.


▲ 明成化朱英刊本 (⿰㳯手, also missing 渿(⿰氵⿱木未)夫's son 時𦭲)


▲ 清乾隆武英殿刊本 (⿰㳯斤)


▲ 中華書局 (pp. 8240) (⿰㳯手)

If we ever handle evidences from 宋史宗室表, we should be very careful on the 宋史 version. As of 宗室表, the 朝鮮刊本 is more authentic than the other versions (of course except the incomplete 至正本) because it is the only nearly-complete (missing 227-229) version preserving the exact typography of 宋史宗室表 in 至正本, the other such version is 永樂大典 (229 - 232).
01626
01626
文 67.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20120
Evidence


保定縣志(清康熙刊本) gives 斌, though the text is almost indecipherable, we can still rule out ⿰文我. Suggest pending more evidences.
02078
02078
水 85.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20146
New evidence
00549
00549
口 30.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20162
New evidence


大美聯邦志畧(1861)美華書院刊本卷上 folio 36a

The text seems to be derived from the Evidence 1, with ⿱刻士 written as 刻士.
01795
01795
木 75.8
12 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20181
New evidence
I can't find 汝⿱直木 in 宋史宗室表, but I do find 崇𠅺. Note that the name characters of Song imperial descendants are often shared across generations, so it is likely it should have been 汝𠅺.



宋史(朝鮮刊本)卷224 folio 4b

I didn't find 趙汝末 in 宋史宗室表. I guess ⿱直木 is derived from 𣖈/𠅺/𣓟.

U+23588

U+2017A

U+234DF


漢字海 p1002 includes a character (⿱𥃭木) similar to 直木:



I have no preference between ⿱𥃭木 and ⿱直木, I think they are unifiable pairs.
03344
03344
艸 140.7
11 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20204
Evidence
The evidence shows that the text is quoted from 舊志, i.e. an earlier version of 灤州志.



灤州志(清嘉慶刊本) 卷1 folio 15a gives 莊.

So ⿱艹肚 is a corrupted form of 莊. Consider pending more evidences.
02079
02079
水 85.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20208
𥬡
New evidence
The evidence source should be 嘉定鎮江志(丹徒朱氏清宣統二年刊本). Anyway the Ming style font would never appear in a Song dynasty book.



嘉定鎮江志(丹徒朱氏清宣統二年刊本)校勘記下 卷30.

In this evidence the editor noted that although he couldn't find 𦶝、⿱興同、⿰氵𥬡 in dictionaries, he decided to keep them due to the lack of other sources.
04264
04264
阜 170.8
11 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20216
Evidence

續登州府志(清乾隆刊本)卷10 folio 3a gives 𨹘.


福山縣志(清乾隆刊本)卷10 folio 66a gives 𨹘.

From the evidences above, we know that both 王⿰阝府 and 王𨹘

1) come from 登州, were active in early Qing
2) have a son named 王𣻜
3) are titled as 通議大夫

So 王⿰阝府 and 王𨹘 must be the same person and ⿰阝府 is not attested in earlier gazetteers. Therefore ⿰阝府 is a corrupted form of 𨹘 and consider pending more evidences.
01264
01264
广 53.11
14 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20424
广
New evidence


▲ 中華再造善本//藝文類聚(宋紹興刊本)卷44 folio 10a (blue square) less clear version on ctext

文選 gives "其妙聲,則清靜厭瘱". I agree that ⿸广悘 might be an error for 瘱, the shape might be influenced by the annotation 音翳.
04522
04522
骨 188.4
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20427
New evidence

藝文類聚(明萬曆王元貞刊本)卷49 folio 14b L8


▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR3k0003/049#17a 藝文類聚(文淵閣抄本)卷49 folio 17a}}

藝文類聚(宋紹興刊本)is missing juan 49-53, so I don't have earlier evidences.
03800
03800
豆 151.19
26 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20440
New evidence


▲ 中華再造善本//藝文類聚(宋紹興刊本)卷78 folio 7 (blue square, also ctext with worse image quality)

For every 藝文類聚 characters submitted by UK, I have checked against the 宋紹興刊本, the earliest known version publicly available today, so I can provide more evidences per request.
02826
02826
石 112.20
25 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20458
New evidence
04389
04389
革 177.6
15 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20459
New evidence
New evidence
Evidence
聖主得賢臣頌 is authored by 王襃(90 - 51 B.C.E). For such ancient text, the original evidence is probably long lost. Because of that I am not convinced that Ming Dynasty calligraphy would contribute a lot to the text authenticity.

