As there has been no additional discussion, we still believe the shape should stand independent unless we have UCV.
One of the rationales is U+2D40B appears in a headword of 慧琳音義 (see below), which is a sign that suggests he sees it as a prescriptively acceptable form, as opposed to 非也. We rely on 大正藏 for printed form, and when it is suspicious, look for older versions. The evidence Tao Yang gives is from 縮刷藏 (弘教藏) from the late 19th century, but our evidence shows it consistent with the ultimate source of Tripitaka Koreana in the 13th c.
As a reminder of what we maintained in IRG #52 and #53, 慧琳's notation "非也" is not a reason for rejection alone, because we would likewise have to reject 擾 in favor of 𢺕, or 戯 of 戲 and so on by that standard.
As we checked our database, characters with 阝~卩 distinction involved are only SAT-03126 (already encoded as U+2E884) and this. Both have few appearance in specific contexts. Hence we request to add it back as a peculiar variation.
As we stated in Hanoi, we would like to unify the component to 𢆙 if we have to, but 并 is both distant in shape and failing to capture the intention of reproducing then-classical form in this literature.
This is a peculiar shape at this place. While it is possible to unify, we currently don't have a rule.
Oppose Unification
As Huang Junliang suggested in IRG #58, the right hand component 𩒛 is 【字彙補】與戚同. Occurrence in this context possibly indicates that this glyph is a 類化字 being cognitively associated with both 頻 and 戚.
Did the character exist? Current Taiwanese terminology seem to use 唉.
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
Except for 𰆰 itself, they only appear in 1 or 2 entries but as headwords, and 𰆰 usually occurs in description of characters using it. They are all variants of common characters so that their standard forms are overwhelmingly prevalent.
Actually, the majority of occurrences in our DB is already shown in the comments of [ {{WS2017-01820}} ] , with remaining ones attached here.
Evidence
We originally believed that this character stands for 技, but the corresponding text in 一字佛頂輪王經 (T0951) reads 枝掛, so this should be 枝 in this context.
Evidence
It may be true that this word strongly reminds 投挂 which might have triggered the alteration of radical. For example 一切經音義三種校本合刊:
They are mostly minority compared to 幷 variants, but has significantly high proportion of headword usage. Moreover, outside those two forms, we could not find a character with 𢆙 component in the literature. With that, we can conclude that 𰏤 in fact represents the classical form 慧琳 preferred: equivalent of 𢆙, but not replacement of 幷. The view is also supported by occasional remarks by 慧琳 that suggests 𰏤 is the more correct glyph over 幷 (see below).
What is the reading of this character meant to be? The Han and romanized version do not seem to match up correctly so that a suspicion remains about what the word the character is supposed to represent and whether phonetically valid.
Could we see the description part why the right bottom component should be 令? Because, the ⿰口⿸虍？ composition is so common that we have many visually similar characters such as 唬, 㗔, 嘑, 嘘, 𠼥, 𭊌, 𰈈 etc., and some actually have similar pronunciation with 吸.
I suspect this is an typographical error of 啗. Asian printed publication before personal computers usually transcribes from author's handwritten draft, so such things tend to happen. Moreover, this is a modern (almost contemporary) dictionary explaining a quite basic word. Do we have appearance in the actual world outside of this dictionary?
The description says はしの字(?)不嫌 which may suggest the internal components are indifferent. During further investigation, I have found several other versions, all with 6-有 glyph. Discussion would be needed whether the current glyph is canonical.
I doubt it should be normalized when the shape is consistent unless you have a consistent normalization rule. It might make the relationship with the original source obscure.
It would be unrealistic to be a bona fide 小篆 (plus, the text suggests that it is not from 說文). The shape is either too corrupted as 小篆 we know today or has some different origin, that probably better treated as an 8th or 13th century 隷定字 from an edition at that time.
