The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
The unification comments from Henry (#6293) and Eddie (#3077) are different, and this character is related to the definition of the small seal character, I suggest TCA and China NB, the authors of WG2 N5191, could choose which one is better, that will be useful for the future digital dictionary works.
If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
Evidence 1 and 3 show the character is the variant of 船, so the radical should be Radical Moon for these two cases. In my opinion, the character in Evidence 1 and 3 should be unified to 𣍬 (U+2336C).
Evidence 2 shows it is the possible variant of U+80C8 胈, and the meaning is related to human body, so the radical should be Radical Meat.
Evidence 4 shows it is used for the organic chemistry, so the radical must be Radical Meat as well.
Therefore, this character is not suitable to unify with 𣍬 (U+2336C), but Evidence 1 and 3 are not also suitable for encoding.
The right component of U+21703 𡜃 is the variant of 肉.
If this unification has been accepted, the second RS for U+21703 𡜃 should be 130.3. The semantic element for U+21703 𡜃 is 肉, but Kangxi Dictionary and other ancient dictionaries moved it under Radical 女.
UCV
Add a new UCV for U+8089 肉 and U+2054E 𠕎 (even U+2E307 𮌇?) as Level 2.
U+30924 𰤤 is the variant of 皺, but U+26686 𦚆 is the variant of 䏢. Both are submitted by TCA.
unify to WS2021-03178:KC-05603, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
unify to WS2021-03175:KC-05601, and it is better to keep WS2021-03175:KC-05601
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
Kangxi Dictionary shows 𧏬 is the variant of 嗤, but the submitted character also shares the same meaning. And these two ones must share the same rationale.
We have one case to unify 虎 and ⿸虍人 in WS2015. WS2015-04676:GHZR74467.11 ⿰阝⿸𠂆⿸虍人 has been unified to U+28EC6 𨻆.
In the ancient books, ⿸虍人 is also common.
UCV
Add a new UCV for 虎 and ⿸虍人 as Level 1.
U+202A4 𠊤 ^⿰亻⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4FFF 俿 ^⿰亻虎$(GJKT)
U+2200A 𢀊 ^⿰巢⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2720A 𧈊 ^⿰巢虎$(G)
U+2249C 𢒜 ^⿰⿸虍人彡$(GT)
U+5F6A 彪 ^⿺虎彡$(GHJKT)
U+238D5 𣣕 ^⿰⿸虍人欠$(GT)
U+238CD 𣣍 ^⿰虎欠$(GT)
U+249A3 𤦣 ^⿰𤣩⿸虍人$(G)
U+7425 琥 ^⿰𤣩虎$(GHJKTV)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2732D 𧌭 ^⿰虫⿸虍人$(GT)
U+45C2 䗂 ^⿰虫虎$(GKT)
* In Kangxi Dictionary, 𧌭 is only used as the variant of 螔, but we can find 䗂 is also used as the variant of 螔, such as 䗂蝓=螔蝓 (snail 🐌) and 䗂䗔=螔䗔 (gecko 🦎).
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
UCV
Add UCV for 丮, 𢩦, 𠃨 as Level 2.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
The other method to handle this one is that it should be unified to 益 U+76CA. The evidence has shown it is the variant of 益 clearly. The people often write the Lishu style of 益 as the form in Evidence 3. Please see the following picture. 顺益兴四合院 is a real estate company selling courtyards in Beijing. The Tianyancha page is here. https://www.tianyancha.com/company/10425537 The official website is here. http://www.siheyuan.cc/
▲ 顺益兴四合院（东城分店）
If this character is encoded separately, and any type designer wants to design a Lishu style font to cover all the CJKUIs in UCS/Unicode, maybe the end users need to meet the duplicate pair, that is not good. This form is close to Lishu form and some seal forms, so I think there is no need to add a new UCV.
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017. [ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
As Lee’s comment, the submitted character is the variant of 篡/簒. U+2E40B 𮐋 is submitted by ROK. If ROK can confirm the meaning, we will be easy to confirm how to handle this character.
U+6E3F 渿 vs U+3D0E 㴎
U+3B8F 㮏 vs U+3B88 㮈 vs U+235DF 𣗟
U+3CA1 㲡 vs U+23BA6 𣮦
U+217AB 𡞫 vs U+2178F 𡞏
U+24E0F 𤸏 vs U+24DC8 𤷈
U+25221 𥈡 vs U+251E7 𥇧
U+26CD0 𦳐 vs U+8418 萘
U+29236 𩈶 vs U+2922B 𩈫
U+29E5F 𩹟 vs U+4C5E 䱞 vs U+29E9A 𩺚
U+2D860 𭡠 vs U+637A 捺 vs U+2BF69 𫽩
U+6B40 歀, U+96B8 隸, U+236D2 𣛒, U+23729 𣜩, U+2B389 𫎉, U+2EA15 𮨕; U+20903 𠤃 and so on are not related to this UCV.
The following comment is from the scholar Kin Tin Shek who lived in Hong Kong SAR.
“The source says this is a variant of 局 (U+5C40), but in Canton/Hong Kong the usage is different - ⿸尸可 is a variant of 屙 (to defecate), thus not unifiable with 局 (U+5C40).”
I agree with him, and please see the new evidence on #8904.
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
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.
Two horizontal strokes for the outside component 齊 is missing in this character, so, is it OK to use 齊 as the radical? If yes, the RS values for this character and 齌 are the same, but the TS values are different, that looks not better; if not, I suggest using 火 86.0 as the radical, and SC=12, and keep FS without change.
The meaning of this character based on the Vietnamese use means "the light shines, the sky is bright" (general meaning). So I think the radical must be R74.
The administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The mountain mentioned in the evidence is located at the junction of what is now Yuelu District (岳麓区), Wangcheng District (望城区) and Ningxiang County (宁乡县), and the main part is in current Jijiashan Village, Yuchangping Town (雨敞坪镇) which is now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and 黄金镇 (also 黄金乡) mentioned in the evidence is disassembled into 黄金园街道, 白马街道 and so on. Jijiashan Village is the geographical name in the evidence related to the submitted character. There is a folk tale that the original name of this mountain is 鸡叫山, and the people changed the name to 嵇家山/嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 (so many forms) because the reading of 鸡 and 嵇 are similar, 叫 and 家/珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 are also similar. This behaviour is called as 地名雅化, but the folk tale is very unbelievable. Current Jijiashan Village uses 嵇家山 as the official county name, because 家 is a common character. This is not a good choice. For the mountain, people use 嵇珈山/嵇伽山/嵇𡶐山/嵇𡶥山 in the daily life. We can know the phonetic elements of 珈/伽/𡶐/𡶥 is 加 easily. For the submitted character, the component 禾 and 山 come from 嵇, and 加 is also the real phonetic element. Therefore, the current glyph is acceptable.
The place mentioned in the evidence should be 山底村.
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Where does the only one evidence cite from? 闽侯县地名录 or 福建省地名全册?
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
Maybe two place names are both used in the same village, this is OK. I just consider how to add the language tag. If this village is the same the one mentioned in WS2017-03819, that means the name is derived from Kamese 侗语.
As what I wrote for WS2021-02878, the administrative system of Changsha City, Hunan Province (湖南省长沙市) once had a great change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The town mentioned in the evidence, 九江乡, now under the jurisdiction of Yuelu District (岳麓区) based on 湘民行发〔2008〕3号, and the name was changed to 含浦街道 (the previous name is 含浦镇) , and 学士街道 was also disassembled from 含浦街道. The geographical name related to the submitted character is written as 作肖/作硝/笮筱, and the material show the original name should be 筰筱. (See the entry of 作肖 and 笮筱大屋 on National Database for Geographical Names of China, and 作硝 is used in AMAP/高德地图.) I have not found the picture included the country name used in the country, so I can not confirm which names are proper.
The evidence is clear, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale of the submitted character.
The poem mentioned in the evidence means the 梁太子蕭統’s work 《大言》: “觀脩鯤其若轍鮒，視滄海之如濫觴。經二儀而跼蹐，跨六合以翱翔。” All the version of this poem in the ancient books show that position is 轍. Here is a modern typo, so we should remove this character.
The full page is shown as below for Evidence 1 & 2. It is easy to know the right phonetic component is 天 not 夭, because the pronunciation is 填. So the glyph should be changed to ⿰魚天 not ⿰魚夭.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
Chongwu is a town under Hui’an County, Quanzhou City (泉州市惠安县). I don’t have the materials on the Chongwu dialect, but we can see the Nan’an dialect which is one Min nan dialect of Nan’an City, Quanzhou City (泉州市南安市).
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
Evidence
My friend whose mother comes from Hui’an County and has always lived in Minnan dialect area tole me that 笨 reads as pun¹¹ there. This character shares the same pronunciation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agree with Andrew. 残雪 is a famous writer in Contemporary Chinese Literature. Mr. Goran Malmqvist (马悦然) once once recommended her to participate in the selection of the Nobel Prize for literature. I can’t believe a character like 狭 and 窄 used in a modern Chinese novel.
