Vietnam uses an identical character, V+60087 / VN-F0080, which is a variant of U+20C9D (⿰口対). If 00448 is not considered to be unifiable with 𠲝 (U+20C9D), then Vietnam will propose a horizontal extension of VN-F0080.
Andrew is correct. This character, read "cái", is the name of a river in Vietnam. 沔 (U+6C94) read "miền" means "area" or "region". They need to be kept separate.
The evidence above doesn't match the glyph ⿱竹朝. But, a character with identical form, read "xàu", is found in the Vietnamese text Kim cổ kỳ quan (今古奇觀)
The source, "Thánh giáo yêu lý quốc ngữ", is a Vietnamese text on Catholicism, and Vietnam will request horizontal extension after this character is standardized.
The source, "Thánh giáo yêu lý quốc ngữ", is a Vietnamese text on Catholicism, and Vietnam will request horizontal extension after this character is standardized.
The evidence above is for a different character. Below is the correct evidence, from P. 435 of "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt". The reading should be changed to "gợi".
The glyph in that version of the dictionary is wrong, but as can be seen from accompanying characters in the same phonetic series, 'luyện", 练 and 炼, the phonetic should be U+2B823 𫠣.
Here is updated evidence showing the correct form from the last published standard: Kho chữ Hán Nôm mã hoá.
Vietnam does not generally distinguish between the "⺼", not "月" forms of Radical 130. Semantically the character corresponds to Radical 130 ⺼, but we have normalized the glyph to "月"
Here's is a clearer shot from another page in the same document:
This is read "chay", meaning "to fast". The right side is a simplified form of 齋 related to 斎, 斋, 𭤕, 齐 etc. where the top element is 文. We could consider adding the "piě" like stroke to the 文, but most abbreviations in this series do not have it and it is not significant from the point of view of UCV.
New evidence
That ⿱文木 is a common simplification of 齋 is attested here in the “Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải”
Closer inspection, including looking at the title in other contexts where it is written using a variant of 'trong', U+25A9E ⿺竜内, shows that this is actually ⿰竜中, a variant of U+25A9D. Since this is a unifiable variant, we will withdraw it
The above comment by HUANG Junliang is confusing. In English if you say "I doubt X is Y", it normally means "I don't think that X is Y". Is that what is meant here? It seems rather that the intent is the opposite, in which case "I suspect that ⿰魚两 is an error form of 𩶁." would be better. If that is the case, then I agree with the comment.
IRG Working Set 2021v1.0
Source: Lee COLLINS
Date: Generated on 2024-12-14
Unification
Vietnam uses an identical character, V+60087 / VN-F0080, which is a variant of U+20C9D (⿰口対). If 00448 is not considered to be unifiable with 𠲝 (U+20C9D), then Vietnam will propose a horizontal extension of VN-F0080.
Same as U+2D1EE a nôm Tày character read 'dằng', that is probably cognate with 'gyang'
Other than the minor difference in shape of radical 140, how is this different from U+26EEC? Is the given radical correct?
Looks identical to 𨺭 (U+28EAD). Also, the reading given above, 倉夾, is the same as that shown in Kangxi for U+28EAD. Any reason not to unify?
Agree, this should be unified to 𬨲 (U+2CA32)
Yes, this can be unfied, since ⿱日工 is a common variant of 𬛸 as a component
Unify to 𪹎 (U+2AE4E). Shape is slightly different, so will propose as IVS
Agree with unification to 蘃
Attributes
Evidence
and
Here is updated evidence showing the correct form from the last published standard: Kho chữ Hán Nôm mã hoá.
This is read "chay", meaning "to fast". The right side is a simplified form of 齋 related to 斎, 斋, 𭤕, 齐 etc. where the top element is 文. We could consider adding the "piě" like stroke to the 文, but most abbreviations in this series do not have it and it is not significant from the point of view of UCV.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
Data for Unihan