IRG Working Set 2021v2.0
Source: WANG Yifan
Date: Generated on 2025-05-15
Unification
One of the rationales is U+2D40B appears in a headword of 慧琳音義 (see below), which is a sign that suggests he sees it as a prescriptively acceptable form, as opposed to 非也. We rely on 大正藏 for printed form, and when it is suspicious, look for older versions. The evidence Tao Yang gives is from 縮刷藏 (弘教藏) from the late 19th century, but our evidence shows it consistent with the ultimate source of Tripitaka Koreana in the 13th c.
As a reminder of what we maintained in IRG #52 and #53, 慧琳's notation "非也" is not a reason for rejection alone, because we would likewise have to reject 擾 in favor of 𢺕, or 戯 of 戲 and so on by that standard.
I think the point here is whether we want to unify 广 and 厂.
Agree to unify to 𦠍 (U+2680D) as per the new UCV.
has been unified by "minor difference of strokes" with similar composition.
Given the information is correct, can consider IVS to 㐸 (U+3438). cf. Annex S.1.5.i
Possibly unifiable with 哚 (U+54DA).
Possibly unifiable with 𡆶 (U+211B6).
Is there explanation for the character why the inside should be exactly 旡 instead of 无?
Per precedent of WS2017-00744, this could be unified to 𠦬 (U+209AC).
Note that the Taiwanese Minnan Dictionary does list 呣 as a variant of 毋. https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/
Attributes
It seems the right side is the semantic. Perhaps related to 覓?
Evidence
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2288138/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2293439/
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/2296337/
𰆰 (6 occurrences) < 支
⿰豈𰆰 (3 occurrences) < 鼓
⿰山𰆰 (1 occurrence) < 岐
⿰止𰆰 = [ {{WS2017-01820}} ]
(5 occurrences) < 歧
⿰虫𰆰 = [ {{WS2017-03847}} ]
(1 occurrences) < 蚑
⿰扌𰆰 (this) (1 occurrence)
Except for 𰆰 itself, they only appear in 1 or 2 entries but as headwords, and 𰆰 usually occurs in description of characters using it. They are all variants of common characters so that their standard forms are overwhelmingly prevalent.
Actually, the majority of occurrences in our DB is already shown in the comments of [ {{WS2017-01820}} ]
, with remaining ones attached here.
Attached PDF file
𰏤 (3) vs 并 (100+)
⿰扌𰏤 = [ {{WS2017-01438}} ]
(6) vs 拼 (50)
⿰木𰏤 = [ {{WS2017-01724}} ]
(1) vs 栟 (4)
⿰氵𰏤 (1) vs 洴 (7)
⿰糸𰏤 = [ {{WS2017-03431}} ]
(4) vs 絣 (25)
⿱艹⿰氵𰏤 (1) vs 蓱 (5)
⿰石𰏤 = [ {{WS2017-02992}} ]
(2) vs 硑 (0)
⿰𦈢𰏤 (this) (1) vs 缾 (7)
⿺辶𰏤 = [ {{WS2017-04305}} ]
(4) vs 逬/迸 (44)
They are mostly minority compared to 幷 variants, but has significantly high proportion of headword usage. Moreover, outside those two forms, we could not find a character with 𢆙 component in the literature. With that, we can conclude that 𰏤 in fact represents the classical form 慧琳 preferred: equivalent of 𢆙, but not replacement of 幷. The view is also supported by occasional remarks by 慧琳 that suggests 𰏤 is the more correct glyph over 幷 (see below).
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QjAwNjA0LTAwNA
, but why it now has 尨?
Reference: 孫建偉《慧琳〈一切經音義〉所釋文字考辨六則》
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/he05/he05_02204/he05_02204_p0036.jpg
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko20/bunko20_00222/bunko20_00222_p0037.jpg
http://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100276827/viewer/27
http://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100232016/viewer/37
It also looks like 彳.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Editorial
Other
王氏，宫景隆妻，仁靜粹然，▲才智不名。雖鳳翹翟衣，…
But I am not sure where this shape comes from.
https://www.zdic.net/hant/%E6%A8%B9%E5%AB%A1
Data for Unihan