The evidence shows this character is cited from the Dunhuang manuscripts. The following is the original manuscript which is collected in France. The original manuscript shows the character should be ⿰犭盖 not ⿰犭蓋. It is a misprint form in the modern publishing books.
▲ 沙州城土境
⿰犭盖 is also included in other source.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷二
Please not encode ⿰犭蓋 and change to ⿰犭盖 or encode ⿰犭盖 in future.
In the evidence, we can get the following information.
聲母: 見 the same as 光
韻母: 陽 (宕攝) the same as 匡, and the tone is 平聲, 開合 is 合, 等第 is 三等
So, this Putonghua and Cantonese pronunciation of this character is the same as 光 here (different in middle Chinese).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𢓯 is 巨往切 and the pronunciation should be 狂上聲, so the 聲母 is 羣, the 韻母 is 宕攝陽韻合口三等.
The 聲母 and 聲調 are different. I think they are different character, but it is better to get more useful information on the definition.
There are two pieces of evidence, but there is only one book name. Please confirm the sources.
New evidence
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
The submitted evidence shows the glyph is ⿰鼠戻. In PRC rule, 戾 and 戻 are different characters based on 《说文解字》, which is different from Japan. It looks a typo, because the real ⿰鼠戾 is shown in the same page. The following is a piece of new evidence for normalized ⿰鼠戾.
What the evidence described is related to 岳王庙 in Hangzhou City (杭州市). The four sinners in front of Yue Fei’s (岳飛) tomb are 秦桧/秦檜, 王氏, 张俊/張俊 and 万俟𫧯/万俟卨. ⿰饣善 is a typo here. The current evidence is insufficient for the encoding.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
New evidence
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
The name of this kind of fish sounds like 沙丁鱼/沙甸鱼 (Sardine) in Chinese. The current Chinese name of Herklotsichthys punctatus should be 斑点翠鳞鱼, and Sardine and “Herklotsichthys punctatus” are both included in Clupeidae (鲱科), but one is included in Sardinella (沙丁鱼属/小沙丁鱼属), the other one is included in Herklotsichthys (翠鳞鱼属).
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
Other characters in Table 2.B of the evidence are shown as below. They are once common used, but I can not find the actual using cases for the submitted character.
This character should be U+310A5 𱂥 according to the original context in 《方言》.
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
▲ Samuel Wells Williams, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (英華分韻撮要). Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository (羊城中和行). 1856. p. 92
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 50
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 131
The ROK submitted evidence shows this character is used for a person's name which the person belong to 密陽朴氏 (밀양박씨). 密陽 here means the 밀양시 in 경상남도 (慶尙南道). 밀양박씨 is a very large clan in ROK, and there are many famous people in the Joseon Dynasty history, such as 중종 (中宗)'s wife 경빈박씨 (敬嬪朴氏) who was a character in a famous ROK drama Women All over the World (여인천하/女人天下). I also believe this book doesn't include the error, but we can't confirm if this one is the 避諱字 of any other character. So, it is better to check the genealogy of 밀양박씨, such as https://www.zupu.cn/zhpk/10188 to judge how to handle this one.
▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263
The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
The new evidence in #2010 mentioned 蘇子&⿰田詹;. Other persons mentioned in the evidence are 歐陽脩 (歐陽永叔), 王安石 (王介甫) and 秦觀 (秦少游), so 蘇子&⿰田詹; must be 蘇子瞻 (蘇軾). ⿰田詹 is the error form of 瞻 in #2010.
The corresponding simplified form is included in RKXX PUA collection as U+E4DD in mainland China and this character is also inherited in IIT collection.
I found some using cases for the simplified form as below.
The first one:
▲ 徐俊杰 等：《人血中DNA纹印图谱的研究》，《中国法医学杂志》，1988年第3期
In other paper, his surname was written as 阙.
▲ 王尔文 等：《离体血细胞钾钠离子代谢迁移的实验研究》，《法医学杂志》，1987年12月
The second one:
▲ &⿵门朔;庆文：《好吃吃出三味 好看赛过碧玉 好爽一颗枣》，《中国农村小康科技》，2001年第5期 (published in May)
I also find other papers written by 阙庆文, but they are no the same person.
▲ 阙庆文 等：《新兴保健蔬菜——“米邦塔”仙人掌》，《广西农业科学》，2001年第2期 (published in March)
▲ 阙庆文 等：《珍禽标本制作工艺》，《农家科技》，2001年9月 (published in September)
I find other person named 阙庆文 who got the title “（中国）全国技术能手荣誉人员” in 2018. Please see 闽人社文〔2019〕159号 http://rst.fujian.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/zfxxgkml/zyywgz/zynljs/201907/t20190717_4922184.htm.
In the paper 《细心踏实做好本职工作 发挥己长献身奶牛事业—福建省周宁县和谐牧业有限公司阙庆文事迹介绍》, this 阙庆文 was a student in 南平市农业学校 since 1997. Maybe he was a trainee in 南平市 in 2001.
This character is also used as the variant of U+25762 𥝢 and U+25762 利 as the following evidence shows.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十七
And, the variant of U+7269 物.
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十八
The article shows in the above evidence is 蘇轍’s (蘇子由, and 潁濱遺老) 《齊論》. The following evidence shows the corresponding character is 物. If we can get the earlier version of 《唐宋八大家文鈔》 or 《潁濱文鈔》, it will be better.
This situation is similar to 遲 (U+9072) and 遟 (U+905F), and 屖 is always used as the variant of 犀, specially for the components. I think ⿰米犀 and ⿰米屖 are both used for that place, so it is better to keep them both.
As Ma Chien-chung wrote as below, 岭巆 and 嶙峋 are both 疊韻字, and the finals of 岭 and 巆 are both 梗攝, 嶙 and 峋 are both 臻攝. So, ⿰山宫 is the real misprint form in the submitted evidence based on the rationale.
▲ 馬建忠：《馬氏文通》，商務印書館鉛印本，實字卷之六
Maybe ⿰山宫 is the variant of 崆 here. The final of 㟅 is 通攝 or 江攝, and the final of 崆 are the same. For ⿰山宫, 宫 is the phonetic element, and the final of 宫 is 通摄. Therefore, the rationale is acceptable for encoding.
BTW, the mountain, 景忠山, mentioned in the submitted evidence is located in current Qianxi County, Tangshan City, Hebei Province (河北省唐山市迁西县), not in Qianhuangdao City (秦皇岛市). I hope I can check the original article in Qianxi in future if possible.
We can find out the current form is used in the modern text and several ancient books, so it is better to keep it.
https://sou-yun.cn/yjlh.aspx?book=TuShuJiCheng&id=KR7a0007_284_0001
In the above evidence, ⿰革革 and 靴 are both used in the same page. According to the meaning and the following picture, ⿰革革 is really the variant of 靴. The story of 醉使脱靴/醉遣脱靴/力士脱靴 is a famous one related to 李白 and 高力士 in China.
▲ 彭大翼：《山堂肆考》，四庫全書本，卷一百九十
▲ 吴之振：《宋詩鈔》，四庫全書本，卷四十七
The following evidence shows it is the variant of 鞾.
▲ 孫覿：《鴻慶居士集》，四庫全書本，卷二
The full poem is shown as below.
同舟無胡越，四海皆弟兄。
吾人雖晚接，一笑蓋巳傾。
世亂識真態，途窮見真情。
曳杖扣禪扄，撞鐘聽靴鳴。
小窗風雨夜，對此二榻橫。
吾身如木偶，春至不復榮。
豈無三宿戀，天雨方流行。
去去得首邱，歸田克踐更。
The person mentioned in the evidence is 蔣攸銛 without any doubt. And we can find his introduction on 百度百科. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%92%8B%E6%94%B8%E9%93%A6/4556008
▲ 《續纂江寧府志》，光緒六年刻本，卷之十
▲ 《皇朝經世文編》，道光刻本，卷五十
New evidence
▲ 《乾隆正定府志》，方志集成影本，卷之二十六
▲ 張溥：《漢魏六朝百三家集》，卷十三（張衡《西京賦》）
The submitted characters on three pieces of evidence are all related to 銛. This form is not only used in one source, so it is better to encode it separately.
《皇清書史》 also gives 耘菘. There are many other similar forms.
It is very common for an ancient scholar to have similar but different names in different books. All the forms are useful for the research of literary history. Different forms shared with the same person name should not be a good reason to reject to encode, because It will still cause trouble for research and publishing on digitization.
This character is very common in Qing Dynasty. The followings are two pieces of evidence cited from 《澳門記略》. 《澳門記略》 is an important book on the history and geography of Macao. I also suggest Macao SAR do the horizontal extension for this character in future.
▲ 印光任、張汝霖：《澳門記略》，昭代叢書癸集，卷第二十二
▲ 印光任、張汝霖：《澳門記略》，光绪庚辰重刻本，卷第二十二
I do the quick check on the book, and I find other encoded characters have been included in MSCS.
