Possibly cognate, but we would like to know the identity of U+2E8C9.
Oppose Unification
The geometrical composition is rather different even though nearly unifiable (note that UCV #112 does not cover the U+2E8C9 shape). We would like to know if the two have developed via different paths (cognateness in shape).
Our woodblock evidence is from Tripitaka Koreana created 1236-1251, so it proves at least two variants were widely circulated at that time (or maybe Korea and Japan traditions). The ⿴〇内 variant also appears in Taisho Tripitaka, but we currently plan to use this one as the representative form as it is consistently used in the body, and the other as IVS.
New evidence
Glyph in 房山石經 inscription (this part from Liao dynasty 916-1125).
IRG Working Set 2021v1.0
Source: WANG Yifan
Date: Generated on 2025-05-15
Unification
The evidence particularly designates the component as the upper part.
The evidence particularly designates the component as the upper part.
Agree. Unify to 𮥕 (U+2E955).
cf. disunified examples
俣 U+4FE3 / 㑨 U+3468
脵 U+8135 / 𫞆 U+2B786
Agree. Withdraw. The glyph of U+2D38B should be updated.
Evidence
cf. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19346-gongche-policy.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2015/app/?id=00506
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2015/app/?id=03412
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other