We can go through some Song Dynasty evidences sourced from other books:


白氏六帖事類集(北宋刊本)卷9 folio 16b gives 靶


▲ 文選〔李善註〕(宋淳熙八年尤袤刊本)卷47 folio 2b gives 靶


漢書(南宋福州刊元遞修本)列傳34下 (27) folio 10b gives 靶

唐宋白孔六帖, first published in the end of Southern Song dynasty, is a compilation of 白氏六帖 and 孔氏六帖. From these evidences we can assume that the shift from 靶 to ⿰革舟 happens during the editing process of 唐宋白孔六帖. I agree that ⿰革舟 may be a misprint of 靶, or the editor of 唐宋白孔六帖 changed the glyph sourced from a book unavailable today. Given that ⿰革舟 persists across quite a few 唐宋白孔六帖 versions, I suggest encoding it as-is.
00879
00879
土 32.11
14 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20636
Evidence
The folio number is incorrect, it should be 《丹陽縣續志》(民國十六年刊本)卷20 folio 2. The text is from 王英冕《皇太后六旬萬壽頌》, based on the context, I think ⿰土旋宮 is a misprint of 璇宮, which means imperial residence.
New evidence



穀城山館文集(明嘉慶萬曆間刊本)卷25 folio 41 from《明誥贈通議大夫都察院右副都御史前⿸厂盩厔知縣介菴王公神道碑銘》

Though it is a variant of ⿰土𭻾, which is given in 隆慶二年登科錄 folio 58, it must not be 璇 based on the radicals of his brothers' names. We can keep ⿰土旋 per the new evidence.
00764
00764
囗 31.3
6 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20835
New evidence
01420
01420
戈 62.7
11 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20940
𢦏𡉀
New evidence
The following evidence gives ⿰坴戈, which IMO is unifiable to ⿹𢦏𡉀.



《福建通志》(清乾隆二年刊本)卷40 folio 66b

⿹𢦏𡉀 might be a variant of 臷.

U+81F7
01172
01172
山 46.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20945
New evidence


康對山先生集(萬曆10年刊本)卷2 folio 1b

Text is from 康海《夢遊太白山賦》:「夫八紞〔紘〕之廣,獨有太白盤礴峵⿰山異,瑰𡺨崎崛」.
01707
01707
日 72.12
16 · ㇠ (5)
UK-20958
New evidence

▲ 日本藏中國罕見地方志叢刊//福寧州志(萬曆四十二年刊本)卷15 folio 37a


福建通志(清康熙刊本)卷51 folio 26a


福建通志(清乾隆刊本)卷60 folio 22b


▲ {{http://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/title/BV040025979/ft/bsb11323775?page=107 重纂福建通志(清同治刊本)卷263 folio 24b}}

民國霞浦縣志卷38 folio 2 gives 林瞪, however I can't find evidences of 林瞪 earlier than 1616, so I can't determine whether 瞪 is derived from ⿰日登 or vice.


Glyph Design & Normalization

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
03373
03373
艸 140.9
13 · ㇠ (5)
SAT-05114
Glyph design
Glyph does not match IDS.
01067
01067
寸 41.7
10 · ㇔ (4)
TC-4743
Glyph design
Note that TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 is also not encoded:

https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=804667

From the reading of TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 and TC-4743 ⿺完寸, we know they are both variants of 冠. And ⿱宀㝴 is probably unifiable to ⿺完寸. If TCA can provide evidences for TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴, I suggest we encode TC-3927 ⿱宀㝴 instead and unify ⿺完寸 to ⿱宀㝴.


Other

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
03953
03953
車' 159'.4
8 · ㇐ (1)
GDM-00222
Comment
Variant of 𬨎?

{{http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/2013/33/08/22/330822219.html 《2013年统计用区划代码和城乡划分代码》}} gives 「330822219204 輶辂村委会」, and 330822 is the area code of 常山.
04316
04316
雨 173.8
16 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00354
Comment
Is ⿱雨泘 related to
04314
雨 173.8
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00355
?

⿱雨乳𩃱 and ⿱雨泘𩃱 sound similar and both are used in place names of 陝西 / 甘肅 province.
04314
04314
雨 173.8
16 · ㇒ (3)
GDM-00355
Comment
Is ⿱雨乳 related to
04316
雨 173.8
16 · ㇔ (4)
GDM-00354
Evidence accepted, IRG 58.
?