An introduction video of this character is here. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ht4y1V7Yy
The video producer/speaker provided more information and explanation, and he used the UK-submitted evidence in IRG ORT. Unfortunately, this character won’t be included in Unicode/UCS/GB 18030 in the next year, but will be included in the near future.
This character is related to the Cantonese word suk1, but 𩝯 reads as sau1 in Cantonese. The meanings are similar, but it is hard to say 𩝯 is a proper character for this word in Cantonese.
It is not easy to confirm if 林&⿱艹暘; mentioned in 《廣東通志》 and 林𦿄 mentioned in 《八閩通志》 are the same person. There is other source related to this character, so it is better to keep it.
The person mentioned in the evidence came from Haikang (aka current Leizhou City under Zhanjiang City 湛江市雷州市). It is better to check the person in 《雷州志》, 《海康志》 and so on. The pdf provided by Huang Junliang in #2259 mentioned 鄭頀 came from 廉州 (aka current Beihai City 北海市). In fact, Haikang and Beihai are not close in my life experience. In the history of Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan, we said 上六府 (广州府, 肇庆府, 南雄府, 韶州府, 惠州府, 潮州府) and 下四府 (高州府, 雷州府, 廉州府, 琼州府). 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.
The glyph in the evidence is shown as below, but it is doubtful if the current normalized glyph is right. We need more evidence or explanation to confirm.
For this case, my suggestion is to add a new rule for the whole component 擧.
For the different regional conventions, mainland China, HKSAR, Macao SAR, TCA and Vietnam use 舉, Japan, ROK and DPRK use 擧. So, it is OK to accept the current glyph.
The last stroke of the left component is missing in the first evidence, but the second evidence is clear. The current glyph is acceptable without on normalization.
The inner component is not the real component moon according to the evidence, so it is better to modify the glyph to match the evidence as below. The first stroke of the inner component is a vertical stroke (豎) not a slash stroke (撇).
This is a Hakka character used in Yingde City (英德市). The Cantonese and Hakka people both live in this county-level city (县级市). The main population of Shaba Town (沙坝镇) is Hakka and the local people call it one of 纯客镇 (a town with only Hakka dialect). There is only one town with only Yue dialect which is the county town, Yingcheng Town (英城镇).
This meaning of this character is “Spinibarbus hollandi”, and the Chinese scientific name is 光倒刺鲃. Please see the detail in English here. https://fishbase.in/summary/Spinibarbus-hollandi.html
This kind of fish is common in Yingde. The people often write this character as 涓 in the web and the brief introduction because it has not been encoded. Please see the followings.
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1625599226208376896
https://www.meipian.cn/209vqscl
Baidu Maps, AMAP (高德地图) and Apple Maps all write this geographic name as 捐鱼坑, which is a wrong name.
In Conghua District, Guangzhou City (广州市从化区), some Hakka people write this character as 娟. Please the following.
http://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/201812/04/c1723234.html
https://www.gzdaily.cn/site2/pad/content/2020-05/23/content_1273246.html
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1731938443165111973
However, the submitted character is the proper one, so we should encode this character as soon as possible.
The corresponding traditional form is cited from 汉语大字典, and 汉语大字典 cited it from 《邵武府志》. There are also so many Hakka people lived in Shaowu Conty, Nanping City, Fujian Province (福建省南平市邵武县). Maybe they means the same kind of fish.
The word &⿱艹马;荠 mentioned in the evidence is a Hakka word, not a Gan word. I made a wrong language tag in 2021-06-03.
This word was written as 馬齊 in the book 《客方言》. On the other hand, Ruijin is a county-level city under Ganzhou City (赣州市). The people lived in Ganzhou recognize themselves as the Hakka people mostly.
▲ 羅翽雲：《客方言》，古亭書屋影本，卷十
BTW, the village is under 黄柏乡/黄柏镇 now, not 武阳镇. 黄柏乡 is very closed to 大柏地乡 which is famous for Chairman Mao’s 《菩萨蛮·大柏地》.
Maybe this kind of fish mentioned in the evidence means swordfish (剑鱼 or 箭鱼 in modern Chinese). The evidence shows this fish looks like 𩵓 (not 魛). 𩵓 means 鳓鱼 in modern Chinese. The Taizhou people write it as 肋鱼 now. 《汉语大字典》 cited 𩵓 from 《嘉定赤城志》, and 《浙江通志》 shows “似箭而小，身薄，細骨滿肋”.
These two kinds of fish are similar, and both common in Taizhou.
https://www.sohu.com/a/402497931_99943212
The food mentioned in the evidence is tsampa (རྩམ་པ), and this word was written as 糌粑 in modern Chinese. Please see the following standards in China.
DB54/T 0029-2009 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/c7a449809f46b7383e8a03d6d0cacf94
DB54/T 0120-2017 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/bc7a99fd78c6a3db17cea1603d6308cf
DB54/T 0128-2017 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/93c81320cfa7dff5f5ac038d033b7470
DB54/T 0046-2019 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/129fb3231d38b941ab08e0a91c12c7a08082c9df8b5d047e636b03e50eb90ce9
DB5133/T 48-2021 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/d78b2a5e1c85bafd3055fe0dd93faaee97d0380dbe7d4031d4485bb1e0b37ea1
Beida Founder typesetting system (北大方正排版系统) includes the variant U+25EC0 𥻀.
The inner component of 291-1 variant is 王, and the evidence shows 𡈼. Maybe ROK could add a example picture based on UCV #1. However, the current glyph has followed the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
Need a new rule to normalize the component 丷 to 八. KR Norm. 21-2 is to normalize 八 to 丷, so it is not suitable for this case. However, the current glyph follows the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
Evidence 1 shows it is the component of 𧆨, Evidence 3 shows it is the component of 𧆣. As #2983 shows 𧆣 从凷虍聲, and 虍 is the head of tiger, so it is acceptable that this book treated the phonetic element is 虎. This form is similar to U+2719E 𧆞 and U+2E4DC 𮓜.
Comment
⿸虍丁 is used as the component in the following characters, and all of them are related to 虎. It is OK to keep this character, because no rule to unify it with any other encoded characters.
The evidence shows this character is used for the 反切上字 of 嫈. In 《廣韻》, we can find as least three fanqies: 烏莖切, 於營切, 鷖迸切. The tone of 鷖迸切 is 去聲, and we all know the common tone of 嫈 is 平聲. The evidence shows tone is 平聲 as well.
For 烏莖切 and 於營切, the finals (韻母) are different, but the initials (聲母) are the same, which are both 影母. The submitted character is not the variant of 烏. 《廣韻》 shows the fanqie for 戹 is 於革切, so the initial for 戹 is also 影母. Therefore, 戹莖切 is similar to 烏莖切 here.
The submitted character is also used in other context in 大正藏. And the following show it is the variant of 戹 clearly.
similar to TD-2890 (⿰木𡿺) which is a character used for Jian’ou Minbei dialect (建瓯闽北方言). ⿰木𡿺 is included in 《建瓯方言词典》 written by 李如龙 and 潘渭水, but it is a pity that I don’t have the clear evidence.
The other real use is shown as below. This picture is from the video in Bilibili.com (https://b23.tv/qwlhJHI 02:36). Note the subtitle of this video shows some wrong character, such as 籺 should be 𬖋 (U+2C58B).
In the real use, the users always use 捆 as the replaced character, because the proper one has not been encoded yet, such as the introduction of this kind of Hakka food in the official website of People’s Government of Guangdong Province, PRC (http://www.gd.gov.cn/zjgd/lnms/mzms/content/post_110842.html ), and they need to clarify “捆” here does not mean to tie, should be to roll. The TV presenter needs to explain the same thing in one CCTV 10 program (https://haokan.baidu.com/v?pd=wisenatural&vid=8337990229278444770).
This kind of Hakka food looks similar to the fresh spring roll in Vietnam, but the stuffing is not richer than the Vietnamese one, only taro, mushroom, sauerkraut, carrot and corn. Almost all the presenters read the character as kǔn in Putonghua for this use, but I have not confirm if the hakka reading and if it is suitable in Putonghua for this use.
In the evidence of WS2021-01289, the previous character of the submitted one (with blue square as below) chould be normalized to the this character, but I guess ROK will normalize the character to 虨 U+8668 based on KR Norm. 130-1.
BTW, 虨 is the variant of 霦. If ROK could help confirm this issue, it will be better for the encoding work.
I should remove the zh-nan tag for this character.
All the evidence shows this character is only used for Min-dong dialects. Longdu (Lungtu) dialect in Zhongshan City is a kind of Min-dong dialect, which is also only one type of Min-dong dialect in Guangdong Province and the scholar call it as a dialect island.
This character is also included in GCCS v1.0 as 0x9FAD, but removed since v2.0.
There are other usages for this character, but I think the current evidence is sufficient for encoding. If HKSAR considers to include this character in HKSCS in future, the H-Source reference should be H-9FAD.
𤡥 U+24865 is also included in 《廣韻》 as a head character.
▲ 《廣韻》，四部叢刊本，上聲卷第三
In my kFanqie proposal to UTC, I include two fanqies for 𤡥 U+24865, one is 五閑, the other is 下赧. If IRG decides to unify them, 五閑 should be kept under 𤡥 U+24865, if not, I will remove 五閑 from 𤡥 U+24865.
Kangxi Dictionary shows U+2A00B 𪀋 is the variant of 鴨, but “duck” is ꓯꓹ [ɛ³⁵] in Lisu language, so the submitted character is not related for the usage in KX.
This character is totally different from U+29F64 𩽤.
U+29F64 𩽤 is a Nom character which means crocodile. The submitted character is a Min nan character used in Leizhou City, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province (广东省湛江市雷州市). My hometown is Chikan District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province (广东省湛江市赤坎区). In Chikan district, this kind of fish reads as nɐi¹¹ nɐu⁴⁴⁵ in the local Yue dialect, so this character should read as 嬲 (nau1) in Cantonese.
Unihan data
As Andrew’s Comment #7002, the similarity between the usage of Minnan and Zhuang is a strange coincidence based on our current knowledge. This might be a good example for me to think about how to reconstruct the value of 從母 in the possible Proto-Yue dialect.
The Hong Kong people always reads this character as lap6, but we should follow the evidence. This word is often written as 𣲷 (U+23CB7) in Hong Kong, because some scholars considered 𣲷 is the original form (本字) of the word nap6/lap6, which I disagree for the huge difference in definitions for dictionaries. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𣲷 is 尼立切 in 廣韻, so the pronunciation is corrected by nap6 not lap6. Zhanjiang has a word nɐk̚¹¹ with the similar meaning, but they do not conform to the general phonetic corresponding relationship. It is better to treat them as different words if we don’t get further usages of other local Yue sub-dialect. For this case, the pronunciation in the western part of Guangdong province has not been provided any useful support to correct the reading in Hong Kong and Guangzhou.
All in all, UTC-00456 is more proper than 𣲷 for the Cantonese word nap6/lap6.
The current kCantonese value for U+650B 攋 is laai6. Could we change the value back to laa2 laai6, or add a new property for the character with more than one Cantonese reading?
mak2 in the evidence is not used for the pronunciation of the individual character (單字音), and it is related to the modified tone (變調) in a word. So, mak2 is not suitable to include in kCantonese for this character and WS2021-02612.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Source: Eiso CHAN
Date: Generated on 2026-07-26
Labels
Unification
I still think it is dangerous to make the UCV for 宀 & 山 for our future encoding works.
unify to 歍 (U+6B4D)?
The first evidence shows the relationship between this character and U+6B4D 歍. The meaning of this character is “口相就也”. 《説文解字》 and other ancient dictionaries show one of the meanings for 歍 is also “口相就也”.
NUCV #325
This character is the variant of U+24865 𤡥, but we don’t have UCV unify them.
▲ 《廣韻》，四部叢刊本，上平聲卷第一
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，早稻田大學藏本，卷二下
If any expert suggest unify them, we need to consider to change NUCV #325 to UCV.
If the new UCV is rejected, the character should be kept as my suggestion.
Evidence 2 shows it is the possible variant of U+80C8 胈, and the meaning is related to human body, so the radical should be Radical Meat.
Evidence 4 shows it is used for the organic chemistry, so the radical must be Radical Meat as well.
Therefore, this character is not suitable to unify with 𣍬 (U+2336C), but Evidence 1 and 3 are not also suitable for encoding.
unify to 𱙜 (U+3165C)
They are duplicates.
[This comment comes from H.W. Ho.]
unify to 𡜃 (U+21703)?
The right component of U+21703 𡜃 is the variant of 肉.
If this unification has been accepted, the second RS for U+21703 𡜃 should be 130.3. The semantic element for U+21703 𡜃 is 肉, but Kangxi Dictionary and other ancient dictionaries moved it under Radical 女.
U+30924 𰤤 is the variant of 皺, but U+26686 𦚆 is the variant of 䏢. Both are submitted by TCA.
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
The evidence on 03175 shows the person named (權)&⿰羽迥;, and his 表字 is 迥羽; the previous name is (權)&⿰庚羽; (WS2021-03174:KC-05596), and his previous 表字 is 庚羽. Maybe 庚羽 is related to “倉庚于飛，熠燿其羽” (《詩經·豳風·東山》); maybe 迥羽 is related to “朝元閣迥羽衣新” (李商隱《華清宫》).
The evidence on 03178 shows the same person. 逈 is the variant of 迥, and the shapes are very similar. These two forms are often interchanged for the same meaning.
▲ 李商隱：《李商隱詩集》，琴川書屋仿宋刻本，卷上 (shows 逈)
▲ 洪邁：《萬首唐人絶句》，四庫全書本，卷四十 (shows 迥)
unify to 𧏬 (U+273EC)
Kangxi Dictionary shows 𧏬 is the variant of 嗤, but the submitted character also shares the same meaning. And these two ones must share the same rationale.
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，朝鮮本，卷第四
▲ 《可洪音義》，新集藏經音義隨函録，第十册
unify to 虎 (U+864E)
We have one case to unify 虎 and ⿸虍人 in WS2015. WS2015-04676:GHZR74467.11 ⿰阝⿸𠂆⿸虍人 has been unified to U+28EC6 𨻆.
In the ancient books, ⿸虍人 is also common.
U+202A4 𠊤 ^⿰亻⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4FFF 俿 ^⿰亻虎$(GJKT)
U+2200A 𢀊 ^⿰巢⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2720A 𧈊 ^⿰巢虎$(G)
U+2249C 𢒜 ^⿰⿸虍人彡$(GT)
U+5F6A 彪 ^⿺虎彡$(GHJKT)
U+238D5 𣣕 ^⿰⿸虍人欠$(GT)
U+238CD 𣣍 ^⿰虎欠$(GT)
U+249A3 𤦣 ^⿰𤣩⿸虍人$(G)
U+7425 琥 ^⿰𤣩虎$(GHJKTV)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+27201 𧈁 ^⿰兼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+2732D 𧌭 ^⿰虫⿸虍人$(GT)
U+45C2 䗂 ^⿰虫虎$(GKT)
* In Kangxi Dictionary, 𧌭 is only used as the variant of 螔, but we can find 䗂 is also used as the variant of 螔, such as 䗂蝓=螔蝓 (snail 🐌) and 䗂䗔=螔䗔 (gecko 🦎).
U+27A50 𧩐 ^⿰訁⿸虍人$(GT)
U+8AD5 諕 ^⿰訁虎$(GHJKT)
U+29CF0 𩳰 ^⿺鬼⿸虍人$(GT)
U+4C27 䰧 ^⿺鬼虎$(GT) ^⿺⿱田儿虎$(U)
U+30C9A 𰲚 ^⿸𠂆⿸虍人$(G)
U+8652 虒 ^⿸𠂆虎$(GHJKT)
U+22290 𢊐 ^⿸广𰲚$(GT)
U+22280 𢊀 ^⿸广虒$(GT)
U+2240F 𢐏 ^⿰弓𰲚$(GT)
U+2240B 𢐋 ^⿰弓虒$(GT)
U+256D5 𥛕 ^⿰礻𰲚$(G)
U+79A0 禠 ^⿰礻虒$(GHT) ^⿰示虒$(K)
U+25C3D 𥰽 ^⿱𥫗𰲚$(GT)
U+7BEA 篪 ^⿱𥫗虒$(GHJKT)
U+273D5 𧏕 ^⿰虫𰲚$(GT)
U+8794 螔 ^⿰虫虒$(GHKT)
U+2792B 𧤫 ^⿰角𰲚$(GT)
U+46A6 䚦 ^⿰角虒$(GKT)
U+28ABE 𨪾 ^⿰釒𰲚$(G)
U+28A89 𨪉 ^⿰釒虒$(GT)
For U+2720E 𧈎, U+27F25 𧼥, U+28091 𨂑, U+28F6F 𨽯, we don’t have ⿲虎革彡, ⿺走虎, ⿰𧾷虎, ⿲阝虒虒.
unify to 殫
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殫 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 歿
The evidence shows it is the variant of 歿 clearly.
UCV #149 for the right part.
unify to 敝 (U+655D)
See Comment #2984 and #4868 from Huang Junliang and Conifer.
unify to ㇀ (U+31C0)?
The current script for U+31C0 ㇀ is common (Zyyy), but it also has the Script_Extensions value as Han (Hani).
unify to 駛 (U+99DB)
The evidence shows the fanqies are 師利反 and 師事反, that means the variant of 駛.
unify to 𦐉 (U+26409) if they are cognates?
Also see WS2021-00138, 01038 and 01060
The evidence shows this character is the variant of 蚩, and shows the quotation from 《廣雅》, but the understanding looks questionable.
▲ 張揖：《廣雅》，叢書集成初編本，卷三
unify to 𢙷 (U+22677)
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 恐, and the difference between the submitted character and U+22677 𢙷 is very slight.