⿱雨乳𩃱 and ⿱雨泘𩃱 sound similar and both are used in place names of 陝西 / 甘肅 province.
04785
04785
鳥 196.14
25 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00373
Comment
Corrupted form of 䴐?



▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999031766 重訂直音篇(練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本)卷6 folio 71b

⿰實鳥 is from 鳥部爻韻上聲. From the evidence above we can see the list includes 𪁾䴈䲾𩿸⿰實鳥鴇𪁖隝𪁣𪀀䳈.

Note that 䴐 is missing and 䴐 is also a variant of 鴇, immediately following ⿰實鳥. 䴐 is pronounced as 保. If the character is indeed ⿰實鳥, 實 is very likely the phonetic component and it should not be pronounced as 保.
04187
04187
金 167.15
23 · ㇠ (5)
GKJ-00526
Comment
For reference, here is an evidence of ⿰釒剿, which is likely a variant of 䥷 / ⿰鏁斤.


江南通志(清乾隆刊本)卷97 folio 6a
04852
04852
鹿 198.6
17 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00802
鹿𣅀
Comment
For the proposed UCV rule 𣅀/旨, see also
01121
山 46.6
9 · ㇐ (1)
TC-3A56
03496
03496
虍 141.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-06257
𠔃
Comment
I suspect this character is a variant of KC-03744 (⿰虗兮). However I don't know how to find the original evidence. Can Korea provide the original evidence of ⿰虗兮?
01715
01715
日 72.14
18 · ㇐ (1)
SAT-08386
Comment
Similar to
01719
日 72.15
19 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20886
𡼙
. They are both variants of 曄.
03584
03584
虫 142.10
16 · ㇑ (2)
SAT-08863
Comment
I suspect the right component ⿸虍帀 should have been 𧆞, which is a variant of 虎/乕.
03456
03456
艸 140.15
21 · ㇑ (2)
TC-7C61
Comment
Another similar T-source only unencoded character: ⿰貝蕉 (TE-7C51):



Although it has component 貝 versus 目 in the submitted character. The 貝 could be influenced from the adjacent 灬 below 隹. I suggest TCA do some offline research to check whether these characters are related.
04168
04168
金 167.13
21 · ㇑ (2)
TE-3E52
Comment
The shape is similar to
03150
网 122.16
21 · ㇒ (3)
TE-4174
.

The pronunciation suì looks suspicious, since the right component 䍜 reads as zhao4. Is ⿰金䍜 a variant of 𦉎? (It reads as sui1).
01771
01771
木 75.4
8 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20010
Comment
Variant of 𪱸 / 於 ?

It reads as 不𣪏縱其湠漫兮,⿰木勿孰爲之涯滸, where ⿰木勿 should be a function word. If ⿰木勿 is indeed 於, the sentence can be roughly translated as "Do not let the Yellow River rove freely, otherwise where could be its boundary".

U+2AC78
02151
02151
水 85.20
23 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20052
Comment
In the evidence above, the authors of 上海縣續志 noted that ⿰氵競子港 was 兢子港 in previous gazetteers. Yet we can still find 兢子港 and ⿰氵兢子港 in 上海縣續志. They are even within the same juan:

⿰氵兢子港:


上海縣續志(民國7年刊本)卷4 folio 19b (also presented in L2/19-308)

兢子港:


上海縣續志(民國7年刊本) 卷4 folio 28a

So ⿰氵競 is a variant of ⿰氵兢 derived from 兢.
02214
02214
火 86.11
15 · ㇐ (1)
UK-20127
Comment
⿰火規燬 may be derived from 規燬, which means sun. See 柳宗元《天對》from 增廣註釋音辯唐柳先生集:「規燬魄淵〈日月也〉,太虚是属」

I think the evidence is clear enough.
02078
02078
水 85.11
14 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20146
Comment
The webpage mentioned by Eiso in #7235 is not suitable for encoding because the text is extracted from the 古今图书集成全文数据库. The Ming-style character pictures are not from an actual printed book, but digital representations of characters in 古今圖書集成(中華書局影印本) and serve as search placeholders in the database. We should check the original version instead of the digitalized one.
02790
02790
石 112.11
16 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20201
Comment


溧水縣志(清光緒刊本) 卷13 folio 18b has 砌. But ⿰石曼 and 砌 are very different to each other.
02946
02946
竹 118.10
16 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20205
Comment


靖江縣志稿(清咸豐刊本)卷5 folio 19b gives 篩.