In the traditional usage, 丮, 𢩦 and 𠃨 are undoubtful variants, but 𢩦 is also used as the Cantonese word zit1 (to tickle). It is better to treat it as Level 2 now.
unify to 益
The other method to handle this one is that it should be unified to 益 U+76CA. The evidence has shown it is the variant of 益 clearly. The people often write the Lishu style of 益 as the form in Evidence 3. Please see the following picture. 顺益兴四合院 is a real estate company selling courtyards in Beijing. The Tianyancha page is here. https://www.tianyancha.com/company/10425537 The official website is here. http://www.siheyuan.cc/
▲ 顺益兴四合院（东城分店）
If this character is encoded separately, and any type designer wants to design a Lishu style font to cover all the CJKUIs in UCS/Unicode, maybe the end users need to meet the duplicate pair, that is not good. This form is close to Lishu form and some seal forms, so I think there is no need to add a new UCV.
unify to 𥢼 (U+258BC)
As Lee’s comment in #6740, this character is the variant of 𥢼. Evidence 2 shows the following glyph.
This glyph is similar to 𥢼 (U+258BC) very much.
unify to WS2017-03449:SAT-04475 U+31E8A
[ {{WS2017-03449}} ]
See WS2021-02885:SAT-07086
unify to 鷇 (U+9DC7)
The evidence shows the fanqie is 口候反, and the Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqies for 鷇 are 苦候切, 丘侯切 and so on, that means the readings are the same, and the meanings are the same as well.
They are used as the same characters in general.
unify to 殉
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 殄
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殄 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862
unify to 殞
The evidence has shown it is the variant of 殞 clearly.
Also see WS2021-01915:SAT-05862.
unify to 㓹 (U+34F9)?
The evidence shows it is the bottom of 罽, and the real bottom of 罽 should be 㓹.
▲ 《説文解字》，藤花榭本，第七下
unify to 泓
When we read the glyph in the second evidence, we will see the glyph ⿰氵𪪺 (WS2017-01932:T13-324D). Two pieces of evidence both show it is also the variant of 泓 clearly, and ⿰氵𪪺 has been unified to 泓 in WS2017.
[ {{WS2017-01932}} ]
unify to 𥙿 (U+2567F)
This character reads as yù, and U+2567F 𥙿 also reads as yù.
𬉸 is often used as the variant of 谷.
U+5BB9 容 ≈ U+21A10 𡨐
U+7D8C 綌 ≈ U+2602D 𦀭
U+8C41 豁 ≈ U+2BD13 𫴓
Unify to 𮅕 (U+2E155)?
If Lee’s comment is right, we should consider to unify this character to 𮅕 (U+2E155) (also TD-5079).
https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E5%9B%B3%E5%BD%A2%E5%90%8D=MJ058270
unify to 𮐋 (U+2E40B)?
As Lee’s comment, the submitted character is the variant of 篡/簒. U+2E40B 𮐋 is submitted by ROK. If ROK can confirm the meaning, we will be easy to confirm how to handle this character.
U+2860E 𨘎 vs U+2708F 𧂏
U+2CAF4 𬫴 vs U+9410 鐐
U+2D777 𭝷 vs U+61AD 憭
U+2DE21 𭸡 vs U+7360 獠
unify to 𡁣 (U+21063)?
UCV #305.
The readings are the same.
The readings are the same.
U+6E3F 渿 vs U+3D0E 㴎
U+3B8F 㮏 vs U+3B88 㮈 vs U+235DF 𣗟
U+3CA1 㲡 vs U+23BA6 𣮦
U+217AB 𡞫 vs U+2178F 𡞏
U+24E0F 𤸏 vs U+24DC8 𤷈
U+25221 𥈡 vs U+251E7 𥇧
U+26CD0 𦳐 vs U+8418 萘
U+29236 𩈶 vs U+2922B 𩈫
U+29E5F 𩹟 vs U+4C5E 䱞 vs U+29E9A 𩺚
U+2D860 𭡠 vs U+637A 捺 vs U+2BF69 𫽩
U+6B40 歀, U+96B8 隸, U+236D2 𣛒, U+23729 𣜩, U+2B389 𫎉, U+2EA15 𮨕; U+20903 𠤃 and so on are not related to this UCV.
“The source says this is a variant of 局 (U+5C40), but in Canton/Hong Kong the usage is different - ⿸尸可 is a variant of 屙 (to defecate), thus not unifiable with 局 (U+5C40).”
I agree with him, and please see the new evidence on #8904.
unify to 𢴕 (U+22D15)
For the Cantonese usage, there are two words, ning1 for “take” and “carry”, ning6 for “bring”, “turn” and “shake”. The ning1 usage is written as U+22D15 𢴕 in Prof. Hou’s book.
▲ 侯兴泉，吴南开：《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》，广州：广东人民出版社，2017.05，p. 277
This character was also used in the 庚辰本 of “A Dream of Red Mansions” (《紅樓夢》).
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏，脂硯齋：《脂硯齋重評石頭記》，庚辰本，第八回
Other form was used in the other version in the same position.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第八回
The above evidence is not clear enough, and we check the same character in other position of the same version as below.
▲ 曹雪芹，無名氏：《紅樓夢》，萃文書屋木活字本，第二十八回
It is U+22D15 𢴕 in the above evidence.
unify to 䒐 (U+4490)
Agree with Lee and Andrew, but there is no need to add any new UCV rule.
BTW, I do not think 䒐䒏 is a proper word form for the Cantonese word mang2zang2, but so many people and scholars use this form.
Attributes
See #8763, the RS should follow 嵇.
The current IDS suggested in #5926 doesn’t match the glyph. And Tao Yang has explained the reason.
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.
According to the evidence, the best radical should be 色 not 骨.
See #8153
SC and FS should be kept.
The radicals of ⿱𤇾X should be the bottom component.
If the reading is mù provided by TCA, the better radical should be 父 not 木.
The reading provided by TCA is zhì, so it is better to choose the radical of 少 as the radical.
The pronunciation is xiāng.
The pronunciation is sī provided by TCA, so the semantic element should be 育.
FS should be kept as-is.
See WS2021-02210:T9-7D53
The reading is hé. If the radical is 禾, it looks the better reading is related to míng.
Evidence
The evidence mentioned a road / highway in Liquan County, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province (陕西省咸阳市礼泉县). This road / highway is similar to current 凤凰大道.
▲ 仪门寺 to 山底村 (AMAP)
▲ 仪门寺 to 赵镇 (AMAP)
▲ 赵镇 to 山底村 (AMAP)
The National Database for Geographical Names of China provides the naming reason of 山底村 is to live at the south foot of Mountain Jiuzong (以居九嵕山之阳山底得名).
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
▲ National Database for Geographical Names of China
So, I suspect it is a non-existent character based on the evidence.
Note that the current evidence is acceptable, and this character should be encoded. The reason why I need to know the real source is that I want to add the language usage label. If this character is used in 闽侯县, it should be a character used for 闽东方言.
The evidence shows the character is used for the geographic name in the southern end of Taiwan Island. As the famous historical and cultural site, 赤崁樓 / 赤嵌樓, 崁 and 嵌 are common in Taiwan. If one character used for the common geographic names in Taiwan, TCA should handle this character well. In fact, this character has not been included in CNS 11643 yet.
[ {{WS2017-03819}} ]
Maybe two place names are both used in the same village, this is OK. I just consider how to add the language tag. If this village is the same the one mentioned in WS2017-03819, that means the name is derived from Kamese 侗语.
▲ Chan Sui Ki 陳瑞祺, 道漢字音. Hong Kong: 道字總社. 1939. Vol. 2. p. 36
▲ 王澤/王家禧：《老夫子·猛鬼庙》
(https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/19775339)
The evidence is clear, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale of the submitted character.
▲ 《通州志》，天一閣藏明萬曆刻本，第四卷
Note that 通州 here means current Nantong City (南通市) in Jiangsu Province, not Tongzhou District in Beijing City.
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，豫章叢書
▲ 張芹：《備遺錄》，四庫全書本
▲ 《續文獻通考》，明萬曆刻本，卷二百三十六
▲ 《松江府志》，嘉慶二十二年明倫堂刻本，卷六
▲ 薛瑄：《敬軒文集》，四庫全書本，卷一
He recorded the seafood he had eaten in the Lingnan (嶺南) in this book. Maybe Lingnan here means Guangdong.
▲ 張自烈：《正字通》，清畏堂原板，卷十二
Note that 水晶魚 means 銀魚 (salangid) currently, and which is called as 白飯魚 in HKSAR. It is different from 水晶魚 mentioned in 《正字通》.
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，明萬曆刻本，卷二
▲ 謝榛：《詩家直説》，清光緒刻本，卷二
▲ 劉學箕：《方是閒居士詞》，民國彊村叢書，一卷
The whole poem is shown as below.
漁家傲 白湖觀捕魚
漢水悠悠還漾漾，漁翁出没穿風浪，千尺絲綸垂兩槳，收又放，月明長在煙波上。
釣得活鱗鯿縮項，篘成玉液香浮盎，醉倒自歌歌自唱，輕嫋纜，碧蘆紅蓼清灘傍。
鯿縮項 means 縮項鯿, which is 武昌魚 (Bluntnose black bream) in modern Chinese.
Maybe it is a modern typo for 蜇.
𤘠 for 牛, ⿰馬天 for 馬, ⿰魚天 for 魚.
⿰魚天 is also a Japanese character, but I have not found the original source for the Japanese use.
In Nan’an dialect, “吻” reads as bun⁵⁵, “本” reads as pun⁵⁵. It is acceptable for me that the local people use 笨 as the phonetic element.
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.
▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》，紅格鈔本，卷之六十八
▲ 《明憲宗純皇帝實録》，梁鴻志影本，卷之六十八
4 pieces of evidence, but only one source.
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
▲ 《集韻》，寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本，卷之十，入聲下，二十二昔
鸊 is also included in this version of 《集韻》.
▲ 《集韻》，寧波明州述古堂影宋鈔本，卷之十，入聲下，二十一麥
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.
▲ 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
▲ 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》）
Please show the full page.
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.
Please confirm the evidence source name.
The evidence shows some Chinese syllables by fanqie. There are two 韻母, and the 韻母 are stable, one is 猥, the other is 倄.
More evidence will be better.
▲ 沙州城土境
⿰犭盖 is also included in other source.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷二
Please not encode ⿰犭蓋 and change to ⿰犭盖 or encode ⿰犭盖 in future.
In the evidence, we can get the following information.
聲母: 見 the same as 光
韻母: 陽 (宕攝) the same as 匡, and the tone is 平聲, 開合 is 合, 等第 is 三等
So, this Putonghua and Cantonese pronunciation of this character is the same as 光 here (different in middle Chinese).
Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𢓯 is 巨往切 and the pronunciation should be 狂上聲, so the 聲母 is 羣, the 韻母 is 宕攝陽韻合口三等.
The 聲母 and 聲調 are different. I think they are different character, but it is better to get more useful information on the definition.
▲ 顧藹吉：《隸辨》，玉淵堂，卷第五
▲ 朱駿聲：《説文通訓定聲補遺》，道光刻本，豐部
▲ 洪适：《隸釋》，四部叢刊本，卷第十七
This character is used as the variant form of 彷彿.
▲ 過庭訓：《本朝分省人物考》，明天啟刻本，卷之三十八
▲ 何喬遠：《名山藏》，明崇禎刻本，卷之一百七
▲ 邢准：《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》，金刻本，卷第二十六
▲ Li Danyu 李澹愚, 廣話國語一貫未定稿. 1916. preface 01
The comment from Mr. Kin Tin Shek on the new evidence.
“Probably because of the lack of certain movable types, the publisher used simple words to describe the corresponding ideographs. 余（旁舟）（又馬旁鼠旁） literally means 余 (with 舟 besides it) (also with 馬 and 鼠 besides it), and thus can be interpreted as “舟余 (艅)”, “馬余 (駼)” and “鼠余” respectively.”
▲ 《邊裔典》，古今圖書集成，第八十四卷
▲ 李昉：《太平御覽》，四庫全書本，卷四十
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，四庫全書本，卷三十六
▲ 陳耆卿：《嘉定赤城志》，清嘉慶刻本，卷三十六
The glyph looks stable in 台州.
▲ 陳仁錫：《八編類纂》，明刻本，卷之二百六十
▲ 《御製詩四集》，四庫全書本，卷九十二
▲ 董誥：《皇清文穎續編》，武英殿刻本，卷首二十六（高宗純皇帝聖製詩）
BTW, does the evidence cite from 《道光承德府志》 really?
符山堂藏板 shows 䮷𪄻 and 𪇆鶺.
龍谷大學藏至正南山書院刊本 shows 𪇆鶺.
覆元泰定本 shows 𪇆𪂹.
宋乾道五年刻本 shows 𪇆&⿰眷鳥;, which the second character has been included in CNS 11643 as TB-4917.
古逸叢書覆宋本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
四部叢刊巾箱本 shows 𪇆&GKJ-00739;.
However, the second character is under 鍾韻, and the reading is the same as 舂, so the most proper glyph should be 𪄻.
I don’t believe the current evidence is cited from 《中药大辞典》. If 《中药大辞典》 includes this character, please change the evidence.
▲ 何尔斯泰：《要素&⿰饣善;应用中的几个问题》，《实用外科杂志》，1988年第8卷第9期
要素&⿰饣善; means elemental diet, which is also written as 要素膳, 要素饮食, 要素制剂, 要素膳食, 要素型肠内营养制剂 and so on.
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，四庫全書，卷四十二
It is also SAT-04688.
We should pay more attention to judge if it's suitable to encode this character.
https://cn.bing.com/dict/tomcod
U+25AB3 𥪳 U+7AD3 竓
U+25A58 𥩘 U+7AF0 竰
U+25A7B 𥩻 U+7AD5 竕
U+7AD4 竔
U+41C6 䇆 U+7ACD 竍
U+41C9 䇉 U+7AE1 竡
U+25A95 𥪕 U+7ACF 竏
▲ 周嘉胄：《香乘》，四庫全書本，卷二十
This character is the variant of U+9175 酵.
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，清知不足齋叢書本，卷下
▲ 朱翼中：《北山酒經》，續古逸叢書本，卷下
This form is stable in 《居家必用事類全集》, it is OK to encode it.
▲ 《居家必用事類全集》，明隆慶二年飛來山人刻本，巳集
▲ 揚雄：《輶軒使者絕代語釋別國方言》，四部叢刊本，卷第十
Macao SAR submitted U+2CC43 𬱃 based on the Macao telecode book. I once clarified this issue in my further comments on IRGN2197.
https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2197EisoCommentsU2CC43.pdf
▲ CN205305764U (Patents in China)
▲ CN2478349 (Patents in China)
▲ 陳凌千：《潮汕字典》，汕頭育新書社，1935，p. 265
▲ Samuel Wells Williams, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (英華分韻撮要). Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository (羊城中和行). 1856. p. 92
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 50
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 131
▲ 虞學圃、溫岐石輯, 江湖尺牘分韻撮要合集. 1825 (道光 5 年)
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
This evidence is copied from Comment #1235 on WS2021-02011
▲ 《爾雅注》，四庫全書本，卷下
▲ Hoàng Triều Ân: “Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày”, p. 410
▲ 《洪武正韻》，四庫本，卷二
The same head entry in the Ming versions shows 𧇾. It is not better to unify 雐 with 虛/虚.
Is there any definite reason to confirm how to write the left part?
▲ 李文鳳：《越嶠書》，明藍格鈔本，卷之十六
This is a Chinese ancient book to record Vietnamese history in Ming dynasty. It looks this is a character used for a Vietnamese person name.
▲ 周無忌 饒秉才, 廣州話標準音字彙. Hong Kong: 商務印書館. 1988. ISBN 962 07 0081 3 p. 263
The new evidence shows the Cantonese pronunciation is the same as 鬼, so it should be gwai2. The Cantonese pronunciation of 鬾 is gei6 based on Unihan Database. It looks it is not the variant of 鬾 in the new evidence. However, we don’t know the meaning in the new evidence. If IRG hopes to confirm the meaning in the new evidence, maybe we could ask the authours.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，第一卷
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十六
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之四
▲ 《國語辭典》，民國37年重印本，p. 42
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第一
▲ 釋慧琳：《一切經音義》，獅谷蓮社刻本，卷第五十三
Please confirm which one is the proper one.
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=160502
▲ 《集韻》，南宋初明州刻本，卷之七
▲ 《汉语大字典》（第二版），p. 3181
I found some using cases for the simplified form as below.
The first one:
▲ 徐俊杰 等：《人血中DNA纹印图谱的研究》，《中国法医学杂志》，1988年第3期
In other paper, his surname was written as 阙.
▲ 王尔文 等：《离体血细胞钾钠离子代谢迁移的实验研究》，《法医学杂志》，1987年12月
The second one:
▲ &⿵门朔;庆文：《好吃吃出三味 好看赛过碧玉 好爽一颗枣》，《中国农村小康科技》，2001年第5期 (published in May)
I also find other papers written by 阙庆文, but they are no the same person.
▲ 阙庆文 等：《新兴保健蔬菜——“米邦塔”仙人掌》，《广西农业科学》，2001年第2期 (published in March)
▲ 阙庆文 等：《珍禽标本制作工艺》，《农家科技》，2001年9月 (published in September)
I find other person named 阙庆文 who got the title “（中国）全国技术能手荣誉人员” in 2018. Please see 闽人社文〔2019〕159号 http://rst.fujian.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/zfxxgkml/zyywgz/zynljs/201907/t20190717_4922184.htm.
In the paper 《细心踏实做好本职工作 发挥己长献身奶牛事业—福建省周宁县和谐牧业有限公司阙庆文事迹介绍》, this 阙庆文 was a student in 南平市农业学校 since 1997. Maybe he was a trainee in 南平市 in 2001.
▲ 王志刚 等：《细心踏实做好本职工作 发挥己长献身奶牛事业—福建省周宁县和谐牧业有限公司阙庆文事迹介绍》，《中国畜牧业》，2019年第8期
All in all, I support to encode this character and I suggest China NB submit the simplified form in future.