Assuming the phonetic component of ⿱竹酒 is 酒, I suspect it should have been ⿱竹洒. In wuu dialect (上海), 篩 (sa53) and 灑 (sa35) is very similar and 洒 is a variant of 灑. But 酒 (ʨiɤ35) is very different to 篩.

The current shape ⿱竹酒 may have been influenced by the following 酒.
03900
03900
足 157.11
18 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20221
𧾷
Comment
Here is the next page.



[康熙]衢州府志(清光緒刊本)卷7 folio 5

The complete text is 衍聖公端友⿰𧾷扈蹕南渡.

Since 扈蹕 means accompanying the emperor on a journey to some place, so ⿰𧾷扈 is derived from 扈.
03421
03421
艸 140.13
17 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20880
Comment
In the new evidence provided by Eiso, I suspect ⿱艹暘 is a variant of 𧀄, the fanqie 恥令 is similar to 𧀄 and the meaning 卉木茷(茂) (luxuriant) matches.
04490
04490
香 186.10
19 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20885
Comment
> 雷州府 and 廉州府 were established at the same level at that time, so it is hard to imagine that ancient writers would confuse these two places.

I didn't find 鄭⿰香隻/鄭頀 in 雷州府志. However I do find 鄭頀 in a few 廉州府志 editions, 崇禎廉州府志卷8 folio 5, 康熙16年廉州府志卷8 folio 3, 乾隆廉州府志卷15 folio 3, 道光廉州府志卷19 folio 15.

道光廣東通志 also gives 鄭頀, 石康人:



廣東通志(清道光刊本)卷68 folio 21a

鄭頀 is not recorded in 萬曆廣東通志, which may explain why 雍正廣東通志 editors got his ancestral home wrong.

BTW 《明史·鄭韺傳》also mentions 鄭頀:「石康人。父賜,舉人,兄頀,進士」
03780
03780
言 149.10
17 · ㇒ (3)
UK-20951
𥅍
Comment
⿰言𥅍 might be a variant of 𧫧.


宋史(朝鮮刊本)卷222 folio 24a (pp84) has 與𧫧.


▲ 宋史(元至正刊本)卷222 folio 24a // 中華再造善本, but not as clear as 朝鮮刊本.

The glyph in 宋史 is almost ⿰言𥅍 at the first glance. The right component 𥅍 might be a variant of 酓, where 令 comes from merging the horizontal bar of 酉 with 今, and 目 comes from the rest of 酉.

U+27AE7


Data for Unihan

SnImage/SourceComment TypeDescription
04792
04792
鳥 196.17
28 · ㇒ (3)
GKJ-00357
輿
Semantic variant
The evidence states that ⿱輿鳥 is error form of 鸒. So it is 鸒's variant.
04017
04017
邑 163.11
18 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00693
鹿
Semantic variant
The evidence suggests that ~ is a semantic variant of 鄜.
02052
02052
水 85.9
12 · ㇔ (4)
UK-20182
Semantic variant
On the first evidence, another text gives 溯, a semantic variant of 㴑:


▲ {{https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR2k0021/031#37a 景定建康志(文淵閣抄本)卷31 folio 37a}}

On the second evidence, another text gives 㴑:



雍正浙江通志(光緒刊本)卷239 folio 10a

Note that 雍正浙江通志(雍正刊本)卷239 folio 10a gives ⿰氵庠:



so the editor of 光緒刊本 revises ⿰氵庠 to 㴑 with intent.

⿰氵庠 might come from the cursive script form of 㴑:



▲ {{https://zi.tools/zi/%E3%B4%91 字統网/㴑}}

Based on the evidences above, I suggest we mark ⿰氵庠 as a semantic variant of 㴑.
04016
04016
邑 163.11
14 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20206
Semantic variant
Variant of 郫.



邵氏聞見前錄(明崇禎汲古閣刊本)卷20 folio 8:「癸巳,伯溫奉使西州,美孺居郫」
01056
01056
宀 40.13
16 · ㇑ (2)
UK-20477
Semantic variant
According to MOE dictionary, ⿰宜宜 is a variant of 𡪀. 字彙補:「𡪀,古宜字,字略作『⿰宜宜』」

U+21A80
03959
03959
辵 162.4
8 · ㇔ (4)
GKJ-00483
Trad variant
U+285BF