▲ 《古今圖書集成》，方輿彙編山川典第三十五卷中條山部
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十七
And, the variant of U+7269 物.
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十八
The article shows in the above evidence is 蘇轍’s (蘇子由, and 潁濱遺老) 《齊論》. The following evidence shows the corresponding character is 物. If we can get the earlier version of 《唐宋八大家文鈔》 or 《潁濱文鈔》, it will be better.
▲ 茅坤：《唐宋八大家文鈔》，四庫全書本，卷一百五十五（《潁濱文鈔》）
All in all, it is better to keep this character.
▲ 曹學佺：《石倉歷代詩選》，四庫全書本，卷三百二十七
▲ 毛奇齡：《西河文集》，四庫全書本，卷一百二十八
As Ma Chien-chung wrote as below, 岭巆 and 嶙峋 are both 疊韻字, and the finals of 岭 and 巆 are both 梗攝, 嶙 and 峋 are both 臻攝. So, ⿰山宫 is the real misprint form in the submitted evidence based on the rationale.
▲ 馬建忠：《馬氏文通》，商務印書館鉛印本，實字卷之六
Maybe ⿰山宫 is the variant of 崆 here. The final of 㟅 is 通攝 or 江攝, and the final of 崆 are the same. For ⿰山宫, 宫 is the phonetic element, and the final of 宫 is 通摄. Therefore, the rationale is acceptable for encoding.
BTW, the mountain, 景忠山, mentioned in the submitted evidence is located in current Qianxi County, Tangshan City, Hebei Province (河北省唐山市迁西县), not in Qianhuangdao City (秦皇岛市). I hope I can check the original article in Qianxi in future if possible.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之六
▲ 章黼：《直音篇》，燕京藏萬曆戊寅本，卷第二
▲ 《合併字學集篇》，明萬曆刻本，卷之一
▲ 《新集藏經音義隨函録》，高麗藏，大乘論音義第三之一
As the second new evidence shows, this form is known as the variant of 深 in Buddhist literature, so it is OK to encode it separately.
▲ 杜甫，郭知達：《九家集注杜詩》，四庫全書，卷十五
▲ Li, Chunhua 李春華, 分部分音廣話九聲字宗. 1914. p. 31
From Hatano, Tarō 波多野太郎, Chūgoku gobun shiryō ikan 中國語文資料彙刊 pp365-402. Tokyo : Fuji Shuppan. 1991.
▲ 李昉 等：《文苑英華》，四庫全書本，卷七百三十四
Compared with the following picture, it is the variant of 黯.
▲ 駱賓王：《駱丞集》，金華叢書，卷一
The author of this classical prose is 駱賓王.
https://sou-yun.cn/yjlh.aspx?book=TuShuJiCheng&id=KR7a0007_284_0001
▲ 謝維新：《古今合璧事類備要外集》，四庫全書本，卷四十
In the above evidence, ⿰革革 and 靴 are both used in the same page. According to the meaning and the following picture, ⿰革革 is really the variant of 靴. The story of 醉使脱靴/醉遣脱靴/力士脱靴 is a famous one related to 李白 and 高力士 in China.
▲ 彭大翼：《山堂肆考》，四庫全書本，卷一百九十
▲ 吴之振：《宋詩鈔》，四庫全書本，卷四十七
The following evidence shows it is the variant of 鞾.
▲ 孫覿：《鴻慶居士集》，四庫全書本，卷二
The full poem is shown as below.
同舟無胡越，四海皆弟兄。
吾人雖晚接，一笑蓋巳傾。
世亂識真態，途窮見真情。
曳杖扣禪扄，撞鐘聽靴鳴。
小窗風雨夜，對此二榻橫。
吾身如木偶，春至不復榮。
豈無三宿戀，天雨方流行。
去去得首邱，歸田克踐更。
All in all, ⿰革革 is the stable variant of 靴 or 鞾.
▲ 《續纂江寧府志》，光緒六年刻本，卷之十
▲ 《皇朝經世文編》，道光刻本，卷五十
▲ 《乾隆正定府志》，方志集成影本，卷之二十六
▲ 張溥：《漢魏六朝百三家集》，卷十三（張衡《西京賦》）
The submitted characters on three pieces of evidence are all related to 銛. This form is not only used in one source, so it is better to encode it separately.
▲ 《法海遺珠》，卷四十四
▲ 黄道周：《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》，崇禎藜光堂刻本，卷之六
▲ Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 廣州音字彙. Hong Kong: 世界書局, 1971. p. 69
▲ 《皇清書史》，遼海叢書本，卷二十五
《皇清書史》 also gives 耘菘. There are many other similar forms.
It is very common for an ancient scholar to have similar but different names in different books. All the forms are useful for the research of literary history. Different forms shared with the same person name should not be a good reason to reject to encode, because It will still cause trouble for research and publishing on digitization.
▲ 梅鼎祚：《陳文紀》，四庫全書本，卷八
▲ 愛新覺羅·玄燁：《御定淵鑑類函》，四庫全書本，卷九十三
▲ 《漢魏六朝百三家集》，光緒信述堂重刻本，卷二
▲ 愛新覺羅·玄燁：《御定駢字類編》，四庫全書本，卷一百七十七
There are more evidence for the ⿰米奈 form, so it is better to change the glyph back.
▲ 印光任、張汝霖：《澳門記略》，昭代叢書癸集，卷第二十二
▲ 印光任、張汝霖：《澳門記略》，光绪庚辰重刻本，卷第二十二
I do the quick check on the book, and I find other encoded characters have been included in MSCS.
▲ 印光任、张汝霖，赵春晨：《澳门记略》，广州：广东高等教育出版社，1988年7月，ISBN 7-5361-0113-9/Z·2，p. 5
This character is also used in the modern publishing version.
http://ccamc.org/blog/?p=365
▲ Chinese phonetic vocabulary (初學粵音切要). Hong Kong: London Missionary Society’s Press 香港英華書院活板. 1855. folio 8
▲ 宋教仁集
This evidence is copied from WS2021-01658 easily, which is provided by Tao Yang.
The video producer/speaker provided more information and explanation, and he used the UK-submitted evidence in IRG ORT. Unfortunately, this character won’t be included in Unicode/UCS/GB 18030 in the next year, but will be included in the near future.
▲ 龙湾区档案馆：《永强方言实用词语》，北京：新华出版社，2018年5月
As the new evidence shows, ⿱从土 and ⿱从工 both mean the same character, and they should be unifiable. So, the current UK glyph could be kept.
▲ 虞學圃、溫岐石輯, 江湖尺牘分韻撮要合集. 1825 (道光 5 年). 貞23
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1974. p. 94
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 250
▲ Wang Sung Tang 王頌棠, 中華新字典. Guangzhou: 環球書局, 1937. p. 101
▲ 《新撰字鏡》，天治本，卷第七
It is not easy to confirm if 林&⿱艹暘; mentioned in 《廣東通志》 and 林𦿄 mentioned in 《八閩通志》 are the same person. There is other source related to this character, so it is better to keep it.
▲ FSY1971: Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 廣州音字彙. Hong Kong: 世界書局, 1971. p. 35
▲ YPC1971: Thomas Yu Ping-Chiu 余秉昭, 同音字彙. Hong Kong: 光華圖書出版公司, 1971. p. 104
▲ Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 部身字典. Hong Kong: 右文書局, 1967. p. 113
The submitted evidence and the new evidence share the same meaning.
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p.142
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313. p. 8
▲ A Chinese Chrestomathy in the Cantonese Dialect (1941) P.43
▲ The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary (1947) P.427
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 13
▲ Fung Tinlib 馮田獵, 粤語同音字典. Hong Kong: 東聯學供社, 1996. ISBN 9789628507313 p. 62
▲ CPV1855: Chinese phonetic vocabulary (初學粵音切要). Hong Kong: London Missionary Society’s Press 香港英華書院活板. 1855. folio 24
▲ FSY1967: Fung, Sz-Yi 馮思禹, 部身字典. Hong Kong: 右文書局, 1967. p. 95
https://www.ccli.gov.hk/doc/wgcliac2018-07.pdf
Glyph Design & Normalization
For the different regional conventions, mainland China, HKSAR, Macao SAR, TCA and Vietnam use 舉, Japan, ROK and DPRK use 擧. So, it is OK to accept the current glyph.
The second evidence shows the following glyph.
SAT should provide the explanation on the normalization.
Editorial
Other
https://www.lztv.tv/news/folder90/2022-04-07/567854.html
This meaning of this character is “Spinibarbus hollandi”, and the Chinese scientific name is 光倒刺鲃. Please see the detail in English here. https://fishbase.in/summary/Spinibarbus-hollandi.html
This kind of fish is common in Yingde. The people often write this character as 涓 in the web and the brief introduction because it has not been encoded. Please see the followings.
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1625599226208376896
https://www.meipian.cn/209vqscl
Baidu Maps, AMAP (高德地图) and Apple Maps all write this geographic name as 捐鱼坑, which is a wrong name.
In Conghua District, Guangzhou City (广州市从化区), some Hakka people write this character as 娟. Please the following.
http://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/201812/04/c1723234.html
https://www.gzdaily.cn/site2/pad/content/2020-05/23/content_1273246.html
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1731938443165111973
However, the submitted character is the proper one, so we should encode this character as soon as possible.
The corresponding traditional form is cited from 汉语大字典, and 汉语大字典 cited it from 《邵武府志》. There are also so many Hakka people lived in Shaowu Conty, Nanping City, Fujian Province (福建省南平市邵武县). Maybe they means the same kind of fish.
This word was written as 馬齊 in the book 《客方言》. On the other hand, Ruijin is a county-level city under Ganzhou City (赣州市). The people lived in Ganzhou recognize themselves as the Hakka people mostly.
▲ 羅翽雲：《客方言》，古亭書屋影本，卷十
BTW, the village is under 黄柏乡/黄柏镇 now, not 武阳镇. 黄柏乡 is very closed to 大柏地乡 which is famous for Chairman Mao’s 《菩萨蛮·大柏地》.
▲ 《佩文韻府》，清康熙五十年武英殿本，卷三十六
All the evidence shows this character is cited from 《山海經》.
▲ 《山海經》，四部叢刊本，第五
▲ 《山海經》，四庫全書本，第五
▲ 《山海經》，正統道藏本，第五
This character is the variant of U+352E 㔮.
These two kinds of fish are similar, and both common in Taizhou.
https://www.sohu.com/a/402497931_99943212
⿱𥫗仅 is the variant of 符.
This form is acceptable.
⿹气Ｆ, ⿲金Ｔｅ, ⿰石Ｉ, ⿲金Ｓｉ, ⿰石Ｂ, ⿲金Ａｓ, ⿲金Ｓｅ, ⿲金Ｐｄ, ⿲金Ｂａ, ⿲金Ｂｉ
DB54/T 0029-2009 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/c7a449809f46b7383e8a03d6d0cacf94
DB54/T 0120-2017 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/bc7a99fd78c6a3db17cea1603d6308cf
DB54/T 0128-2017 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/93c81320cfa7dff5f5ac038d033b7470
DB54/T 0046-2019 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/129fb3231d38b941ab08e0a91c12c7a08082c9df8b5d047e636b03e50eb90ce9
DB5133/T 48-2021 https://dbba.sacinfo.org.cn/stdDetail/d78b2a5e1c85bafd3055fe0dd93faaee97d0380dbe7d4031d4485bb1e0b37ea1
Beida Founder typesetting system (北大方正排版系统) includes the variant U+25EC0 𥻀.
▲ 《廣韻》，澤存堂本，下平聲卷
The evidence shows &⿰木彌;猴桃, which means 獼猴桃 (키위,kiwifruit).
{{UCV #1}}
The inner component of 291-1 variant is 王, and the evidence shows 𡈼. Maybe ROK could add a example picture based on UCV #1. However, the current glyph has followed the ROK conventions, so it is acceptable.
Evidence 1 shows it is the component of 𧆨, Evidence 3 shows it is the component of 𧆣. As #2983 shows 𧆣 从凷虍聲, and 虍 is the head of tiger, so it is acceptable that this book treated the phonetic element is 虎. This form is similar to U+2719E 𧆞 and U+2E4DC 𮓜.
The evidence shows this character is used for the 反切上字 of 嫈. In 《廣韻》, we can find as least three fanqies: 烏莖切, 於營切, 鷖迸切. The tone of 鷖迸切 is 去聲, and we all know the common tone of 嫈 is 平聲. The evidence shows tone is 平聲 as well.
For 烏莖切 and 於營切, the finals (韻母) are different, but the initials (聲母) are the same, which are both 影母. The submitted character is not the variant of 烏. 《廣韻》 shows the fanqie for 戹 is 於革切, so the initial for 戹 is also 影母. Therefore, 戹莖切 is similar to 烏莖切 here.
The submitted character is also used in other context in 大正藏. And the following show it is the variant of 戹 clearly.
▲ 慧琳：《一切經音義》，大正新修大藏經，卷第六十二
Both of two characters are used in Tainan City according to the evidence.
Both of two characters are used in Tainan City according to the evidence.
UTC includes this character in UAX #45 as UTC-00891. If HKSAR considers to include it in HKSCS in future, the H-Source reference should be H-A05A.
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=807479
若 reads as nã⁵³, nã²²/³³ in Xiamen / Amoy. Maybe the user made the Min nan reading as the similar Mandarin syllable.
In the real use, the users always use 捆 as the replaced character, because the proper one has not been encoded yet, such as the introduction of this kind of Hakka food in the official website of People’s Government of Guangdong Province, PRC (http://www.gd.gov.cn/zjgd/lnms/mzms/content/post_110842.html ), and they need to clarify “捆” here does not mean to tie, should be to roll. The TV presenter needs to explain the same thing in one CCTV 10 program (https://haokan.baidu.com/v?pd=wisenatural&vid=8337990229278444770).
This kind of Hakka food looks similar to the fresh spring roll in Vietnam, but the stuffing is not richer than the Vietnamese one, only taro, mushroom, sauerkraut, carrot and corn. Almost all the presenters read the character as kǔn in Putonghua for this use, but I have not confirm if the hakka reading and if it is suitable in Putonghua for this use.
[ {{WS2017-01130}} ]
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=620861
https://zi.tools/zi/%E2%BF%B1%E5%A7%AC%E7%81%AC
BTW, 虨 is the variant of 霦. If ROK could help confirm this issue, it will be better for the encoding work.
The readings are different, so it is better to disunify based on the evidence.
All the evidence shows this character is only used for Min-dong dialects. Longdu (Lungtu) dialect in Zhongshan City is a kind of Min-dong dialect, which is also only one type of Min-dong dialect in Guangdong Province and the scholar call it as a dialect island.
There are other usages for this character, but I think the current evidence is sufficient for encoding. If HKSAR considers to include this character in HKSCS in future, the H-Source reference should be H-9FAD.
[ {{WS2017-03558}} ]
Data for Unihan
𤡥 U+24865 is also included in 《廣韻》 as a head character.
▲ 《廣韻》，四部叢刊本，上聲卷第三
In my kFanqie proposal to UTC, I include two fanqies for 𤡥 U+24865, one is 五閑, the other is 下赧. If IRG decides to unify them, 五閑 should be kept under 𤡥 U+24865, if not, I will remove 五閑 from 𤡥 U+24865.
五閑≈yán 下赧≈xiàn
See #5972 under WS2021-00055:KC-00020
[ {{WS2017-02550}} ]
▲ 周履靖：《赤鳳髓》，夷門廣牘本，三卷
[ {{WS2017-02208}} ]
Kangxi Dictionary shows U+2A00B 𪀋 is the variant of 鴨, but “duck” is ꓯꓹ [ɛ³⁵] in Lisu language, so the submitted character is not related for the usage in KX.
《彙集雅俗通十五音》 is a famous ancient book for Min nan dialect. In Quanzhou, 勵 and 麗 both read as le³¹.
⿱山虫 in Evidence 3 is 蚩.
kMandarin mí
Note: The 反切上字 in the first evidence is not right.
kCantonese tong1
kFanqie 符罂
kFanqie 弗客
The more proper reading should be naat3.
kFanqie 羅壓
kFanqie 羅因
kFanqie 烏耶
kFanqie 是軛
kFanqie 烏學
U+29F64 𩽤 is a Nom character which means crocodile. The submitted character is a Min nan character used in Leizhou City, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province (广东省湛江市雷州市). My hometown is Chikan District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province (广东省湛江市赤坎区). In Chikan district, this kind of fish reads as nɐi¹¹ nɐu⁴⁴⁵ in the local Yue dialect, so this character should read as 嬲 (nau1) in Cantonese.
The Hong Kong people always reads this character as lap6, but we should follow the evidence. This word is often written as 𣲷 (U+23CB7) in Hong Kong, because some scholars considered 𣲷 is the original form (本字) of the word nap6/lap6, which I disagree for the huge difference in definitions for dictionaries. The Kangxi Dictionary shows the fanqie of 𣲷 is 尼立切 in 廣韻, so the pronunciation is corrected by nap6 not lap6. Zhanjiang has a word nɐk̚¹¹ with the similar meaning, but they do not conform to the general phonetic corresponding relationship. It is better to treat them as different words if we don’t get further usages of other local Yue sub-dialect. For this case, the pronunciation in the western part of Guangdong province has not been provided any useful support to correct the reading in Hong Kong and Guangzhou.
All in all, UTC-00456 is more proper than 𣲷 for the Cantonese word nap6/lap6.
kFanqie 大個
kCantonese do6
kFanqie 羅因
kFanqie 符罂
mak2 in the evidence is not used for the pronunciation of the individual character (單字音), and it is related to the modified tone (變調) in a word. So, mak2 is not suitable to include in kCantonese for this character and WS2021-02612.
kJapanese アイ